Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland the electoral system would appear less bia

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited February 2014 in General

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.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • The system isn't biased really anyway - it's more that Labour is simply more efficient at distributing its votes. Those that moan about the vagaries of FPTP should campaign for PR, as I think @MikeSmithson does...
  • One reason the Tories are known as the Stupid Party is of course their habit of campaigning against their own interests - for the Union, against PR. I'm off to play bridge now, but look forward to the Tory explanations for their own behaviour!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    The system isn't biased really anyway

    The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.
  • Neil said:

    The system isn't biased really anyway

    The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.
    Yes, sorry, that is right - I meant relative to the Conservatives. You are correct though.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Innocent_Abroad

    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    Neil said:

    The system isn't biased really anyway

    The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.
    Yes, sorry, that is right - I meant relative to the Conservatives. You are correct though.
    Hmmm - nice Freudian slip there - everything seen solely from the anti-Tory perspective
  • One reason the Tories are known as the Stupid Party is of course their habit of campaigning against their own interests - for the Union, against PR. I'm off to play bridge now, but look forward to the Tory explanations for their own behaviour!

    They did try to gerrymander FPTP but were screwed by the Liberals, who took revenge for their welching on Lords reform. Stupid in the sense I suppose that they could and should have seen it coming.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    campaigning against their own interests - for the Union, against PR.

    Country before party.

    I suppose we should describe those who would vote otherwise as the Selfish Party?
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    One reason the Tories are known as the Stupid Party is of course their habit of campaigning against their own interests - for the Union, against PR. I'm off to play bridge now, but look forward to the Tory explanations for their own behaviour!

    Campaigning for the Union is in the interest of the Country. Not all politicians are purely self-interested. You should be glad of that.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    Not this old chestnut again. So be it.
    Why Labour doesn’t need Scotland


    One of Labour’s sneakier tricks in opposing Scottish independence is to appeal to Scottish voters’ sense of social responsibility. The former party of socialist internationalism begs the Scots to show Unionist solidarity with their poor comrades in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, who would – the story runs – be abandoned permanently to the mercies of the evil Tories if the Westminster Parliament was deprived of its traditional sizeable block of Labour MPs from Scotland.

    But the biggest problem with the notion is simply that it’s completely untrue.

    Much of the reason is careless pundits who focus on the fact that Scotland habitually returns 40+ Labour MPs, but who forget that it also sends members to Westminster from the other parties to offset them. In October 1974, for example – which we’ll discover shortly is a significant date – Labour won 41 Scottish seats. That sounds impressive, until you realise that Scotland also voted in 30 non-Labour MPs (16 Tory, 11 SNP, 3 Liberal), meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority was just 11. So let’s take a look at the whole historical picture.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
    2010 was no more the norm than a coalition is for the lib dems.
  • felix said:

    Neil said:

    The system isn't biased really anyway

    The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.
    Yes, sorry, that is right - I meant relative to the Conservatives. You are correct though.
    Hmmm - nice Freudian slip there - everything seen solely from the anti-Tory perspective
    Labour and the Conservatives are like Manchester United and Manchester City - they only really care about the rivalry with each other. The Liberals (Stockport) don't really feature.
    It's not a great state of affairs but such is life.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    "Take Scotland out of the equation and the Tories would have a lot less to complain about."

    On oh so many levels.

    *retires under hail of blows from Scottish wife...*
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Without the far South and South East the electoral system would appear much less biased towards the flailing, unpopular Conservatives.

    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.
  • There would have been no need for boundary changes either.

    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.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited February 2014
    Bloody lefty Jocks!

    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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Meanwhile Calamity Clegg's strategy of trying to push up the kipper vote in tory lib dem areas for the EU elections and locals continues apace.
    Nick Sutton ‏@suttonnick Feb 10

    Tuesday's i front page - "'100 days to stop Ukip' - Clegg's call to arms on EU" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/UvB0c9v7aC
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    There would have been no need for boundary changes either.

    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.

    Wouldn't the collapse in LD support ("going home" to Labour in general) lead to Lab picking up a lot of seats from Con though?
  • The Conservative Party dodged a bullet when boundary reform was killed, since its reduction in Welsh seats would have risked it being wiped out of the Principality for a generation, as Plaid Cymru and Labour would have rushed to paint the party as anti-Welsh.

    As Mrs Thatcher did for Tories in Scotland, Cameron would have done in Wales.
  • Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

    That's what all politicans say, because its what people want to hear...

    Not so keen on it when they're in power funnily enough
  • @NickPalmer The evidence you asked for is at the end of the last thread.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Patrick said:

    Bloody lefty Jocks!

    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, 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.

    Was that BBC? (I have a long flight tomorrow, and it would be good to download it...)
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    Pot denies kettle is black shocker.
    Bradley Dodd ‏@BradDodd 12m

    Nick Clegg Denies Danny Alexander Has Tory 'Stockholm Syndrome' http://huff.to/1eQemLw via @HuffPostUKPol
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Looking at today's YouGov (34/39/10/11) and taking the data published and making the allowances for WNV and DK, without Scotland this would become 36/36/10/12 (all to the nearest whole number)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Morning all :)

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Tories are NOT stupid. They preserve FPTP because it allows (or more importantly, has in the past) allowed strong Government. Sometimes for the good, sometimes less so. But a governing party having a working majority has been the norm. Doing what is necessary to overturn the inevitable mess left by the last lot has been the driving force propelling both Labour and the Conservatives.

    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.
  • BenM said:

    Without the far South and South East the electoral system would appear much less biased towards the flailing, unpopular Conservatives.

    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.

    You say that the Tory party are unpopular, and everybody wants to see the back of them. Current polling suggests the Tories are low 30s, and Labour are high 30s. Sometimes even closer.

    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.
  • MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    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.

    If Scotland left the Union, all the parties in the UK (with the possible exceptions of the Greens and Respect) would 'swing right'. Simply, most democracies (excepting Japan and Mexico) naturally end up swinging across the 'centre line'. If the centre line moves, then so do the parties.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014


    1992: Ensured the Tory majority was not workable through the parliament

    2005: May have made the difference between a workable Labour majority and one that was far more vulnerable.

    The tory 'b***rds' and Major ensured the 92 majority was unworkable while in 2005 43 rather than 66 is hardly in whips biting their nails for every vote territory.

    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.
  • Indeed, Mr. L. There may need to be the odd exception (I believe the Isle of Wight is either one big or two rather small constituencies) but as a general rule it's hard to argue against.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    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.

    It's a very interesting chart though.

    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...
  • DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

  • Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

    Labour will never give power away, it will simply try to exercise it in another fashion. In the policy example quoted, I expect it would be via regulation and centrally imposed policies, enforced by inspection. Delivery units, whether schools, hospitals, local councils, parents, community groups or whatever would just be implementing central policy and the government would still be running things by remote control.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    What Micks figures show is that the absolute dominance of Scottish seats by Labour is a relatively new phenomenon. Will it last? I don't think so. If the vote is no I expect more SNP seats and a few more Tories in future. We need to take a longer view on constitutional matters
  • MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

    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.

    You are clearly to young to remember 1992. It was the Tory right who made that majority unworkable. The clue is in an old quote: "no dear boy, Labour are your opponents. Your enemies are behind you."
  • DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    Leaving to one side practical questions like how often you resize and where you draw the borders, there is an important philosophical issue to be determined.

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited February 2014

    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

    But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.
  • @Marquee Mark - "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."

    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.
  • Mr. Charles, Robinson's a pretty hopeless journalist. A political editor who apologises for not bothering to tell his viewers about the Blair-Brown feud for 10 years can't be taken very seriously, nor can one who banged on endlessly about the yacht nonsense. He also lacks common sense, as shown when he talked over the results of the Labour leadership contest.
  • stodge said:

    ...

    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 problem is more about the way the Conservative vote is inefficiently distributed. Nearly all arguments about the Tories having no support in Scotland points to the number of MPs, not the number of votes. It's translating the latter into the former that's been the problem. Look at the above figures:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
  • @MorrisDancer

    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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Polling Observatory #33: Public opinion steady through the storms

    Yet, once we put all the data together, those noisy, attention seeking outliers no longer drive the story. The dull reality this month, as in most months of this parliament, is that public opinion hasn’t moved at all. We estimate Labour this month at 37.8%, up 0.2% on last month. The Conservatives come in at 31.9%, up 0.9% on last month, but merely a return to their steady position in the autumn after a brief Christmas downtick. UKIP stand at 11.8%, down 0.3% on the month, while we estimate the Lib Dems at 7.2%, down 0.6% on last month, one of their weaker showings but not yet evidence of any sustained decline on their long run equilibrium.

    http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/02/12/polling-observatory-33-public-opinion-steady-through-the-storms/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Charles said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    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.

    It's a very interesting chart though.

    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...
    I would be fairly confident that in 2015 the Tory vote in Scotland will exceed the Lib Dem vote by a comfortable margin. Probably not seats though although it will be closer.

  • Mr. Scout, worth mentioning that the exception I raised was an island constituency. Although there are quite a few islands around Great Britain the vast majority of constituencies are entirely on the big island.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    It's not entirely unreasonable. There's no "right" electoral system, only that which currently exists (the status quo plus future changes which are hardwired into the management of the system) and potential changes to the system or the future change management process. Any change which advantages the party making it would be reasonably described as gerrymandering; and any party making such a change would naturally argue for the moral justification, indeed necessity, of the change. And the party opposite will then reverse the changes when next in power, of course.
  • Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

    But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

    So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

  • Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

    Labour will never give power away, it will simply try to exercise it in another fashion. In the policy example quoted, I expect it would be via regulation and centrally imposed policies, enforced by inspection. Delivery units, whether schools, hospitals, local councils, parents, community groups or whatever would just be implementing central policy and the government would still be running things by remote control.
    Localism is, generally, a sham. The public may say they want it, but when the crap hits the fan, they look to central government. As we have seen in the floods.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh

    Lord Rennard spotted in the House of Lords just now, a mole tells me. Not afraid to defy the Clegger

    Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics

    Lord Rennard to sue Lib Dems over his party suspension: http://bit.ly/LQagaC
  • Mr. Scout, worth mentioning that the exception I raised was an island constituency. Although there are quite a few islands around Great Britain the vast majority of constituencies are entirely on the big island.

    Even so, you would still end up with many more oddball seats than we have now - towns lumped in with little slivers of others to make up the numbers. Once you put pen to paper you find it's a very tricky task. The reality is - as others have said - that governments set the parameters to suit themselves. Anyone who seriously thinks the Conservatives would have proposed this change did it not advantage them is deluded. That's politics.

  • F1: Marcus Ericsson (a Caterham driver, apparently) has said he's going to try and stay away from Maldonado, as the Venezuelan has the reputation of being 'a bit crazy'.

    Sounds like a sensible fellow.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited February 2014

    MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

    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.

    During this entire period, and excepting the SNP, Scottish Socialists, and a few LDs, indy was off the menu and was not an option. The unionist parties refused even to consider the possibility until the referendum was forced on them in 2011 (Wendy Alexander being a notable exception, and she got stabbed in the back for that inter aliis even though she was pro-union).

    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!
  • @TheLastBoyScout As I noted on the last thread, local councils don't do their job properly unless they're forced to. Central government can see this, which is why it is so reluctant to delegate responsibilities to councils rather than to quangos.

    (Of course, central government also doesn't do its job properly, but that's a different story.)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

    But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

    So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

    It's much more likely that they just used whatever has been used in the past.

    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.
  • FPTP gives the Tories a majority on something like 38% of the vote and could give Labour one on something like 35% of the vote. Only the terminally partisan would describe one scenario as being fair, the other one as being unfair. Both are ridiculous.
  • stodge said:

    ...

    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 problem is more about the way the Conservative vote is inefficiently distributed. Nearly all arguments about the Tories having no support in Scotland points to the number of MPs, not the number of votes. It's translating the latter into the former that's been the problem. Look at the above figures:

    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.
    That's FPTP for you! The Conservatives didn't complain when they got hundreds more seats than the Liberals in 2010...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    @MorrisDancer

    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.

    That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

    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.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @NickPalmer

    '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?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    We all know why Boundary Changes failed.
    Conservatives lose boundary review vote

    Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015, backed by the Tories, have been defeated in the House of Commons.

    MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.

    It was the first time Lib Dem ministers have voted against their Conservative coalition colleagues in the Commons.

    The two parties have been in dispute since proposed elections to the House of Lords were dropped last year.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169
    It they were so crucial to Cammie and the tories then making them a hostage to fortune, rather than locking them in as soon as possible for the coalition, was a funny way to do things

  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

    But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

    So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

    It's much more likely that they just used whatever has been used in the past.

    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 Labour perspective:

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

  • Mr. 1000, I think you're, quite deliberately, being a silly sausage.

    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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    john_zims said:

    @NickPalmer

    '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?

    Hot air.

    Ed's localism will come to nothing are be a pastiche of localism stuffed with his mates.
  • Charles said:
    Quite:

    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.....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mr. Scout, worth mentioning that the exception I raised was an island constituency. Although there are quite a few islands around Great Britain the vast majority of constituencies are entirely on the big island.

    Even so, you would still end up with many more oddball seats than we have now - towns lumped in with little slivers of others to make up the numbers. Once you put pen to paper you find it's a very tricky task. The reality is - as others have said - that governments set the parameters to suit themselves. Anyone who seriously thinks the Conservatives would have proposed this change did it not advantage them is deluded. That's politics.

    You need to distinguish the various items: redistricting needs to be done regularly (and that's what's so outrageous about the LibDem decision - we will be running the 2015 election based on data from ?2001).

    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.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

    The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

    But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

    So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

    It's much more likely that they just used whatever has been used in the past.

    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 law was changed in 2011:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Voting_System_and_Constituencies_Act_2011

  • MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

    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.

    You are clearly to young to remember 1992. It was the Tory right who made that majority unworkable. The clue is in an old quote: "no dear boy, Labour are your opponents. Your enemies are behind you."
    I'm not too young, though I suspect you might be.

    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Was hoping for a thread on the 50/1 no currency union bet that never was.

    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 ?




  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    edited February 2014
    rcs1000 said:

    @MorrisDancer

    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.

    That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

    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.
    Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited February 2014


    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.

    Your point feeds into a bigger issue - the role and purpose of political parties. Do you think the country would be better run if Westminster returned 650 independent MP's, each running on an entirely local agenda? I happen to think not. I think that is a recipe for short-termism of the very worst kind.

    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?
  • JohnJohn Posts: 2
    Perhaps if we could look at matters another way - the English Party was the conservatives the Scots Party were the Unionists. Heath broke this distinction in late 1960's when unionism became unfashionable for all sorts of reasons. It might be said from that time the 'Conservative' interest has steadily abandoned Scotland to the other parties - not least over devolution. It is interesting to think why this was possible - and that reflects as much on the changing nature of Conservatism as to the cultural identity of Scotland.

    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.

    ,
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    @Carnyx

    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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    econews ‏@EcoNewsDaily 4h

    UK PM Cameron says climate change a serious threat to humanity, that story and more in today's EcoNews http://fb.me/6qX1hm4fN

    Independent Diplomat ‏@IDiplomat 18m

    David Cameron: #climatechange a ‘serious threat’ http://shar.es/Q8rPU via @RTCCnewswire
    The tiny windmill strikes back.

    Poor old PB tories what a shame.

    :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    I have it in mind that the Conservatives, when they had a major presence in Scotland, actually benefitted from having some seats with tiny electorates. Can anyone confirm this?

  • 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.

    Your point feeds into a bigger issue - the role and purpose of political parties. Do you think the country would be better run if Westminster returned 650 independent MP's, each running on an entirely local agenda? I happen to think not. I think that is a recipe for short-termism of the very worst kind.

    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?

    I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Mr. 1000, I think you're, quite deliberately, being a silly sausage.

    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.

    I love the word 'mendacious'.

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014
    WYTHENSHAWE BETTING

    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
  • Mick_Pork said:

    @Carnyx

    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.

    Whilst you are totally correct that it wouldn't change governments in the majority of cases, it would weaken any labour government in terms of majorities in the house.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Lennon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @MorrisDancer

    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.

    That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

    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.
    Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?
    And with discussions being increasingly on-line - why restrict yourself geographically like you used to?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    TGOHF said:


    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 ?

    I look forward to soon adding the Ten Trillion Thistle note to my collection of hyper-inflation gems from Zimbabwe.....

  • Mr. 1000, they said much the same thing to Julian the Apostate!

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited February 2014
    Patrick said:

    Bloody lefty Jocks!

    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.

    There speaks the real Little Englander , ruined Scotland in 1700's by spoiling the Darien scheme and trade restrictions , pillaged Scotland ever since and then the bully boy threatening if we have the temerity to want to run our own affairs. The mask slips as ever and reality is shown.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    rcs1000 said:

    Lennon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @MorrisDancer

    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.

    That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

    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.
    Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?
    And with discussions being increasingly on-line - why restrict yourself geographically like you used to?
    Indeed - you could have a constituency of pb.com addicts represented by Nick Palmer... ;-)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

    I genuinely have no idea how you stop conflict politics. Especially when many on the left are so rabidly anti-Tory. *cough*

    Maybe a group hug before PMQ's?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2014
    On topic - whatever the result of the referendum - and post Carney that looks like a resounding "NO" - there needs to be a new settlement for rUk. I doubt this will get much public discussion until the votes are counted - but could feature in the manifestos.
  • I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

    You appear to have a problem with politics being conducted on the Namierite principle. It always has.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    Was hoping for a thread on the 50/1 no currency union bet that never was.

    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 very far from clear yet, we have heard this posturing before. We will see if the yellow bellies actually have it in them to say NO. Cue a thousand weasely words but no clarity other than their tame BBC and press claiming they said NO. One can only hope it is true as it will be the biggest mistake ever by these donkeys.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014

    Mick_Pork said:

    @Carnyx

    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.

    Whilst you are totally correct that it wouldn't change governments in the majority of cases, it would weaken any labour government in terms of majorities in the house.
    Any party leader who can't operate without a huge majority might care to have a look at their own inability to enforce a modicum of party discipline and take their own MPs with them rather than cast the blame elsewhere. If party unity has collapsed to the point where MPs can no longer be trusted by their own leader then a majority of 2, 20 or even 100 will make little difference once the rebellions take hold.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    TGOHF said:


    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 ?

    I look forward to soon adding the Ten Trillion Thistle note to my collection of hyper-inflation gems from Zimbabwe.....

    Hard for you Tories not to show your real faces, you may not be so happy when you get what you are wishing for.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2014
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Was hoping for a thread on the 50/1 no currency union bet that never was.

    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 very far from clear yet, we have heard this posturing before. We will see if the yellow bellies actually have it in them to say NO. Cue a thousand weasely words but no clarity other than their tame BBC and press claiming they said NO. One can only hope it is true as it will be the biggest mistake ever by these donkeys.
    malcolm - can you list the upsides for rUK for having a formal currency union with Indy Scotland ?

    There are some benefits for rUk if Scotland is using a dollarised pound but that is still on offer for Salmond.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    On topic - whatever the result of the referendum - and post Carney that looks like a resounding "NO" - there needs to be a new settlement for rUk. I doubt this will get much public discussion until the votes are counted - but could feature in the manifestos.

    LOL, YES will be trembling a diehard unionist is forecasting a no vote.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014
    Far from convinced that visits from politicians do anything as i am, isn't it simply wrong to say Farage arrived after Cameron?

    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?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    Fop PR.
    Cameron's declaration that "money is no object" has destroyed his austerity message

    By insisting that he will spend "whatever money is needed" on flood relief, Cameron has undermined his claim that austerity means we must tolerate rising homelessness and poverty.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/camerons-declaration-money-no-object-has-destroyed-his-austerity-message
    "We're all in this together"
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 45s

    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 !!

  • I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

    I genuinely have no idea how you stop conflict politics. Especially when many on the left are so rabidly anti-Tory. *cough*

    Maybe a group hug before PMQ's?

    It does not happen overnight, but you begin with a system that encourages collaboration and consensus rather than tribalism and conflict. There will always be disagreements - sometimes profound ones - and that is a good thing. But the short-termism our current system leads to is profoundly damaging. FPTP just does not deliver.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    On topic - whatever the result of the referendum - and post Carney that looks like a resounding "NO" - there needs to be a new settlement for rUk. I doubt this will get much public discussion until the votes are counted - but could feature in the manifestos.

    LOL, YES will be trembling a diehard unionist is forecasting a no vote.
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    Was hoping for a thread on the 50/1 no currency union bet that never was.

    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 very far from clear yet, we have heard this posturing before. We will see if the yellow bellies actually have it in them to say NO. Cue a thousand weasely words but no clarity other than their tame BBC and press claiming they said NO. One can only hope it is true as it will be the biggest mistake ever by these donkeys.
    malcolm - can you list the upsides for rUK for having a formal currency union with Indy Scotland ?

    There are some benefits for rUk if Scotland is using a dollarised pound but that is still on offer for Salmond.

    5 for starters
    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
This discussion has been closed.