I'm not convinced that "if we win, we'll rig the voting system" is a vote winner.
But "if we win, we'll unrig the voting system" could well be attractive.
Time to put an end to FPTP, which is wrongly named. The present system should be called Leading Candidate Grabs Everything. It suits the Tory Party, of course.
"Leading Candidate Grabs Everything" is just a synonym for "Winner Wins".
Indeed it's funny how some people want to convince themselves the only reason they lose is because the system is rigged against them, rather than because they're unpopular.
The John Cleese attitude that the only reason people aren't voting Lib Dem is they think they wont win.
It's ironic that in the past decade there have been two major binary referendums first proposed by the Lib Dems, for which tactical voting couldn't be an issue, and they lost them both.
BIB: Encouraging tactical voting surely doesn't help with this.
I dont think the lib dems actually wanted an in out referendum though. Clegg just proposed it when he thought it would be popular but was no chance of happening. I suspect if cameron had turned around in the coalition years and went yeah good idea he would have been in reverse gear pretty pronto.
He (Cameron) did and he (Clegg) did too.
Clegg was horrified when Cameron adopted Clegg's policy.
As i said Clegg didn't really want one he just thought it would be popular to say and he thought there was no chance of it happening. A lib dem to the core.
It is no secret that I dont like labour but I would actually vote for a Corbyn led labour party to keep a lib dem out. At least Corbyn was semi honest about his views.
1.I think a Labour minority govt may select MMP as used in New Zealand similar to AMS used in Germany and selected by Labour for devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. I believe LD would accept MMP or AMS instead of their preferred choice of STV. I agree with Gardenwalker. Starmer may put MMP or AMS to a Referendum which I think could very well be successful.
2. The 2011 Refendum on AV was a con and therefore irrelevant as AV is NOT Proportional whereas STV and MMP and AMS are!
Interesting but assumes the public, who would surely need to be consulted, would vote for PR of some sort. They didn’t last time.
I think the reasons for that were many and varied. The majority government (Tories) were not actually in favour. The system offered was mediocre, with some of its downsides worse than FPTP. The campaign was nearly as bad as the Remain effort in talking down to the electorate.
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
If labour wins most seats and try and govern with SNP support that will likely mean SNP mp's voting on england only issues to get bills through. If that happens any party that is thought might govern with snp support will lose big in england. Just as a party would in scotland who relied on votes from people where the outcome did not affect their constituents.
I don't think labour will end up largest party. I do think they may be able to cobble together a majority if they include the snp. I think if they do it will end labour
Agreed. They would never be trusted in England again! Not sure they are trusted that much anyway!
The SNP’s literally insane new Defence policy - hey we’re now super pro nukes! And we love that NATO nuclear umbrella! We just don’t want any nukes in Scotland let England pay for them and look after them and still protect us in Scotland!! - is going to be a fucking hard sell for the Nats, but also, I suggest, for any British party that seeks to govern with their help
It’s an open wound and the Tories will rub shite in it to make it worse, like the Viet Cong
Do you think the Conservatives will run on a platform of handing over the nuclear deterrent to an independent Scotland and a nuclear-free England?
For the past couple of elections, I've advocated that Labour should have run against Tory defence cuts. Maybe they've missed that boat but if I were CCHQ I'd be wary of bringing it up, especially as most voters instinctively, if wrongly, lean Conservative on defence. Why risk it by getting into details?
1.I think a Labour minority govt may select MMP as used in New Zealand similar to AMS used in Germany and selected by Labour for devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. I believe LD would accept MMP or AMS instead of their preferred choice of STV. I agree with Gardenwalker. Starmer may put MMP or AMS to a Referendum which I think could very well be successful.
2. The 2011 Refendum on AV was a con and therefore irrelevant as AV is NOT Proportional whereas STV and MMP and AMS are!
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
I'm not convinced that "if we win, we'll rig the voting system" is a vote winner.
But surely if the voting system substantially favours 2 parties (well these days, predominantly the Conservatives) over the rest that is a rigged system!
And so as not to appear too partisan the 2005 result was more outrageous than most.
I'm not convinced that "if we win, we'll rig the voting system" is a vote winner.
But surely if the voting system substantially favours 2 parties (well these days, predominantly the Conservatives) over the rest that is a rigged system!
And so as not to appear too partisan the 2005 result was more outrageous than most.
The current voting system predates the current parties, thus can't fairly be said to be rigged by them.
I'm not convinced that "if we win, we'll rig the voting system" is a vote winner.
But surely if the voting system substantially favours 2 parties (well these days, predominantly the Conservatives) over the rest that is a rigged system!
And so as not to appear too partisan the 2005 result was more outrageous than most.
It doesn't. Whoever appeals to voters wins.
If you want to win, find a way to appeal to voters. The SNP did it in Scotland.
I am not totally anti pr. I would accept PR as a good thing under the following circumstances. We vote using pr. A coalition comes together thrashes out its manifesto....then people get to look at it and move their votes to other parties if they wish to. I suspect in 2010 for example with the con / ld coalition they would not have had a mandate once that happened.
Sorry you dont get to count my vote as a mandate for something I never voted for.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
In FPTP it is mathematically possible to win 100% of the seats with far fewer than 50% of the votes as long as you have plurality in each seat.
The Scotland position is of course special. The unionist vote is split 2+ ways, and the nats vote isn't. FPTP does not allow for this in its structure. Because this is a sub-national issue, and the Tories can still win with it in the UK, and Labour can still hope to form a coalition within this nonsense, it is not in the totality unionist interest to take the issue head on by doing unionist deals.
This of course in turn relies on the pretence that in their current forms there are real differences at the macro level between Lab, Tory and LD. This as we all know is false, but a necessary deception for the show to carry on.
If labour wins most seats and try and govern with SNP support that will likely mean SNP mp's voting on england only issues to get bills through. If that happens any party that is thought might govern with snp support will lose big in england. Just as a party would in scotland who relied on votes from people where the outcome did not affect their constituents.
I don't think labour will end up largest party. I do think they may be able to cobble together a majority if they include the snp. I think if they do it will end labour
Agreed. They would never be trusted in England again! Not sure they are trusted that much anyway!
The SNP’s literally insane new Defence policy - hey we’re now super pro nukes! And we love that NATO nuclear umbrella! We just don’t want any nukes in Scotland let England pay for them and look after them and still protect us in Scotland!! - is going to be a fucking hard sell for the Nats, but also, I suggest, for any British party that seeks to govern with their help
It’s an open wound and the Tories will rub shite in it to make it worse, like the Viet Cong
Do you think the Conservatives will run on a platform of handing over the nuclear deterrent to an independent Scotland and a nuclear-free England?
For the past couple of elections, I've advocated that Labour should have run against Tory defence cuts. Maybe they've missed that boat but if I were CCHQ I'd be wary of bringing it up, especially as most voters instinctively, if wrongly, lean Conservative on defence. Why risk it by getting into details?
Norway, Denmark and Iceland are NATO members who don't permit nuclear weapons on their territory so there is precedent for the proposed Scottish position. Iceland don't even have any military to speak of and they are in...
I am not totally anti pr. I would accept PR as a good thing under the following circumstances. We vote using pr. A coalition comes together thrashes out its manifesto....then people get to look at it and move their votes to other parties if they wish to. I suspect in 2010 for example with the con / ld coalition they would not have had a mandate once that happened.
Sorry you dont get to count my vote as a mandate for something I never voted for.
From the politicians point of view, the claim to count your vote as a mandate for something is just useful spin. The reality is that once elected, each party tries to push for their own policies and their ability to do that depends on the relative number of representatives elected for each party. That's the case in Westminster, Washinton, Canberra, Berlin and probably almost every democracy.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
We have no recall system for broken political promises. Regardless of the voting system the recourse the voters have is to cast their votes at the next election.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
Ah, the constituency link. I'm moving. Well, staying put in my house, but my constituency is moving. From the easy and coherent community of Wantage-and-Didcot-and-Wallingford-and-Shrivenham-and-Faringdon-and-a-bunch-of-villages-left-over-from-other-areas to the even easier one of Abingdon-and-North-Oxford-and-bits-of-West-Oxford-and-Kidlington-and-other-villages-sorry-got-to-fill-in-the-gaps.
How would we cope if there were, say, five MPs for Oxfordshire. That would be a silly and difficult "community."
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Hum, although it does seem to me likely that single party majorities of any stripe are unlikely under any system under genuine consideration which is not FPTP.
I take issue with AV being presented as self-evidently prime inter pares. STV seems the best and most obvious choice to me.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
We have no recall system for broken political promises. Regardless of the voting system the recourse the voters have is to cast their votes at the next election.
This is no different for PR or FPTP.
Plus I'd have more sympathy for that stance if most people waited until the manifestos before deciding on their vote. If we had the interval between elections with opinion polls going to "No opinion yet - haven't seen the manifestos." If canvassing didn't exist because people all answered "No, I don't support any party yet." If the leading parties could shift with mutable glory from election to election as people leapt towards whichever manifesto was closest to their own.
If the words, "That's a wasted vote," or "I wouldn't vote for them, they can't win here," or "A new party? What a waste of time!" and so forth elicited actual confusion rather than sage nods.
I've no doubt that some do exactly this. But they are so rare as to be exceptional.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I am not totally anti pr. I would accept PR as a good thing under the following circumstances. We vote using pr. A coalition comes together thrashes out its manifesto....then people get to look at it and move their votes to other parties if they wish to. I suspect in 2010 for example with the con / ld coalition they would not have had a mandate once that happened.
Sorry you dont get to count my vote as a mandate for something I never voted for.
From the politicians point of view, the claim to count your vote as a mandate for something is just useful spin. The reality is that once elected, each party tries to push for their own policies and their ability to do that depends on the relative number of representatives elected for each party. That's the case in Westminster, Washinton, Canberra, Berlin and probably almost every democracy.
There is a difference between pushing to get policies enacted where the hol can block and stitching together a manifesto after the votes are counted. PR and coalitions also encourage parties to put things in their manifesto's that they feel will get them votes and will be happy to ditch during coalition talks. Indeed I think Camerons manifesto commitment for an in out referendum was one of these and he fully expected to ditch it thinking it would be another con ld coalition and I am positively sure if it had been it would have been the first thing thrown out even though a good percentage of those who voted tory probably did it purely for that one policy.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Precisely, Sterlingisation is an option already followed by a few microstates but it is fundamentally no different to the Dollarization of the nations that use the USD.
Its worse than being dependent upon the UK for monetary policy as it means you get all of the monetary harms when actions are taken without consideration of your needs, but you don't get the benefits when actions are taken that could have potentially benefited you either.
When the Bank of England or the US Federal Reserve engages in Quantitative Easing they only finance the debt buy the assets of UK Government/Federal US Government bonds. They completely ignore micronations and others who are part of an -isation area.
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Hum, although it does seem to me likely that single party majorities of any stripe are unlikely under any system under genuine consideration which is not FPTP.
I take issue with AV being presented as self-evidently prime inter pares. STV seems the best and most obvious choice to me.
Yes.
I have a certain fondness for the AV system in which you can simply if you wish register a second preference, only to be taken into account if your first preference fails to make the grade. This allows at least the bare possibility of new entrants, and gives a chance to smaller parties since 100% of then voters can, if they wish, put in first place a newbie/apparent no hoper etc while being sure their vote won't be obliviated. It changes the culture, but is fairly simple. This is more important than whether o not it would change past results
If labour wins most seats and try and govern with SNP support that will likely mean SNP mp's voting on england only issues to get bills through. If that happens any party that is thought might govern with snp support will lose big in england. Just as a party would in scotland who relied on votes from people where the outcome did not affect their constituents.
I don't think labour will end up largest party. I do think they may be able to cobble together a majority if they include the snp. I think if they do it will end labour
Agreed. They would never be trusted in England again! Not sure they are trusted that much anyway!
The SNP’s literally insane new Defence policy - hey we’re now super pro nukes! And we love that NATO nuclear umbrella! We just don’t want any nukes in Scotland let England pay for them and look after them and still protect us in Scotland!! - is going to be a fucking hard sell for the Nats, but also, I suggest, for any British party that seeks to govern with their help
It’s an open wound and the Tories will rub shite in it to make it worse, like the Viet Cong
Do you think the Conservatives will run on a platform of handing over the nuclear deterrent to an independent Scotland and a nuclear-free England?
For the past couple of elections, I've advocated that Labour should have run against Tory defence cuts. Maybe they've missed that boat but if I were CCHQ I'd be wary of bringing it up, especially as most voters instinctively, if wrongly, lean Conservative on defence. Why risk it by getting into details?
Norway, Denmark and Iceland are NATO members who don't permit nuclear weapons on their territory so there is precedent for the proposed Scottish position. Iceland don't even have any military to speak of and they are in...
England will veto anyway so it's academic.
1. Those are legacy positions, already controversial and probably unsustainable (and also probably ignored anyway: the US operates nuclear stuff in and around Greenland)
2. IndyScotland’s position is even crazier, it wants to rely on NATO nuclear defence while weakening that same defence by ejecting NATO nuclear weapons and making them harder to operate
If iScotland tries to join NATO on this basis it will get vetoed by rUK as you say, and probably the USA as well
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Indeed. I suspect we would have spent most of the last decade being ruled by a coalition of Conservative and UKIP, with Farage at the heart of government.
Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.
Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
If labour wins most seats and try and govern with SNP support that will likely mean SNP mp's voting on england only issues to get bills through. If that happens any party that is thought might govern with snp support will lose big in england. Just as a party would in scotland who relied on votes from people where the outcome did not affect their constituents.
I don't think labour will end up largest party. I do think they may be able to cobble together a majority if they include the snp. I think if they do it will end labour
Nonsense.
The SNP policy is n ot to do so. Labour would be insane to go that way.
Mr. Sandpit, would that be without a lender of last resort?
Can't imagine that'd be fantastically good for Scotland's massive financial sector.
Indeed, there would be no lender of last resort for a Sterlingised independent Scotland. Their entire financial sector would overnight become domiciled in England.
On topic, I suppose it is just the Times' Londoncentrism, but I'm more surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't, that PBers are seemingly missing the point that there is a much, much larger party than the LDs which has also for mny years been in favour of voting reform at Westminster.
There are only 13 LD MPs - though, of course, quite a few more in the event that a hung Pmt comes into being.
City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
We have no recall system for broken political promises. Regardless of the voting system the recourse the voters have is to cast their votes at the next election.
This is no different for PR or FPTP.
Apart from under PR parties enact a lot less of their manifestos they get elected on. The guardian published an article on it though can't find it right now but it showed under pr parties ditched more of their manifesto promises which they garnered votes on that under other systems. Will see if I can find it later but have linked it before here
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Indeed. I suspect we would have spent most of the last decade being ruled by a coalition of Conservative and UKIP, with Farage at the heart of government.
Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.
Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
Yes. Boris v Jezza was the exception rather than the rule, while TM v Jezza was (let's hope) utterly unique. Wouldn't it be great to have a bore fest of Hunt v SKS fighting for the sensible centrist voter on core competence issues of who can least imperfectly run this extraordinary country of anti- extremists.
First past the post allows for one party to win 95% of the seats by getting 50% of the votes. Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
PR allows parties to decide what you actually voted for after you voted not before which is even worse.
We have no recall system for broken political promises. Regardless of the voting system the recourse the voters have is to cast their votes at the next election.
This is no different for PR or FPTP.
Apart from under PR parties enact a lot less of their manifestos they get elected on. The guardian published an article on it though can't find it right now but it showed under pr parties ditched more of their manifesto promises which they garnered votes on that under other systems. Will see if I can find it later but have linked it before here
Indeed, politics is about finding compromises on conflicting priorities.
In Hung Parliaments that compromise is found after people have already voted.
In big tents that compromise is found before people have voted and people can choose between various sets of compromises.
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Indeed. I suspect we would have spent most of the last decade being ruled by a coalition of Conservative and UKIP, with Farage at the heart of government.
Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.
Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
Yes, under any sort of PR system, the 2015 election would have delivered a Con/UKIP coalition.
Like many others, I would rather see policy debates happen before the election, than after.
Urgh,, contemplating buying a password manager software for some time, and this has put the cherry on the German biscuit. Will have to go and look up what Which recommend ...
PasswordSafe is excellent.
If you just want a long password, Diceware is also useful
At a previous job, the IT department challenged us to come up with the most unguessable, yet personal memorable password (not a bad competition, as it made us all think). I offered them "Trotsky1847". "A Russian revolutionary personally acquainted with my grandfather with the year of his 19th century birth."
I won, the prize being a chocolate Easter egg. Not sure Trotsky would have approved.
A cursory knowledge of Welsh is very helpful in constructing passwords.
I use Madagascan placenames
Is anyone going to guess "Tsiroanomandidy39"??
Yes. Both examples on this thread would be found by a password-cracking program that works by combining names from dictionaries with numbers. You might do slightly better putting the number at the start.
OK, my go-to ultimate password is a tiny tiny village in the south of Madagascar, which is barely on Google maps, the name of which is very long and unpronounceable (I only remember it because I've been there) and is combined with three numbers
A computer would have to go through a practically infinite number of variations of letters and numbers before cracking it
Yes. Unless, as actually happens, they use dictionaries of names and place names (and ordinary words, of course).
I find this genuinely intriguing
So they have a list of ALL the placenames in the world, right down to tiny hamlets (like this). That must be many millions of places. Hundreds of millions?
So they can run through all of those - plus every single other word or name - and then combine each with three numbers, and get each of these digits in the right order?
Does that not take years? And a ridiculous, unaffordable amount of computing power? It seems near-impossible to me
But I am happy to be schooled! My work is done for the day and I am heading down to the waterside for a vino
This is a reasonable breakdown of the speed it takes to hack a random password - remember known words will be caught quickly by a separate dictionary check.
Urgh,, contemplating buying a password manager software for some time, and this has put the cherry on the German biscuit. Will have to go and look up what Which recommend ...
We use 1password at work - it's pretty decent. UI can leave a little bit to be desired. Bitwarden is nice (we almost went with that instead of 1password, but other units at work were using 1password so we got a price discount). I use keepass locally for some stuff - mostly for historic reasons.
FPT but many thanks - much appreciated, it is a worry for me, so this is good to have.
Scoptsman? Long a rabidly unionist paper. I'd wait to see what others say, not least the SNP.
If she's for keeping the pound, and fast coming round to keeping the nukes, I do wonder what's next. Perhaps keeping the 45 MP's and just having an independence day celebration with fireworks and a piss up every year.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
PR might well lose in a Referendum because the public like to come over all coy and fluffy about this and pretend it's too complicated for them to understand. So if Lab and LD truly want to change the Westminster voting system, having won enough seats at GE24 to remove the Tories, they should probably just legislate.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
Come now, exaggerating. It's the Tories that are the right wingers, and there are still plenty fo trains running, though not nearly enough.
Scoptsman? Long a rabidly unionist paper. I'd wait to see what others say, not least the SNP.
If she's for keeping the pound, and fast coming round to keeping the nukes, I do wonder what's next. Perhaps keeping the 45 MP's and just having an independence day celebration with fireworks and a piss up every year.
Who needs to bother with a referendum you might lose when you can live rent-free in Bute House, flying the Saltire and the European Union Council of Europe flag and pretend that you are leading an independent European country already.
All this talk of armageddon for the Tories if we get electoral reform is of course complete rubbish.
After all the last party the Liberal Democrats formed a national government with were the Conservatives not Labour. In 2015 we would likely have got an even more rightwing government of Tories and UKIP had we had STV PR.
There is also no guarantee Labour would be able to get it through either whether with a majority or just short, as undoubtedly some Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would lose them under STV PR just as some Tory MPs who won them under FPTP would lose them.
The biggest losers from PR and electoral reform would in fact be the SNP, so it might even be a boost to the Union too.
The main winners the LDs, followed by the Greens and RefUK, none of whom the 3 main parties in the Commons will have great incentive to help at their expense
Scoptsman? Long a rabidly unionist paper. I'd wait to see what others say, not least the SNP.
If she's for keeping the pound, and fast coming round to keeping the nukes, I do wonder what's next. Perhaps keeping the 45 MP's and just having an independence day celebration with fireworks and a piss up every year.
Who needs to bother with a referendum you might lose when you can live rent-free in Bute House, flying the Saltire and the European Union Council of Europe flag and pretend that you are leading an independent European country already.
Remember NI. I think events there will be very interesting, and that PBers are completely missing the implications.
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.
I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
Come now, exaggerating. It's the Tories that are the right wingers, and there are still plenty fo trains running, though not nearly enough.
They are nationalist and socialist and that's good enough for the joke, such as it was. I think following Man Utd these days making me a tad morose.
The economic damage for Scotland really is no laughing matter though. We have already lost a lot of our financial services tax base and we would lose a whole heap more if they require the BoE to be lender of last resort. We have lost a couple of hundred million on the ferries and now our tourist industry is going to be smacked around with a distinctly sub par train service for the foreseeable.
We absolutely desperately need a government that is focused on the day job of running the country but that seems to be in the too difficult tray so lets debate independence once again instead. Its economic vandalism and, ironically, makes Scotland ever less viable as an independent state.
"The Electoral Reform Society calculates that STV would have meant the Tories winning a majority only twice in the postwar era."
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
Indeed. I suspect we would have spent most of the last decade being ruled by a coalition of Conservative and UKIP, with Farage at the heart of government.
Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.
Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
Though the Tories could always have peeled off orange bookers/liberals from the SDP on the promise of shutting out the Faragistes. In reverse for Labour and the Corbynistas.
One thing that I may have missed downstream is that voting reform has to go hand in hand with party funding reform. It has to be viable to be a smaller, independent party , that forms part of an explicit coalition.
PR might well lose in a Referendum because the public like to come over all coy and fluffy about this and pretend it's too complicated for them to understand. So if Lab and LD truly want to change the Westminster voting system, having won enough seats at GE24 to remove the Tories, they should probably just legislate.
Absolutely unacceptable. And I don’t even like referendums. I never want another one, they are poisonous and divisive as we have first discovered in Scotland and now in Brexit Britain. The anti-referendum people were right, they are alien to the UK and we don’t do them right (unlike Switzerland and arguably Ireland)
However altering the entire political system so fundamentally cannot be done with a simple parliamentary majority, especially as we have already established the principle that this huge change requires an explicit public vote, with the 1st PR referendum
I could easily be persuaded to vote for the right PR system, as it happens. FPTP is ass
PR might well lose in a Referendum because the public like to come over all coy and fluffy about this and pretend it's too complicated for them to understand. So if Lab and LD truly want to change the Westminster voting system, having won enough seats at GE24 to remove the Tories, they should probably just legislate.
This would be constitutional vandalism.
No, any Lab (or Lab/Lib) government needs to steer away from the cavalier approach adopted by the Tories.
Here is how it must work:
1. The Electoral Commission defines 4 PR type options
2. The country votes on a preferred option.
3. The country subsequently votes whether to move to this new option.
I can see such votes happening in the next term, with a first PR election happening in 2032.
Scoptsman? Long a rabidly unionist paper. I'd wait to see what others say, not least the SNP.
If she's for keeping the pound, and fast coming round to keeping the nukes, I do wonder what's next. Perhaps keeping the 45 MP's and just having an independence day celebration with fireworks and a piss up every year.
Who needs to bother with a referendum you might lose when you can live rent-free in Bute House, flying the Saltire and the European Union Council of Europe flag and pretend that you are leading an independent European country already.
Incidentally what's all this about Bute House? It has been the residence of the Secretary of State for Scotland since the 1960s, so it's not even specific to the First Ministers.
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.
I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
Come now, exaggerating. It's the Tories that are the right wingers, and there are still plenty fo trains running, though not nearly enough.
They are nationalist and socialist and that's good enough for the joke, such as it was. I think following Man Utd these days making me a tad morose.
The economic damage for Scotland really is no laughing matter though. We have already lost a lot of our financial services tax base and we would lose a whole heap more if they require the BoE to be lender of last resort. We have lost a couple of hundred million on the ferries and now our tourist industry is going to be smacked around with a distinctly sub par train service for the foreseeable.
We absolutely desperately need a government that is focused on the day job of running the country but that seems to be in the too difficult tray so lets debate independence once again instead. Its economic vandalism and, ironically, makes Scotland ever less viable as an independent state.
When the train strikes here, there and everywhere coalesce, are you going to blame Mr Johnson personally for the English and LNER strikes? He does have rather more direct responsibility for the underlying roots, given the wider macroeconomic policy and tax and NI.
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
Scoptsman? Long a rabidly unionist paper. I'd wait to see what others say, not least the SNP.
If she's for keeping the pound, and fast coming round to keeping the nukes, I do wonder what's next. Perhaps keeping the 45 MP's and just having an independence day celebration with fireworks and a piss up every year.
Surgeon should just pass a law changing the name of Scotland to the Totally Independent Republic of Scotland, Nothing to do With Britain, while keeping the £, the monarchy, the nukes, the rule from London, the Bank of England, Westminster, everything. That means minimal fuss and Scotland becomes “independent” the same way the GDR was “democratic”
City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.
I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation
The team playing today is simply inexplicable
The thing that is truly shocking is the attitude of the players. United, like Liverpool of the 00's are still a top club even if not Champions, that might still win cup silverware some seasons, but the attitude is completely different.
Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.
United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.
What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
You can make exactly the same argument about the LDs or indeed any other third//fourth party. I'm sure the LDs will seek to reverse Brexit and have another referendum, for instance, and as for Ref .... So that argument is moot - it's part and parcel of such a voting system.
Ah, the constituency link. I'm moving. Well, staying put in my house, but my constituency is moving. From the easy and coherent community of Wantage-and-Didcot-and-Wallingford-and-Shrivenham-and-Faringdon-and-a-bunch-of-villages-left-over-from-other-areas to the even easier one of Abingdon-and-North-Oxford-and-bits-of-West-Oxford-and-Kidlington-and-other-villages-sorry-got-to-fill-in-the-gaps.
How would we cope if there were, say, five MPs for Oxfordshire. That would be a silly and difficult "community."
City must be getting distinctly twitchy now. Liverpool can dream. United just want this season to be over, quite simply the worst effort in my adult lifetime, and I include the season they got relegated.
I have supported United since 1953 and I have never witnessed anything like this seasons collapse and they are fortunate they are not battling relegation
The team playing today is simply inexplicable
It feels like the last couple of months they've been trying to miss European qualification completely to benefit from getting midweeks off.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
Come now, exaggerating. It's the Tories that are the right wingers, and there are still plenty fo trains running, though not nearly enough.
They are nationalist and socialist and that's good enough for the joke, such as it was. I think following Man Utd these days making me a tad morose.
The economic damage for Scotland really is no laughing matter though. We have already lost a lot of our financial services tax base and we would lose a whole heap more if they require the BoE to be lender of last resort. We have lost a couple of hundred million on the ferries and now our tourist industry is going to be smacked around with a distinctly sub par train service for the foreseeable.
We absolutely desperately need a government that is focused on the day job of running the country but that seems to be in the too difficult tray so lets debate independence once again instead. Its economic vandalism and, ironically, makes Scotland ever less viable as an independent state.
When the train strikes here, there and everywhere coalesce, are you going to blame Mr Johnson personally for the English and LNER strikes? He does have rather more direct responsibility for the underlying roots, given the wider macroeconomic policy and tax and NI.
Who knows, it depends on whose fault it is but in England the services are still, by and large, private and it is their problem if they go bust. Nicola chose to bring Scotrail into public ownership because she thought it would be popular but it will prove a huge mistake, not only for her and her party but much more importantly, for the country.
When they say “Keep Pound”, they mean Sterlingisation, totally dependent on the UK for monetary policy.
Maybe she learned on her job hunt in the US that one of the reasons why DFI has fallen off a cliff for Scotland is the uncertainty of independence and the currency that would then operate. But Scotland has more influence on its monetary policy now than it would have under such a system. It would be a step back.
I wonder if the noises about NATO membership from the youth wing of the SNP were also a result of what Sturgeon was told in the US.
The whole thing becomes ever more irrational. Christ, only Scotland could have a National Socialist party in charge that can't even get the trains to run at all, let alone on time.
Come now, exaggerating. It's the Tories that are the right wingers, and there are still plenty fo trains running, though not nearly enough.
They are nationalist and socialist and that's good enough for the joke, such as it was. I think following Man Utd these days making me a tad morose.
The economic damage for Scotland really is no laughing matter though. We have already lost a lot of our financial services tax base and we would lose a whole heap more if they require the BoE to be lender of last resort. We have lost a couple of hundred million on the ferries and now our tourist industry is going to be smacked around with a distinctly sub par train service for the foreseeable.
We absolutely desperately need a government that is focused on the day job of running the country but that seems to be in the too difficult tray so lets debate independence once again instead. Its economic vandalism and, ironically, makes Scotland ever less viable as an independent state.
When the train strikes here, there and everywhere coalesce, are you going to blame Mr Johnson personally for the English and LNER strikes? He does have rather more direct responsibility for the underlying roots, given the wider macroeconomic policy and tax and NI.
Who knows, it depends on whose fault it is but in England the services are still, by and large, private and it is their problem if they go bust. Nicola chose to bring Scotrail into public ownership because she thought it would be popular but it will prove a huge mistake, not only for her and her party but much more importantly, for the country.
LNER is in pubglic ownership. Dotto Northern, Southeastern and TfWales IIRC. And the infrastructure, Network Rail is (soon to be GBR).
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
You can make exactly the same argument about the LDs or indeed any other third//fourth party. I'm sure the LDs will seek to reverse Brexit and have another referendum, for instance, and as for Ref .... So that argument is moot - it's part and parcel of such a voting system.
The difference is, third parties in most polities don’t seek to dissolve the actual state.
It would be daft for Westminster to put itself in a position which strengthened those who literally wish its end.
From afar, Sturgeon looks bloody pathetic with these new positions.
Is her hedging and flip-flopping and mucking about at all noticed inside Scotland?
i reckon @williamglenn is on to something, and she got a cold hard dose of reality in the USA, both on the economics and on the military implications of Scottish indy. If she wants to pursue it, she needs to give her supporters the same painful exposure to the necessities of realpolitik and compromise, and see whether they are willing to make these sacrifices. Keep the £, keep the nukes, etc
Fucking about with nukes, neutrality and NATO right now is not going to be at all popular, as we see with the Finns giving Ireland a very hard stare
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
You can make exactly the same argument about the LDs or indeed any other third//fourth party. I'm sure the LDs will seek to reverse Brexit and have another referendum, for instance, and as for Ref .... So that argument is moot - it's part and parcel of such a voting system.
The difference is, third parties in most polities don’t seek to dissolve the actual state.
It would be daft for Westminster to put itself in a position which strengthened those who literally wish its end.
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.
I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
From afar, Sturgeon looks bloody pathetic with these new positions.
Is her hedging and flip-flopping and mucking about at all noticed inside Scotland?
I do wonder what the next step is. We often say of a Tory party out of ideas and energy on here - where does that leave the SNP? Though not achieving their ultimate aim they do seem to repeating some of the old arguments
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
Agree with the first four paragraphs. On the last paragraph of course even in 2015 under PR the SNP would not have got near power.
In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
All this talk of armageddon for the Tories if we get electoral reform is of course complete rubbish.
After all the last party the Liberal Democrats formed a national government with were the Conservatives not Labour. In 2015 we would likely have got an even more rightwing government of Tories and UKIP had we had STV PR.
There is also no guarantee Labour would be able to get it through either whether with a majority or just short, as undoubtedly some Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would lose them under STV PR just as some Tory MPs who won them under FPTP would lose them.
The biggest losers from PR and electoral reform would in fact be the SNP, so it might even be a boost to the Union too.
The main winners the LDs, followed by the Greens and RefUK, none of whom the 3 main parties in the Commons will have great incentive to help at their expense
I think around a third of LD voters would prefer the Tories over Labour most of the time. It might be different in a year like 1997 when the Tories were especially unpopular.
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.
I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
You mean, we might not have the calm and peace we've had for the last fifteen years and some crazy loon with no principles, no sense, no brain cells and far too much fondness for booze might be a party leader?
By the way, if NZ is any guide, any move to PR will lead to various breakaway attempts by assorted gadflies and nutters, and a certain period of instability.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
You can make exactly the same argument about the LDs or indeed any other third//fourth party. I'm sure the LDs will seek to reverse Brexit and have another referendum, for instance, and as for Ref .... So that argument is moot - it's part and parcel of such a voting system.
The difference is, third parties in most polities don’t seek to dissolve the actual state.
It would be daft for Westminster to put itself in a position which strengthened those who literally wish its end.
You're confusing anarchists and autonomists.
No, I’m not.
I simply note that the SNP’s chief policy is to break up the UK.
The Welsh and Scottish systems sacrifice proper proportionality for various other priorities.
In particular, the new Welsh system is designed to lock out any government apart from Lab/PC in perpetuity.
It may be designed to do that, but only a fool would think that will actually happen. Voters tend to find a way to get what they want eventually.
Take a look at the details, notably the effective 15% threshold.
You are, as usual, just bloviating.
No I'm not. Voters are sentient people who make their own choices and aren't static automatons who keep voting the same way regardless of voting system or how politicians act.
If the public decides they want the Opposition, they will find a way to vote for them, in any democratic system. Voting systems designed to aid one side today often end up aiding a completely different side in the future when the public have changed their minds.
Any party that takes the public for granted and think they can do as they please as the voting system will see them right, can get their comeuppance.
The labour party can bugger off. Voting systems do not belong to politicians and they should get no say in what we select as a people. You want to change the voting system you ask the people. Politicians are servants not masters and shouldn't be able to impose their terms of employment on us
That's how I feel about changing the rules for how you can vote (by requiring ID). Do you agree?
The photo ID requirements are ridiculous. I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that personation is such a massive issue nationally that it outweighs the consequences of people not being able to vote who should be able.
I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
My preferred system is polling card to be shown and if not, and only then, photo ID of some sort.
Why not print the photo on the polling card?
That would require every voter to have a government held photo, i.e. a totally new system to fix something is only marginally broken. I do find it odd how many other countries require ID to vote, yet if we try it in the U.K. it’s voter suppression.
Comments
It is no secret that I dont like labour but I would actually vote for a Corbyn led labour party to keep a lib dem out. At least Corbyn was semi honest about his views.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/05/spain-post-race-analysis-2022.html
And some bad news. Monaco's next.
2. The 2011 Refendum on AV was a con and therefore irrelevant as AV is NOT Proportional whereas STV and MMP and AMS are!
I voted No to change that time. I'd vote for STV.
The above quote from the article - very interesting, thank you - typifies an error. It smuggles in an assumption that under a different voting system other things would be equal.
This is wrong. Political parties are evolved creatures within particular habitats. Under FPTP we have evolved into two parties of possible government, without significant differences at the macro level, both centrist and neither with a reputation for running a country with foresight and competence, since neither faces serious competition from a competent rival, nor can one emerge.
Under any other voting system a different political ecology will unavoidably emerge. We do not know what elections would have been like, or will be like, under different rules. The ERS calculation is not wrong. It is without meaning.
I submit that this image is wistful, moving, poetic and - quite simply - beautiful. If it was made by a human we’d all say Wow
They are here. The thinking, creating machines are HERE
For the past couple of elections, I've advocated that Labour should have run against Tory defence cuts. Maybe they've missed that boat but if I were CCHQ I'd be wary of bringing it up, especially as most voters instinctively, if wrongly, lean Conservative on defence. Why risk it by getting into details?
Tha's not just some theoretical possibility, it is what happend in the 59 Scotland seats in GE2015.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound-for-stability-as-nicola-sturgeon-to-begin-publishing-new-white-paper-3704169
And so as not to appear too partisan the 2005 result was more outrageous than most.
If you want to win, find a way to appeal to voters. The SNP did it in Scotland.
Sorry you dont get to count my vote as a mandate for something I never voted for.
The Scotland position is of course special. The unionist vote is split 2+ ways, and the nats vote isn't. FPTP does not allow for this in its structure. Because this is a sub-national issue, and the Tories can still win with it in the UK, and Labour can still hope to form a coalition within this nonsense, it is not in the totality unionist interest to take the issue head on by doing unionist deals.
This of course in turn relies on the pretence that in their current forms there are real differences at the macro level between Lab, Tory and LD. This as we all know is false, but a necessary deception for the show to carry on.
England will veto anyway so it's academic.
This is no different for PR or FPTP.
I'm moving. Well, staying put in my house, but my constituency is moving.
From the easy and coherent community of Wantage-and-Didcot-and-Wallingford-and-Shrivenham-and-Faringdon-and-a-bunch-of-villages-left-over-from-other-areas to the even easier one of Abingdon-and-North-Oxford-and-bits-of-West-Oxford-and-Kidlington-and-other-villages-sorry-got-to-fill-in-the-gaps.
How would we cope if there were, say, five MPs for Oxfordshire. That would be a silly and difficult "community."
I take issue with AV being presented as self-evidently prime inter pares. STV seems the best and most obvious choice to me.
If we had the interval between elections with opinion polls going to "No opinion yet - haven't seen the manifestos." If canvassing didn't exist because people all answered "No, I don't support any party yet." If the leading parties could shift with mutable glory from election to election as people leapt towards whichever manifesto was closest to their own.
If the words, "That's a wasted vote," or "I wouldn't vote for them, they can't win here," or "A new party? What a waste of time!" and so forth elicited actual confusion rather than sage nods.
I've no doubt that some do exactly this. But they are so rare as to be exceptional.
Its worse than being dependent upon the UK for monetary policy as it means you get all of the monetary harms when actions are taken without consideration of your needs, but you don't get the benefits when actions are taken that could have potentially benefited you either.
When the Bank of England or the US Federal Reserve engages in Quantitative Easing they only finance the debt buy the assets of UK Government/Federal US Government bonds. They completely ignore micronations and others who are part of an -isation area.
I have a certain fondness for the AV system in which you can simply if you wish register a second preference, only to be taken into account if your first preference fails to make the grade. This allows at least the bare possibility of new entrants, and gives a chance to smaller parties since 100% of then voters can, if they wish, put in first place a newbie/apparent no hoper etc while being sure their vote won't be obliviated. It changes the culture, but is fairly simple. This is more important than whether o not it would change past results
2. IndyScotland’s position is even crazier, it wants to rely on NATO nuclear defence while weakening that same defence by ejecting NATO nuclear weapons and making them harder to operate
If iScotland tries to join NATO on this basis it will get vetoed by rUK as you say, and probably the USA as well
Sturgeon will be forced to change course
Progressives need to be careful what they wish for. The idea of a 1000 year progressive reich is for the birds, I'm afraid.
Moderates on both left and right will need to govern with more extreme parties on their flank to stand a chance of governing at all. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
The SNP policy is n ot to do so. Labour would be insane to go that way.
Can't imagine that'd be fantastically good for Scotland's massive financial sector.
Could it happen?
Their entire financial sector would overnight become domiciled in England.
There are only 13 LD MPs - though, of course, quite a few more in the event that a hung Pmt comes into being.
There are 45 SNP MPs.
In Hung Parliaments that compromise is found after people have already voted.
In big tents that compromise is found before people have voted and people can choose between various sets of compromises.
Like many others, I would rather see policy debates happen before the election, than after.
After all the last party the Liberal Democrats formed a national government with were the Conservatives not Labour. In 2015 we would likely have got an even more rightwing government of Tories and UKIP had we had STV PR.
There is also no guarantee Labour would be able to get it through either whether with a majority or just short, as undoubtedly some Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would lose them under STV PR just as some Tory MPs who won them under FPTP would lose them.
The biggest losers from PR and electoral reform would in fact be the SNP, so it might even be a boost to the Union too.
The main winners the LDs, followed by the Greens and RefUK, none of whom the 3 main parties in the Commons will have great incentive to help at their expense
The team playing today is simply inexplicable
The economic damage for Scotland really is no laughing matter though. We have already lost a lot of our financial services tax base and we would lose a whole heap more if they require the BoE to be lender of last resort. We have lost a couple of hundred million on the ferries and now our tourist industry is going to be smacked around with a distinctly sub par train service for the foreseeable.
We absolutely desperately need a government that is focused on the day job of running the country but that seems to be in the too difficult tray so lets debate independence once again instead. Its economic vandalism and, ironically, makes Scotland ever less viable as an independent state.
One thing that I may have missed downstream is that voting reform has to go hand in hand with party funding reform. It has to be viable to be a smaller, independent party , that forms part of an explicit coalition.
However altering the entire political system so fundamentally cannot be done with a simple parliamentary majority, especially as we have already established the principle that this huge change requires an explicit public vote, with the 1st PR referendum
I could easily be persuaded to vote for the right PR system, as it happens. FPTP is ass
No, any Lab (or Lab/Lib) government needs to steer away from the cavalier approach adopted by the Tories.
Here is how it must work:
1. The Electoral Commission defines 4 PR type options
2. The country votes on a preferred option.
3. The country subsequently votes whether to move to this new option.
I can see such votes happening in the next term, with a first PR election happening in 2032.
I don't care if it advantages one party or disadvantages a different one. It is wrong.
Over time though we could expect there to be five main parties represented (and assorted nationalists), to wit: Con, Lab, LD, Green and Reform.
Lab would alternate between Lab/Green and Lab/LD coalitions.
Con would alternate between Con/Ref and Con/LD coalitions.
One confounding factor is the SNP and their ability to hold Westminster to random for repeated Indy refs. This needs to be sorted one way or another before PR can really be “safe”.
Even during the decades when Liverpool struggled in the League and United were on top, you could see that Liverpool players were still proud to pull on the shirt and who they were representing. That attitude seems to have vanished in the United players this season. They don't seem to be willing to push themselves, or even proud to be representing United.
United had players like Giggs, Scholes and Keane etc who would never say die when on top, but Liverpool had their own never say die players like Gerrard and Carragher who may never have won the League but could inspire the rest of the club and knew what it meant to be pulling on that red shirt.
What's gone wrong in United that they lack that attitude and leadership?
Is her hedging and flip-flopping and mucking about at all noticed inside Scotland?
3 MSs for each Westminster Constituency?
And they haven't even managed that.
In particular, the new Welsh system is designed to lock out any government apart from Lab/PC in perpetuity.
It would be daft for Westminster to put itself in a position which strengthened those who literally wish its end.
Fucking about with nukes, neutrality and NATO right now is not going to be at all popular, as we see with the Finns giving Ireland a very hard stare
In fact at every general election this century the balance of power with PR would have been held by the LDs, with UKIP having the balance of power in 2015 as the only exception. Indeed in 2015 the SNP would have only got half the seats in Scotland with PR rather than the more than 90% of seats in Scotland they got with FPTP
You are, as usual, just bloviating.
Well, we can't have that, can we?
I simply note that the SNP’s chief policy is to break up the UK.
If you are “the UK”, you’d want to avoid that.
If the public decides they want the Opposition, they will find a way to vote for them, in any democratic system. Voting systems designed to aid one side today often end up aiding a completely different side in the future when the public have changed their minds.
Any party that takes the public for granted and think they can do as they please as the voting system will see them right, can get their comeuppance.