1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I couldn't agree more.
I don't actually care about the need for ID, if it solved a problem.
But there wasn't a problem to solve.
And this creates as many problems as it solves anyway. Just today: 1. I and others were not asked for ID, presumably because we look trustworthy or because the tellers were half asleep/didn't agree with the law. This introduces bias. 2. There are anecdotes of poor quality ID still being accepted. As @alsolei writes, there would need to be a really high bar to refusing someone who presents with superficially valid ID.
It has clearly been done for other reasons IE attempted gerrymandering.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
The NI rules were bought in as part of a massive overhaul of voting there.
Several hundred thousand voters were disenfranchised. Deliberately. Some said it was unfair to penalise voters for being dead or non-existent.....
Vote early, vote often...
There were times you felt like a 1976 Trade Union delegate - "I vote 1,435,543 votes ".
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I couldn't agree more.
I don't actually care about the need for ID, if it solved a problem.
But there wasn't a problem to solve.
And this creates as many problems as it solves anyway. Just today: 1. I and others were not asked for ID, presumably because we look trustworthy or because the tellers were half asleep/didn't agree with the law. This introduces bias. 2. There are anecdotes of poor quality ID still being accepted. As @alsolei writes, there would need to be a really high bar to refusing someone who presents with superficially valid ID.
It has clearly been done for other reasons IE attempted gerrymandering.
I very much hope Labour get rid of this nonsense.
Which policies Labour opposed will they actually reverse? It will be interesting to see. New Labour didn't restore many union rights, for example.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Mrs C and I have just been to vote. Rode my electric scooter into the hall, elderly picture on bus pass acceptable. Mrs C still looks like hers, so no problem. Very straightforward, no pressure, people about but wouldn’t describe it as ‘brisk’. No tellers, no-one canvassing in the street outside. Since there’s a small (IMHO) chance that Priti Patel might lose, we both voted tactically for Labour. Otherwise it might well have been Green, as nothing from the LibDems.
If you get a "Tramper", as used for visitor loans at National Trust properties, they are specced for 1 in 4 hills and I think 30 degree crossfalls. Top Gear middle-aged Just WIlliams eat your heart out. The genuine (ie not Hoon or Hairdresser version) Land Rover of Mobility Scooters. I'll make it my piccie for the day, the first one of which is allowed to be non-election. This is fairly mild terrain:
Very useful for: You must make THAT public footpath with a gap in the fence not a style because a person riding THIS has a right to use it, and is capable of going over those HILLS.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
Constitutionally, but in reality - no we don't. And, if anything, PR will decrease the power of parties - because it will force parties to split up and work with each other, it will mean governments can't take huge swathes of the country for granted because geographically it will always vote one way or the other. The idea of a representative for a single geographic area when that individual representative likely gets less than 40% of the vote is silly. The system we have was designed specifically to be less democratic, not more. If you want less hegemonic powerful political parties the only way to do that is to get rid of FPTP - because that is what has been propping them up.
Nope, it will have exactly the opposite effect. If you are legally voting for a party rather than a candidate then the party 'owns' that seat for the duration and can pressure the MP to conform.
I would go much further and make every vote in Parliamentary free vote and make party bribery and threats illegal just as they are for anyone outside of Parliament seeeking to influence MPs.
Yes, because there is currently no system that parties use to make their MPs conform now... And sure - making whipping and such verboten would be great; but that is much less likely to happen then voting reform. Currently the parties have a stranglehold on every MP within the system we have - why do you keeping that system will help?
Without FPTP, do you think John McDonnell and Keir Starmer would be in the same party? That David Cameron and Rees Mogg would be? I don't...
Richard appears to favour a system of democracy which would require someone like him as dictator to enforce the rules he suggests. They're just not realistic.
The reason I made the U.S. comparison is they set up an entire constitution designed to inhibit the influence of 'faction' (ie parties). Something on which most of the framers agreed.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
Constitutionally, but in reality - no we don't. And, if anything, PR will decrease the power of parties - because it will force parties to split up and work with each other, it will mean governments can't take huge swathes of the country for granted because geographically it will always vote one way or the other. The idea of a representative for a single geographic area when that individual representative likely gets less than 40% of the vote is silly. The system we have was designed specifically to be less democratic, not more. If you want less hegemonic powerful political parties the only way to do that is to get rid of FPTP - because that is what has been propping them up.
Nope, it will have exactly the opposite effect. If you are legally voting for a party rather than a candidate then the party 'owns' that seat for the duration and can pressure the MP to conform.
I would go much further and make every vote in Parliamentary free vote and make party bribery and threats illegal just as they are for anyone outside of Parliament seeeking to influence MPs.
Yes, because there is currently no system that parties use to make their MPs conform now... And sure - making whipping and such verboten would be great; but that is much less likely to happen then voting reform. Currently the parties have a stranglehold on every MP within the system we have - why do you keeping that system will help?
Without FPTP, do you think John McDonnell and Keir Starmer would be in the same party? That David Cameron and Rees Mogg would be? I don't...
They don't have a stranglehold for the simple reason that MPs can and do cross the floor. And to be honest after the last 5 years the idea that the parties control their MPs is a joke.
The entitled British public have been dreadful this election From lobbing milkshakes to whining on Question Time, it’s been an unedifying look at modern Britain
ROBERT TAYLOR 4 July 2024 • 11:44am
Not entirely surprising that they would prove oblivious to Brechtian irony.
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
At which point the Red States and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional to change the ballots for November....
It’s a weird election. Because the general mood is one of “they’re all a shower of sh1t”. People might think it’s time for a change but are unenthused by Starmer. They might be natural Tories but are disappointed by their performance in govt. They may like Reform’s low tax / immigration thrust and even Farage personally but deep down know the candidates list is dodge. Lib Dems are the NOTA of course but even they might struggle to outcompete CBA.
I think that very few people are going to wake up feeling positive about the outcome tomorrow morning, apart from the obsessive weirdos on one end or the other depending on the result.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
Constitutionally, but in reality - no we don't. And, if anything, PR will decrease the power of parties - because it will force parties to split up and work with each other, it will mean governments can't take huge swathes of the country for granted because geographically it will always vote one way or the other. The idea of a representative for a single geographic area when that individual representative likely gets less than 40% of the vote is silly. The system we have was designed specifically to be less democratic, not more. If you want less hegemonic powerful political parties the only way to do that is to get rid of FPTP - because that is what has been propping them up.
Nope, it will have exactly the opposite effect. If you are legally voting for a party rather than a candidate then the party 'owns' that seat for the duration and can pressure the MP to conform.
I would go much further and make every vote in Parliamentary free vote and make party bribery and threats illegal just as they are for anyone outside of Parliament seeeking to influence MPs.
I quite like the German system whereby about half of the MPs are elected directly by their constituents, while the other half of the MPs are "top-ups" from party lists to make the total numbers roughly proportional. This means that a direct link is retained between constituencies and their representative, while minority parties (and hence viewpoints) also get proper representation. After all, we are, these days, identified as least as much by our worldviews as our geographical locations.
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
Will that rob the voters of their ability to make her the first woman President? They will just be rubber stamping it.
Mrs C and I have just been to vote. Rode my electric scooter into the hall, elderly picture on bus pass acceptable. Mrs C still looks like hers, so no problem. Very straightforward, no pressure, people about but wouldn’t describe it as ‘brisk’. No tellers, no-one canvassing in the street outside. Since there’s a small (IMHO) chance that Priti Patel might lose, we both voted tactically for Labour. Otherwise it might well have been Green, as nothing from the LibDems.
If you get a "Tramper", as used for visitor loans at National Trust properties, they are specced for 1 in 4 hills and I think 30 degree crossfalls.
Very useful for: You must make THAT public footpath with a gap in the fence not a style because a person riding THIS has a right to use it, and is capable of going up that MOUNTAIN.
The one I’ve bought, from a local manufacturer, seems fine for most places I want to go to round here, including the pub and the library. I can also get into the church, but there are, hopefully, no funerals on the horizon and we are unlikely to have another election hustling in the near future.
It’s a weird election. Because the general mood is one of “they’re all a shower of sh1t”. People might think it’s time for a change but are unenthused by Starmer. They might be natural Tories but are disappointed by their performance in govt. They may like Reform’s low tax / immigration thrust and even Farage personally but deep down know the candidates list is dodge. Lib Dems are the NOTA of course but even they might struggle to outcompete CBA.
I think that very few people are going to wake up feeling positive about the outcome tomorrow morning, apart from the obsessive weirdos on one end or the other depending on the result.
I'll be hoping for a period of competant administration, but worried about big events - would Starmer have got Ukraine right quickly enough, for example?
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
At which point the Red States and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional to change the ballots for November....
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I couldn't agree more.
I don't actually care about the need for ID, if it solved a problem.
But there wasn't a problem to solve.
And this creates as many problems as it solves anyway. Just today: 1. I and others were not asked for ID, presumably because we look trustworthy or because the tellers were half asleep/didn't agree with the law. This introduces bias. 2. There are anecdotes of poor quality ID still being accepted. As @alsolei writes, there would need to be a really high bar to refusing someone who presents with superficially valid ID.
It has clearly been done for other reasons IE attempted gerrymandering.
I very much hope Labour get rid of this nonsense.
Which policies Labour opposed will they actually reverse? It will be interesting to see. New Labour didn't restore many union rights, for example.
Reinstating HS2 would be the obvious one, as none of the compulsorily-purchased property has yet been sold and the full route is still protected.
It'd be a big show of confidence, a signal that change really can happen.
But some of the money has already been diverted to fixing potholes in London, so there'd likely be additional costs involved so might destroy the "there's no money left" narrative.
It’s a weird election. Because the general mood is one of “they’re all a shower of sh1t”. People might think it’s time for a change but are unenthused by Starmer. They might be natural Tories but are disappointed by their performance in govt. They may like Reform’s low tax / immigration thrust and even Farage personally but deep down know the candidates list is dodge. Lib Dems are the NOTA of course but even they might struggle to outcompete CBA.
I think that very few people are going to wake up feeling positive about the outcome tomorrow morning, apart from the obsessive weirdos on one end or the other depending on the result.
IMO, the outcome that will please most (or displease the least) is a substantial - but not overwhelming - Labour majority, a Conservative party that still has the numbers to rebuild, and decent representation for the smaller parties.
A lot of the early seats to declare are likely to have good Reform %s, Reform coming 2nd in seats etc.
This might lead to a swathe of money on Reform related bets - even if the actual %s in them suggest that Reform are underperforming.
Could present an opportunity but YMMV.
True. After the first 9 results it's possible RefUK could be as high as 27% in terms of the running totals.
They'll likely be outperforming if that's the case.
Not really, that's with them ending up on about 15-16%.
There seems to be a marked discrepency between the MRP polls and the traditional polls on the share of the vote for RefUK so it will be interesting to see which is more accurate. Traditional polls were accurate for UKIP in 2015 when they got 13%.
Mrs C and I have just been to vote. Rode my electric scooter into the hall, elderly picture on bus pass acceptable. Mrs C still looks like hers, so no problem. Very straightforward, no pressure, people about but wouldn’t describe it as ‘brisk’. No tellers, no-one canvassing in the street outside. Since there’s a small (IMHO) chance that Priti Patel might lose, we both voted tactically for Labour. Otherwise it might well have been Green, as nothing from the LibDems.
If you get a "Tramper", as used for visitor loans at National Trust properties, they are specced for 1 in 4 hills and I think 30 degree crossfalls. Top Gear middle-aged Just WIlliams eat your heart out. The genuine (ie not Hoon or Hairdresser version) Land Rover of Mobility Scooters. I'll make it my piccie for the day, the first one of which is allowed to be non-election. This is fairly mild terrain:
Very useful for: You must make THAT public footpath with a gap in the fence not a style because a person riding THIS has a right to use it, and is capable of going over those HILLS.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
Constitutionally, but in reality - no we don't. And, if anything, PR will decrease the power of parties - because it will force parties to split up and work with each other, it will mean governments can't take huge swathes of the country for granted because geographically it will always vote one way or the other. The idea of a representative for a single geographic area when that individual representative likely gets less than 40% of the vote is silly. The system we have was designed specifically to be less democratic, not more. If you want less hegemonic powerful political parties the only way to do that is to get rid of FPTP - because that is what has been propping them up.
Nope, it will have exactly the opposite effect. If you are legally voting for a party rather than a candidate then the party 'owns' that seat for the duration and can pressure the MP to conform.
I would go much further and make every vote in Parliamentary free vote and make party bribery and threats illegal just as they are for anyone outside of Parliament seeeking to influence MPs.
Yes, because there is currently no system that parties use to make their MPs conform now... And sure - making whipping and such verboten would be great; but that is much less likely to happen then voting reform. Currently the parties have a stranglehold on every MP within the system we have - why do you keeping that system will help?
Without FPTP, do you think John McDonnell and Keir Starmer would be in the same party? That David Cameron and Rees Mogg would be? I don't...
They don't have a stranglehold for the simple reason that MPs can and do cross the floor. And to be honest after the last 5 years the idea that the parties control their MPs is a joke.
I think you're really wrong on this Richard, and if you reflect on this reply you'll realise this.
Crossing the floor is really hard and often ends your career.
Rory Stewart is, I think, a good spokesperson for how often decent MPs toe the line rather than vote with their conscience.
PR pulls in two conflicting directions, simultaneously increasing and decreasing the power of parties. To deny this seems... silly.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I couldn't agree more.
I don't actually care about the need for ID, if it solved a problem.
But there wasn't a problem to solve.
And this creates as many problems as it solves anyway. Just today: 1. I and others were not asked for ID, presumably because we look trustworthy or because the tellers were half asleep/didn't agree with the law. This introduces bias. 2. There are anecdotes of poor quality ID still being accepted. As @alsolei writes, there would need to be a really high bar to refusing someone who presents with superficially valid ID.
It has clearly been done for other reasons IE attempted gerrymandering.
I very much hope Labour get rid of this nonsense.
Which policies Labour opposed will they actually reverse? It will be interesting to see. New Labour didn't restore many union rights, for example.
Reinstating HS2 would be the obvious one, as none of the compulsorily-purchased property has yet been sold and the full route is still protected.
It'd be a big show of confidence, a signal that change really can happen.
But some of the money has already been diverted to fixing potholes in London, so there'd likely be additional costs involved so might destroy the "there's no money left" narrative.
If you want companies to invest in this country (especially outside London) a Government needs to lead by example. restarting HS2 is definitely part of that.
Question for a friend… can you vote at a different polling station to your card so long as it’s the same constituency?
Your name wouldn't be on the list.
I tried it once (accidentally). Rocked up at my nearest polling station, which was a school and the polling card listed a school as the polling station (I didn't know the name of the nearest school). I was politely redirected to the correct polling station which was further away.
Keir Starmer now squats like a giant toad across British politics. He has expanded the Overton window in both directions. Praising wealth creators and challenging the NHS to reform, pro-green but putting fiscal prudence first. Where do the Tories find a gap?
The Tories will presumably think 2019 was the answer even though it isn't.
2019 was a freak result created by a combination of the Brexit impasse, Boris Johnson's ability to exploit it, and the widespread revulsion of Tory sympathetic voters for Jeremy Corbyn. Reminder: the Tory GE record since the last Thatcher victory in 1987 is as follows:
Nine elections, eight of which have failed to generate a decisive result in favour of the Conservatives. This whole "natural party of government" schtick is a falsehood; if there was ever any validity to it, Tony Blair and social change killed it off.
As we all, I think, appreciate, 2019 only happened through odd circumstances that brought the red and blue wall voters together in a marriage of convenience. Much of what has happened since has been a demonstration of how to try - very badly - to attempt to mollify two voter groups with sometimes opposing needs and values, and end up alienating both. The simultaneous splintering of up to half of the entire Tory vote in all directions at once is the consequence.
Where does the Conservative Party go from here? Probably spinning off into some populist right, conspiracist cul-de-sac as they chase the Reform vote, leaving homeless centre-right voters to sit on their hands or drift off to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. There's always the terrifying possibility that there's enough of a MAGA Republican style vote in this country to get such an entity somewhere close to power, but I have to believe that's not true. American culture is more divided, much more violent and is full of really nasty religious bigots; Britain has an established history of here today, gone tomorrow hard and far right projects.
Just so long as British politics doesn't throw up another full slate of manifestly unsuitable Prime Ministerial options like it did in 2019, there's some reason to be hopeful that a populist hard right Tory party can be contained, until it gets its senses back or dwindles away to nothing. But that's a conversation for another time. First the Tories have to have their catfight and decide what they are now for - and, you never know, they might just surprise us and not pick the most extreme and repellant candidate they can find for their next leader. Stranger things have happened.
Why choose 1992 as your baseline. What about 1979. Or earlier.
I suppose I could go back to the time of Disraeli, Lord Liverpool, or perhaps the Marquess of Rockingham, but what would be the point? I think that nine elections is quite enough to demonstrate that the contemporary Conservative Party, as distinct from iterations that are now so far in the past that many First World War veterans were still alive at the time, struggles to win Parliamentary majorities. It's why so many Tories still seem so fixated on Maggie. She was their last reliable winner and there's no sign of a return to form in sight.
It's just an arbitrary anecdote to prove your point. If you are going to give time series then do it with some degree of rigour.
I don't think it's arbitrary - there was a clear ideological shift post Thatcher from both main parties, and indeed with the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the USSR. We live in the era of "The End of History", after all. Maybe an argument could be made for starting with the advent of the internet age - so maybe '97 onwards, but I think it is not unreasonable to suggest the "modern era" of UK politics ended started with Major's premiership.
1979: majority 1984: majority 1987: majority 1992: majority 1997: defeat 2001: defeat 2005: defeat 2010: minority but formed stable government (best in recent times) 2015: majority 2017: minority 2019: majority 2024: TBD
Is a fairer representation
Agreed. I think there is little evidence that their current woes represent terminal decline for the Tories.
It is possible that they are dying, but more likely they will reinvent themselves as they have done many times before.
What they reinvent themselves as is the more interesting question, in my opinion.
Just did the same for the Liberals, over roughly the same period, and I'm inclined to agree the Conservative pattern from 1979 doesn't look like the Strange Death of Liberal England, but maybe a bit more if you compare 1892/1992 onwards?
See William Hill offering50-1 Lib Dems 30 or under. I think that is a good bet.
A very good value loser that one.
Bet365 have Cheltenham at 1-9 for the Lib Dems. All the models (And quite frankly a bit of common sense) show that is almost certainly yellow - and in the first 30 seats for them so you can cover your stake that way.
Seat 14, 18, 11, 3, 11, 15, 5, 12, 6.
1-9 is too long regardless of 50-1 < 30 seats. On a bad night for the Lib Dems they probably still take Cheltenham, so you could win both bets
Edit : Added a tab to show the top 30 LD seats by model if anyone fancies a riskier hedge !
It's on GE 2024 Full, Sheet 3
I can't see how they get more than 30 seats without Cheltenham, you never know I suppose
Of course there's no Ref candidate in Cheltenham, so the Tories might do slightly better than if there was one.
Does anyone know how many Tory MPs with a majority of under 1,000 clung on in 1997? I strongly suspect they can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
Seb Coe was possibly the MP who did best against the tide in that election - and even he saw his 3,000 majority turn to a 3,000 deficit. Doing better than average just won't cut it in this election in a seat like Cheltenham.
And, only two months ago the Lib Dems wiped out the last Tory councillors in the Borough, so it's not like there is a sign of surprising Tory resilience or Lib Dem weakness in the seat.
Funnily enough I was just looking at the Guardian's 1997 election special, which I'd kept. It has a table of seats in the order they would fall based on C-Lab swing. It seems the smallest majority in a seat the C's successfully defended was Wells, from a notional majority of over 6,000 (over LD). The closest Labour miss was Bury St Edmunds, with a C maj over over 10000 (also over LD), which was reduced to a few hundred.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
Constitutionally, but in reality - no we don't. And, if anything, PR will decrease the power of parties - because it will force parties to split up and work with each other, it will mean governments can't take huge swathes of the country for granted because geographically it will always vote one way or the other. The idea of a representative for a single geographic area when that individual representative likely gets less than 40% of the vote is silly. The system we have was designed specifically to be less democratic, not more. If you want less hegemonic powerful political parties the only way to do that is to get rid of FPTP - because that is what has been propping them up.
Nope, it will have exactly the opposite effect. If you are legally voting for a party rather than a candidate then the party 'owns' that seat for the duration and can pressure the MP to conform.
I would go much further and make every vote in Parliamentary free vote and make party bribery and threats illegal just as they are for anyone outside of Parliament seeeking to influence MPs.
Yes, because there is currently no system that parties use to make their MPs conform now... And sure - making whipping and such verboten would be great; but that is much less likely to happen then voting reform. Currently the parties have a stranglehold on every MP within the system we have - why do you keeping that system will help?
Without FPTP, do you think John McDonnell and Keir Starmer would be in the same party? That David Cameron and Rees Mogg would be? I don't...
They don't have a stranglehold for the simple reason that MPs can and do cross the floor. And to be honest after the last 5 years the idea that the parties control their MPs is a joke.
I think you're really wrong on this Richard, and if you reflect on this reply you'll realise this.
Crossing the floor is really hard and often ends your career.
Rory Stewart is, I think, a good spokesperson for how often decent MPs toe the line rather than vote with their conscience.
PR pulls in two conflicting directions, simultaneously increasing and decreasing the power of parties. To deny this seems... silly.
Depends on the nature of 'PR' too. Pure PR makes parties more powerful, but they face the possibility of splits actually taking off. A more proportional system such as multi-member constituencies, could empower MPs more as it's not implausible that independents with strong local votes (i.e. former party MPs) could win seats and it would be more possible for MPs to get elected as members of smaller parties.
The LAB CON LD median seats looks very plausible! And are good news of sorts for all three parties: a big win for LAB, a dreadful result but not wipe out for CON with enough parliamentary strength to rebuild, and a good return for LD and back to 3rd place!
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
You sound like George Washington on the subject. Idealistic and unrealistic at the same time.
You can't get rid of parties in politics. What we should be doing is ensuring voters have a sufficiently diverse choice of parties so that there's some chance of actually voting goer something vaguely aligned with their political views. That means PR.
I disagree. We can massively reduce the power of the parties by introducing rules to limit the power of the whips. PR will guive more power to parties as it will legitamise them in the system.
This is exactly why STV was called British PR. It is a form of PR that doesn't involve party slates, and where the candidates still have an individual nomination, and the voter votes for their preferred candidate(s).
By lowering the barrier of entry for independent candidates to get elected, and by allowing voters to choose between candidates for a party*, it acts to weaken the power of the party. It would be much harder for a party leader to eject MPs they didn't like from the Commons, as Johnson did in 2019, with STV.
* If the party stands more than one candidate. This is one reason to favour larger STV constituencies, of 5 or 6 MPs, as it would encourage parties to stand multiple candidates. Or you could have smaller constituencies of 3 MPs if you wanted them to convert a smaller area, and not to make it too easy for candidates to be elected with a low level of support.
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
At which point the Red States and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional to change the ballots for November....
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
They're completely bonkers is what they are, I detected no underlying thread behind the policies in their manifesto (which was at least better designed than the others).
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
I find it interesting that over on Guido after all the Reform ramping and salivating the members of that team are predicting 2-3 seats for Reform and 124-148 for the Tories, which is higher than many others.
Anthony Scaramucci on the Rest is Politics US believes that Biden will resign this month so that Kamala Harris can become president before the election.
At which point the Red States and the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional to change the ballots for November....
How is that, as BIden hasn't been nominated yet?
Have you encountered the MAGA crowd, yet?
You were just trying to make a joke? Sorry, if so.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
I'd be fine with that. Showing the polling card does at least demonstrate that you're able to receive post addressed to the named voter. You might want to add a hologram barcode or something, but even without that, it would still give you a better level of security than the current photo ID system
I'd even be fine with them doing photo ID properly if the level of voting fraud were to warrant it.
It'd be probably be easier to provide a separate electoral ID card, with a photo to be uploaded annually when the electoral register is updated. You'd only need a couple of tablets and a 5g router per polling station.
Trying to replicate passport control in 30,000 school halls round the country would be a nightmare, especially if you try providing live verification with HMPO, DVLA, DVA(NI), and, god forbid, eIDAS. You could very easily spend multiple billions doing it...
Back on here to advise you for the third Tour de France sprint stage in succession to pay Philipsen as stage winner. He's at 2.3-4 which I maintain is still too short for any one person to win a sprint stage given the variables that affect the result
It's a bit unfortunate to have 2 British competitors playing against each other atm on court number one with Dart v Boulter, when we have so few top players to begin with.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
There is very little security around polling cards. I don't see the point in a system that accepts possession of a polling card as proof of ID.
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
They're completely bonkers is what they are, I detected no underlying thread behind the policies in their manifesto (which was at least better designed than the others).
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
All these "I hate forriners, comin' over 'ere, taking our jobs an' women..." parties. Are they all fighting for the same share of the electorate? The "Hang'em & Flog'em" brigade?
With our growing pensioner population, we need more younger tax payers, so we either breed like mad and hope we can last the 18-20 years before they start getting taxed, or we import people...
[Edit: Or we work pensioners to death... No retirement options]
I find it interesting that over on Guido after all the Reform ramping and salivating the members of that team are predicting 2-3 seats for Reform and 124-148 for the Tories, which is higher than many others.
The Tories outperforming slightly wouldn't be a big shock and if you're wrong as a talking head/analyst noone's going to remember that you were particularly wrong if the Tories got 113 seats say whereas if you stick your neck out on Reform 20 seats then you will think you might look like a bit of a wally if Reform only get Farage and Anderson in. Add to the that the Spurs bettors on the other side like Southam and MexicanPete thinking the Tories will do well and you soon come up with a bit of a consensus that the Tories are going to be relatively OK.
Imagine if the clock tolls ten bells, and then the Exit Poll says:
Conservative 330 seats.
"Sorry, about that. A mistake from our visual effects team. The exit poll result for the Conservative Party is 30 seats. Three. Zero. Shall we try that again? Can we get the corrected graphic up now?"
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
They're completely bonkers is what they are, I detected no underlying thread behind the policies in their manifesto (which was at least better designed than the others).
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
All these "I hate forriners, comin' over 'ere, taking our jobs an' women..." parties. Are they all fighting for the same share of the electorate? The "Hang'em & Flog'em" brigade?
With our growing pensioner population, we need more younger tax payers, so we either breed like mad and hope we can last the 18-20 years before they start getting taxed, or we import people...
Or the vast cohort of Vegans gets a taste for pensioner flesh.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
I'd be fine with that. Showing the polling card does at least demonstrate that you're able to receive post addressed to the named voter. You might want to add a hologram barcode or something, but even without that, it would still give you a better level of security than the current photo ID system
I'd even be fine with them doing photo ID properly if the level of voting fraud were to warrant it.
It'd be probably be easier to provide a separate electoral ID card, with a photo to be uploaded annually when the electoral register is updated. You'd only need a couple of tablets and a 5g router per polling station.
Trying to replicate passport control in 30,000 school halls round the country would be a nightmare, especially if you try providing live verification with HMPO, DVLA, DVA(NI), and, god forbid, eIDAS. You could very easily spend multiple billions doing it...
From memory the electoral commission's recommendation was polling card OR photo id..
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
They're completely bonkers is what they are, I detected no underlying thread behind the policies in their manifesto (which was at least better designed than the others).
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
They have not much to do with earlier incarnations of the SDP. They're kinda Reform UK without the Thatcherism?
Via @NCPoliticsUK, 3 Jul. Changes w/ 21-28 Feb 2022.
Fancy showing up just to herd
Agree. If I were them I'd have fiddled the methodology to ramp up Reform and enjoyed being 'the only pollster to spot the surge' if Reform overperform. Will make zero difference if they underperform as nobody will care.
I find it interesting that over on Guido after all the Reform ramping and salivating the members of that team are predicting 2-3 seats for Reform and 124-148 for the Tories, which is higher than many others.
Guido may be right in that similar way to Leon: pinning the tail on the donkey you’re bound to get the right spot 1 time in 100.
But, let’s be frank, Guido is so full of shit that I wouldn’t take the slightest notice of anything he posts today
'Now. George Osborne. Probable hung parliament with Labour the largest party. Why did the opinion polls all get it so spectacularly wrong?'
Which raises the election day question of what is the minimum that has to happen for there to be a sane, unionist, non Tory government.
SFAICS as long as Lab and LD get c320 between them (taking account of SF absence), we have the makings of a government. This would seem to require something like: Labour gain 20 from SNP LD gain 30 from Tories Labour gain 60 from Tories Lab approx 280. LD approx 40.
On those outcomes the Tories would still have about 270-275 seats, but nowhere close to government, and they + the other MPs could not possibly unite against the 320.
So I think we can go to bed at 10pm safe in our beds.
It's a bit unfortunate to have 2 British competitors playing against each other atm on court number one with Dart v Boulter, when we have so few top players to begin with.
I know parties tend to renege on changing the voting system when in power - but if the election results are as badly skewed as they look to be, with Labour potentially getting >60% of seats on 40%> of votes, and all the other parties getting much less representation than their vote share - will everyone but Labour end up supporting PR?
Apart from the smallest parties, the certain result of AV PR would be fragmentation of parties. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
But if the future looks like votes are going to be more distributed anyway (Reform and Greens not being squeezed enough) then we could start having very strange results under FPTP that don't help parties - it would all depend on vote efficiency. And, for factions within parties, PR could be helpful. New Labour types could jettison the much hated left wing and aim for a government with other centre right parties, and Reform and the Moggs of the Tories could merge without fear. I think the era of big tent political parties is over - and I think Farage, if Ref get 15+% of the vote and only a handful of MPs, will make a HUGE fuss on the issue; and when the right wing care about something the system is more willing to change, alas.
It shouldn't be about helping parties. We vote for individual constituency candidates and we should be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties not incrrease it.
You sound like George Washington on the subject. Idealistic and unrealistic at the same time.
You can't get rid of parties in politics. What we should be doing is ensuring voters have a sufficiently diverse choice of parties so that there's some chance of actually voting goer something vaguely aligned with their political views. That means PR.
I disagree. We can massively reduce the power of the parties by introducing rules to limit the power of the whips. PR will guive more power to parties as it will legitamise them in the system.
This is exactly why STV was called British PR. It is a form of PR that doesn't involve party slates, and where the candidates still have an individual nomination, and the voter votes for their preferred candidate(s).
By lowering the barrier of entry for independent candidates to get elected, and by allowing voters to choose between candidates for a party*, it acts to weaken the power of the party. It would be much harder for a party leader to eject MPs they didn't like from the Commons, as Johnson did in 2019, with STV.
* If the party stands more than one candidate. This is one reason to favour larger STV constituencies, of 5 or 6 MPs, as it would encourage parties to stand multiple candidates. Or you could have smaller constituencies of 3 MPs if you wanted them to convert a smaller area, and not to make it too easy for candidates to be elected with a low level of support.
Thus the high level of independents we see getting elected in the Republic of Ireland, where they use STV.
(Although Malta also uses STV and has no independents.)
Mrs C and I have just been to vote. Rode my electric scooter into the hall, elderly picture on bus pass acceptable. Mrs C still looks like hers, so no problem. Very straightforward, no pressure, people about but wouldn’t describe it as ‘brisk’. No tellers, no-one canvassing in the street outside. Since there’s a small (IMHO) chance that Priti Patel might lose, we both voted tactically for Labour. Otherwise it might well have been Green, as nothing from the LibDems.
If you get a "Tramper", as used for visitor loans at National Trust properties, they are specced for 1 in 4 hills and I think 30 degree crossfalls. Top Gear middle-aged Just WIlliams eat your heart out. The genuine (ie not Hoon or Hairdresser version) Land Rover of Mobility Scooters. I'll make it my piccie for the day, the first one of which is allowed to be non-election. This is fairly mild terrain:
Very useful for: You must make THAT public footpath with a gap in the fence not a style because a person riding THIS has a right to use it, and is capable of going over those HILLS.
Cost just under £10k, mind.
Looks good. Price not unreasonable. Thanks.
It's a good thing the National Trust offers.
My beef is that they are only geared up for people arriving in motor vehicles, whilst in reality cycling is easy from up to 10-15 miles away in about an hour, walking from 3-6 miles away, and scootering from up to 10 miles away. That means repeat local visitors, and the large % of the population who have no vehicle or (for visitors arriving at Hardwick Hall via train) £36 of taxi fares, can actually get there.
It's like the inground Usonian habit of taking your dog for a walk by putting it in the truck, driving it 5 or 20 miles to the dog park, and walking it there.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
There is very little security around polling cards. I don't see the point in a system that accepts possession of a polling card as proof of ID.
Before the introduction of the ID requirement, possession of a polling card was not taken as proof of ID - indeed, you didn't need to bring it. Saying "I am Sir Norfolk Passmore, and I am here to vote", was taken as perfectly sufficient. As, indeed, giving your name is perfectly sufficient for a range of circumstances.
Personation was always vanishingly rare because it's very hard to get away with - ID requirement or not. A lot of places have CCTV, and you ran a huge risk of polling staff or other in the queue saying "Hang on a moment, that ain't Sir Norfolk..."
The ID requirement was a bureaucratic nonsense designed to marginally reduce turnout by people who are fairly unlikely to vote Tory. It was an expensive solution to a problem that nobody at any point could show existed.
That's got to be a big advantage to the Tories. Rishi's last ditch supermajority gambit looks like it is working. What a load of rubbish that he's going to lose his seat when Osborne is suggesting hung Parliament and SeanF on Con 330.
I find it interesting that over on Guido after all the Reform ramping and salivating the members of that team are predicting 2-3 seats for Reform and 124-148 for the Tories, which is higher than many others.
There's a lot of herding in their predictions and they're all bearish on the Lib Dems and Reform.
Rod Liddle could have the best result in the country for the SDP in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Their leader William Clouston is standing in Hexham but hardly anyone knows who he is.
Not sure folk knowing who Rod Liddle is will be a positive.
Well it explains to me what the 'SDP' is, so there's that.
They're economically left-wing and socially populist.
They're completely bonkers is what they are, I detected no underlying thread behind the policies in their manifesto (which was at least better designed than the others).
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
All these "I hate forriners, comin' over 'ere, taking our jobs an' women..." parties. Are they all fighting for the same share of the electorate? The "Hang'em & Flog'em" brigade?
With our growing pensioner population, we need more younger tax payers, so we either breed like mad and hope we can last the 18-20 years before they start getting taxed, or we import people...
[Edit: Or we work pensioners to death... No retirement options]
Or we become more productive, more efficient, invest in automation and technology, and let unskilled, low paid, unproductive jobs wither and die unfilled.
1 - Short queue of 4 or 5. Staff say it has been busy.
2 - ID checks not perfect - they accepted an old driving license I had taken by mistake. (I'm on 3 year medical licenses.)
3 - I'm calling Ashfield for Lee Anderson *, having seen his name easily at the top of the ballot paper, and his only competitor 4th out of 6 - buried in the noise. And have tweaked my Reform betting position slightly.
Anderson has maintained his position on the markets, and the Tories are invisible - which means that many of their votes will have gone his way, especially given that Zadrozny of the Ashfield Independents is up before the Crown Court in 2025 on criminal charges and it is well known.
Anderson has also held on to his vote better than I hoped, and has gradually strengthened in the markets. He's now just under evens, with the Labour candidate just over.
* DYOR. My record is not stellar.
Out of date ID is expressly ok under the rules
That's interesting. Including a driving license that expired in 2022.
Yep. As long as the photo is you. I discovered today that Photo ID has been a requirement in NI for 20 years. Why the big hoohaa over here? Will those who are up in arms about proving who you are be as upset about children being given the vote?
Because it's being done in such a half-arsed way in GB, and does nothing to secure the vote. The system in NI is much more rigorous in just about every respect (two stage registration process, extremely limited postal and proxy voting, etc) so can't really be compared.
Take the "as long as the photo is you" requirement, which devolves to being a matter of opinion for the polling station workers.
Passport photos have a big hologram printed on top of them, making them hard to see properly except under controlled lighting. And many people don't look much like their photo - for example, I've got different hair length and colour, and normally wear glasses.
That's okay at the border because they rely on biometrics rather than manually comparing the photo, but at a polling station you're asking an untrained council worker in a dimly-lit school hall to squint at it and make a guess.
On top of that, there's no way for them to verify or validate the IDs that are presented - so the lowest grade of fake ID would be enough to fool them.
It's pure security theatre, and the only actual effect will be to dissuade some people from voting.
I agree with restricted postal voting - it should be the exception not the norm. I cannot agree re ID though. The caveat that I always say is that you should either hand in your polling card OR prove who you are.
There is very little security around polling cards. I don't see the point in a system that accepts possession of a polling card as proof of ID.
Before the introduction of the ID requirement, possession of a polling card was not taken as proof of ID - indeed, you didn't need to bring it. Saying "I am Sir Norfolk Passmore, and I am here to vote", was taken as perfectly sufficient. As, indeed, giving your name is perfectly sufficient for a range of circumstances.
Personation was always vanishingly rare because it's very hard to get away with - ID requirement or not. A lot of places have CCTV, and you ran a huge risk of polling staff or other in the queue saying "Hang on a moment, that ain't Sir Norfolk..."
The ID requirement was a bureaucratic nonsense designed to marginally reduce turnout by people who are fairly unlikely to vote Tory. It was an expensive solution to a problem that nobody at any point could show existed.
It's a bit unfortunate to have 2 British competitors playing against each other atm on court number one with Dart v Boulter, when we have so few top players to begin with.
I think we also have Draper v Norrie in the men’s singles (top two British ranked men) which is a shame. I guess it guarantees Brits in next round but annoying.
That's got to be a big advantage to the Tories. Rishi's last ditch supermajority gambit looks like it is working. What a load of rubbish that he's going to lose his seat when Osborne is suggesting hung Parliament and SeanF on Con 330.
Doesn't it help the LDs more, with their GOTV operation though? The LDs will know who their voters are, the Tories in the previously safe seats won't.
That's got to be a big advantage to the Tories. Rishi's last ditch supermajority gambit looks like it is working. What a load of rubbish that he's going to lose his seat when Osborne is suggesting hung Parliament and SeanF on Con 330.
Comments
I don't actually care about the need for ID, if it solved a problem.
But there wasn't a problem to solve.
And this creates as many problems as it solves anyway. Just today:
1. I and others were not asked for ID, presumably because we look trustworthy or because the tellers were half asleep/didn't agree with the law. This introduces bias.
2. There are anecdotes of poor quality ID still being accepted. As @alsolei writes, there would need to be a really high bar to refusing someone who presents with superficially valid ID.
It has clearly been done for other reasons IE attempted gerrymandering.
I very much hope Labour get rid of this nonsense.
Very useful for: You must make THAT public footpath with a gap in the fence not a style because a person riding THIS has a right to use it, and is capable of going over those HILLS.
Cost just under £10k, mind.
The reason I made the U.S. comparison is they set up an entire constitution designed to inhibit the influence of 'faction' (ie parties).
Something on which most of the framers agreed.
In that respect it was a miserable failure.
Thanks for your offer wrt Tewkesbury this AM. I've hedged my stake at 5/6 on the Tory, so it's a £25 charity donation should the Lib Dem win.
I think that very few people are going to wake up feeling positive about the outcome tomorrow morning, apart from the obsessive weirdos on one end or the other depending on the result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cwifPU95j8
It'd be a big show of confidence, a signal that change really can happen.
But some of the money has already been diverted to fixing potholes in London, so there'd likely be additional costs involved so might destroy the "there's no money left" narrative.
Conservative 330 seats.
Crossing the floor is really hard and often ends your career.
Rory Stewart is, I think, a good spokesperson for how often decent MPs toe the line rather than vote with their conscience.
PR pulls in two conflicting directions, simultaneously increasing and decreasing the power of parties. To deny this seems... silly.
1874: Defeat
1880: Majority
1885: Majority
1886: Defeat
1892: Defeat
1895: Defeat
1900: Defeat
1906: Majority
1910 (both): Coalition
1918 (confusing): Junior coalition party
1922: Defeat (3rd Place)
1923: Defeat
1924: Defeat
"Stuff the loyal oath....."
The LAB CON LD median seats looks very plausible! And are good news of sorts for all three parties: a big win for LAB, a dreadful result but not wipe out for CON with enough parliamentary strength to rebuild, and a good return for LD and back to 3rd place!
By lowering the barrier of entry for independent candidates to get elected, and by allowing voters to choose between candidates for a party*, it acts to weaken the power of the party. It would be much harder for a party leader to eject MPs they didn't like from the Commons, as Johnson did in 2019, with STV.
* If the party stands more than one candidate. This is one reason to favour larger STV constituencies, of 5 or 6 MPs, as it would encourage parties to stand multiple candidates. Or you could have smaller constituencies of 3 MPs if you wanted them to convert a smaller area, and not to make it too easy for candidates to be elected with a low level of support.
The biggest thing about them is they are really anti-immigrant.
I'd even be fine with them doing photo ID properly if the level of voting fraud were to warrant it.
It'd be probably be easier to provide a separate electoral ID card, with a photo to be uploaded annually when the electoral register is updated. You'd only need a couple of tablets and a 5g router per polling station.
Trying to replicate passport control in 30,000 school halls round the country would be a nightmare, especially if you try providing live verification with HMPO, DVLA, DVA(NI), and, god forbid, eIDAS. You could very easily spend multiple billions doing it...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/scores-and-schedule
This is a massive fail for the polling companies. Explanation please UK Elect.
In think we're in danger of drifting into the realms of fantasy here.
With our growing pensioner population, we need more younger tax payers, so we either breed like mad and hope we can last the 18-20 years before they start getting taxed, or we import people...
[Edit: Or we work pensioners to death... No retirement options]
Keiran P with the low turnout klaxkn
Add to the that the Spurs bettors on the other side like Southam and MexicanPete thinking the Tories will do well and you soon come up with a bit of a consensus that the Tories are going to be relatively OK.
Nothing will change.
I feel despondent.
Another 5 years of record high tax and high immigration. and weak growth per capita. New managers same policies.
I would expect low turnout to be bad for reform.
But, let’s be frank, Guido is so full of shit that I wouldn’t take the slightest notice of anything he posts today
SFAICS as long as Lab and LD get c320 between them (taking account of SF absence), we have the makings of a government. This would seem to require something like:
Labour gain 20 from SNP
LD gain 30 from Tories
Labour gain 60 from Tories
Lab approx 280. LD approx 40.
On those outcomes the Tories would still have about 270-275 seats, but nowhere close to government, and they + the other MPs could not possibly unite against the 320.
So I think we can go to bed at 10pm safe in our beds.
Could Wimbledon really not have sorted this out with some British seeding?
(Although Malta also uses STV and has no independents.)
My beef is that they are only geared up for people arriving in motor vehicles, whilst in reality cycling is easy from up to 10-15 miles away in about an hour, walking from 3-6 miles away, and scootering from up to 10 miles away. That means repeat local visitors, and the large % of the population who have no vehicle or (for visitors arriving at Hardwick Hall via train) £36 of taxi fares, can actually get there.
It's like the inground Usonian habit of taking your dog for a walk by putting it in the truck, driving it 5 or 20 miles to the dog park, and walking it there.
Personation was always vanishingly rare because it's very hard to get away with - ID requirement or not. A lot of places have CCTV, and you ran a huge risk of polling staff or other in the queue saying "Hang on a moment, that ain't Sir Norfolk..."
The ID requirement was a bureaucratic nonsense designed to marginally reduce turnout by people who are fairly unlikely to vote Tory. It was an expensive solution to a problem that nobody at any point could show existed.
I passed two polling stations on the way. Both pretty-much deserted but I don’t know if that means anything as I’ve no comparisons.
@wooliedyed there might be lots of tories staying at home.
Just don't being me back the political undead from this generation of senior Tories.
The LDs will know who their voters are, the Tories in the previously safe seats won't.
You might get your chance in 5 years, though.