Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland the electoral system would appear less bia
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland the electoral system would appear less biased to Labour
One aspect of Scottish independence is that the removal of MPs from North of the border would make the electoral system appear less biased to Labour and against the other parties.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
PR isnt in the interests of the Tory party. Fptp gives them the possibility of overall majorities with less than 40% of the popular vote, PR doesnt.
I suppose we should describe those who would vote otherwise as the Selfish Party?
It's not a great state of affairs but such is life.
On oh so many levels.
*retires under hail of blows from Scottish wife...*
In 2015 we're going to see that blue enclave pushed firmly back into the south east from where it made a wheezy, doomed attempt at escaping in 2010.
With the Con and Lab at an equal level of support, and a collapse in LD support allowing the Conservatives to pick up seats from them, the number of seats for Con and Lab would be about equal without Scotland.
I saw a really interesting documentary last night - David Starkey on the last Stuart kings. In 1705 Scotland was nearly destitute. Their failed overseas colony attempts (Darien in Belize) had ruined their finances and England had become seriously frustrated with them and passed the Aliens Act - effectively closing England to Scottish trade. Meanwhile England was swimming in dosh, in no small measure due to the trade with its colonies.
The Act of Union killed the trade restrictions with England and, importantly, with empire - and deliberate attempts were made to ensure Scotland's success as a key part of the newly created Great Britain. Scotland finally flourished and had a great 18th century. Cities like Glasgow grew at astonishing speed.
So...back to today....can we learn anything about the prospects of an independent Scotland?
Well, firstly it is NOT going to be in Scotland's interest to antagonise England. We'll not impose a new Aliens Act but, as much the most importsant trade partner the Scots would have, they'd be very ill advised to wind the English up.
Secondly, as the chart shows, England or rUK will be a less lefty country. That implies a more successful economy down south than would otherwise be the case - which would be good for both Scotland and rUK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html
As Mrs Thatcher did for Tories in Scotland, Cameron would have done in Wales.
Not so keen on it when they're in power funnily enough
Two thoughts before I brave the oncoming tempest;
1) Didn't Scotland help prop up Tory majorities in the 1950s ?
2) I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.
The assumption that England would return Conservative majorities ad infinitum is just that - I suspect that were Scotland to leave the UK, the impact on all English parties would be considerable.
A landscape of perpetual coalitions - with any number of parties able to crash a difficult policy - would, I suggest, be something the Labour Party would not wish to slide into any more than the Tories. Only Scottish independence is likely to change this in respect of governing rUK.
Would coalitions have put in place the NHS? Or privatisation? More importantly for UKIP going forward, what chance of a coalition ever offering a referendum on the EU, still less actually withdrawing? Hard to know, but it is so much easer for lobby groups to ensure that nothing much changes with coalition government.
If the Tories are unpopular, what does that make Labour? Mildly disliked? Not as unpopular as the Tories? It's hardly a ringing endorsement.
If both main parties could just get it into their, stupid, tribal heads just how much we really don't like them, they might decide to do something different.
That was still the difference between Labour having a majority and not having one. Considering that the Labour government ultimately fell by one vote on a motion of No Confidence, those eleven MPs probably significantly affected the timing of the following election, which considering the events of the late 1970s probably affected a great deal in the following decades.
Furthermore, it wasn't just that election where Scottish MPs made a very real difference:
1964: Gave Labour their majority
1966: No difference
1970: No difference
Feb 1974: Made Labour rather than the Tories the largest party
Oct 1974: Gave Labour their majority
1979: No difference
1983: No difference
1987: No difference
1992: Ensured the Tory majority was not workable through the parliament
1997: No difference
2001: No difference
2005: May have made the difference between a workable Labour majority and one that was far more vulnerable
2010: As discussed, made the difference between a hung parliament and a Con majority.
So roughly equal over the last half century between those where the outcome was materially affected and those that weren't.
If it gives you comfort to look for something other than FPTP to blame for the way the seats stack up then by all means keep doing so.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/row-over-misleading-ukip-by-election-6697604#.UvszuNqyeEk.twitter
On Today a few days ago, Nick Robinson made the comment in reference to Tories in Scotland "but of course there aren't very many of them up there".
Clearly that's true in terms of seats, but from a vote share perspective they are as significant (in this poll) as the SNP or the Lib Dems.
Some pretty lazy journalism...
Equal size of what? Number of registered voters, or total population? Conventional wisdom is that one favours Conservatives and the other Labour, although that may be wrong.
It should not be about what works best for Labour or Tory, but what works best for the country. We all abhor tribal politics on here - when it suits us - but FPTP guarantees that this is the kind of politics we get. Sensible discussions and decision-making on long-term issues that cannot be sorted out within the space of four or five years - energy, education, health, care for an ageing population - is next to impossible because our system does not encourage consensus or agreement.
Con: 16.7%, 1 MP
LD: 18.9%, 11 MPs
SNP: 19.9%, 6 MPs
Similar levels of support, very different outcomes.
Of course, the Lib Dems have seen their support collapse in Scotland since 2010 and have propelled the Conservatives into a solid third place in votes.
Zero.
Constituencies have to reflect natural geographies, otherwise you would have remote Scottish archipelagos lumped into with distant mainland areas with which they have no connection.
Sounds like a sensible fellow.
So to me it somehow seems almost anhistorical/counterfactual, to ascribe all those undoubted effects to the Scots, when all were in the Union together and it was the overall voting pattern across the UK which allowed a dozen (or whatever it was at each time) MPs to 'materially affect' the outcome. One could just as well, so to speak, blame the Welsh or the Northumbrians, or even the Isle of Wighters - or the Tory Party for getting themselves wiped out in Scotland since the 1950s (something which I still find remarkable).
But it is still an interesting analysis and its argument is indisputable in stressing that it's not just GEs that count but everyday working majorities as well. Of course it will be the 2015 GE which gets really interesting from this point of view!
(Of course, central government also doesn't do its job properly, but that's a different story.)
I know there has been debates on this on pb.com but was there actually any discussion/change in Parliament? I am certain we would have all heard a lot more about it if there had been.
Can you provide a link for your assertion? If they just used the pre-existing system then your case falls over.
The only reason we do things geographically is because that was the only way to do in a world where people were not mobile, and even cellular telephony was unknown.
This would also, clearly, solve the problem of geographical migration. All constituencies could be exactly equally sized.
'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html
Ed now wants to give away power,but opposed locally elected Police Commissioners, in favour of keeping unelected police authorities.
Is this another u-turn or just hot air?
http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/
Relying on people to honestly and accurately report their demographic situation is dodgy in the extreme. What if they're mendacious and seeking to gerrymander the constituency of left-handed pipe-smokers? Or, what if they're lax? Or, what if they just don't have time to report a change in circumstance?
Geography is simple, and it works.
Ed's localism will come to nothing are be a pastiche of localism stuffed with his mates.
Mr Caine has now reported UKIP to the Electoral Commission and the police, but has been told no action will be taken because they are not actually named.
Frankly, for a party of "fruitcakes and closet racists" that's more than a little disappointing - they should learn from the traditional parties on dodgy photo-work - like photo-shopping people into events.....
So the only aspect that you could argue has potential to have political advantage is the reduction in seats. The actual effect on the headline numbers is relatively small (I think that Mike at one point posted it was a maximum of 7 seats difference??). Perhaps there is a greater advantage in that it disrupts incumbency, but either way it is a minor point.
You need to remember that we have a very large house of commons, with way more MPs than we actually need - this justifies the reduction in seats.
So any case of "gerrymandering" is very very tenuous. Which is why you only hear committed Labour supporters making the claim - it's not true, but it's an effective smear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Voting_System_and_Constituencies_Act_2011
In 1992, the election figures were Con 336 (11 Scotland), Lab 271 (49 Scotland), Others 44 (12 Scotland). Without Scotland the notional majority (i.e. excluding abstaining MPs) would have risen from 21 to 71.
Yes, the Tory right would have made trouble over Maastricht and other issues but the government would have been far less vulnerable to them. It was the fact that the Con majority could be overturned by a dozen defections (and fewer, as by-elections took their toll), that was crucial.
Still nothing to stop Scotland using a dollarised pound like Gibraltar and Jersey - but if they are having to go down that route - as it is now clear there will be no currency union - why not use a currency more suited their petrochemical economy such as the US dollar or the Norwegian Krone or the Dubai Dirnham ?
It is often said that we don't vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for an MP. I personally think that is rot. Even after they have voted for them, many people have no idea who their MP is, but they do know who to praise or (more invariably) blame at the head of a political party.
I vote for an MP of a party who I know will generally be required to tow a line as set down in a public manifesto that covers many aspects of my life. If I want more welfare or a smaller state, how is that achieved other than by voting for a collective of (broadly) like-minded public representatives?
Another post has cited Dr Starkey on Queen Anne - it's not quite as Starkey sets out. Scotland's viability financially was in part through the neglect of the crown and there really was only one activist Stuart monarch after 1603 - James II. The position of Scotland after the union should not be mixed up with the general changes in economic policy resulting from the first Empire. they were not cause and effect. The Irish economy, despite devastation in the civil War and again in the Wars of English succession benefited greatly from the Imperial expansion in 18th century and was doing well before it joined the Union in 1801.
,
If we take out the clutching at straws for 92 and 05 the results are far more telling.
1964: Gave Labour their majority
1966: No difference
1970: No difference
Feb 1974: Made Labour rather than the Tories the largest party
Oct 1974: Gave Labour their majority
1979: No difference
1983: No difference
1987: No difference
1992: No difference
1997: No difference
2001: No difference
2005: No difference
2010: As discussed, made the difference between a hung parliament and a Con majority.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100259142/the-floods-show-the-limits-of-ukips-appeal-nigel-farage-has-sunk-without-a-trace/
Poor old PB tories what a shame.
Mr Dancer, you are stuck in the past.
Why would you lie about your demographics? Why would you want to be represented by someone who didn't share any characteristics with you?
In any case, the way it would work would be like this. You - or anyone else - would choose from a (resolutely non-political) list of things that described them, and would rank them according to their importance. So, if hunting is important to you, you'd put that high on your list. If you love animals, that would be on the list. If your age is important to you. Or the fact you studied philosophy. Etc etc etc
We'd then use computer algorithms to group you with similar people with similar concerns. Sure, they would not all be identical, but your constituency would be people very like you.
And then each of these constituencies would elect an MP.
It would almost certainly end up with less whippable MPs. It would almost certainly end up with more independent MPs. It would certainly end up with MPs that represented, and understood the concerns of, people just like you.
The only people who would not like it, would be the traditional party machines.
There are markets up that haven t been discussed on here
Ladbrokes have a bet on the % turnout... 5/6 under or over 35%
They are also betting on ukip vote %
0-10% 16/1
10-20% 6/4
20-30% EVS
30-40% 8/1
40+ 20/1
Paddy Power are betting on Lab vote %
Under 40% 18/1
40-44.9 7/1
45-49.9 6/1
50-54.9 7/2
55-59.9 11/4
60-64.9 4/1
65+ 5/1
Last night the bands were 10% and it was possible to back 40-59.9 at 4/6, now they've changed it hmmmmph
Maybe a group hug before PMQ's?
There are some benefits for rUk if Scotland is using a dollarised pound but that is still on offer for Salmond.
Farage was there Sunday, Cameron Tuesday?
...& how can the daily mail getting 100,000 signatures in a day backing Farages idea of using foreign aid be an example of an idea failing to take off?
Govt sources say Chancellor warning over the pound means @alexsalmond has to come up with a Plan A for a Scottish currency never mind Plan B
Those mean old bullies !!
They have been printed many times.
Dealing with one of biggest customers in same currency
Having a better balance of trade
Better GDP to debt ratios
Scotland paying them £4-5B a year to help pay their debts