I agree with Richard. The key thing is that even politicians/parties in very safe seats can be thrown out if they upset the electorate enough (Tatton, Blaenau Gwent). This is why a lot of the expenses troughers were pushed out before the election.
I get the Tatton one, although some of that is just a matter of the LibDems and Labour joining forces to back an "independent" candidate; Neil Hamilton got 18,277 votes in his losing campaign in 1997, which isn't hugely less than George Osborne got when he won back the seat with 19,860.
But what's your point on Blaenau Gwent? I don't see an incumbent losing there at all, unless you're thinking of the "People's Voice" guy losing the seat back to Labour, but that looks more like reversion to the mean. And where troughers made it to the election they don't seem to have done exceptionally badly compared to the ones who didn't bother standing, so it's not at all obvious that the ones in safe seats who did stand down would have been clobbered by the voters if they'd run.
The bottom line is that if you get a safe seat under FPTP you have nothing to fear from the voters. There are exceptions to that, but they're incredibly rare.
Charles Complete rubbish. The moderate Tories would be in a different party from UKIP, the moderate Tories would more often than not form a coalition with the Liberals as now (in fact some pro EU Tories may join the Liberals). However, if UKIP got say 25-30% of the vote they could well join a coalition with the Tories, if say the Tories got 25% of the vote, it depends on the arithmetic, under PR UKIP would get essentially their European Elections score (now polling about 26%) so almost a third of the vote, their votes could be key in tight votes. Under PR Labour would be on about 30%, the Greens on about 10% ie 40% and nowhere near a 50% plus majority on their own
Go back to my example (my basic assumption is parties of the right get 40-45% and parties of the left 55-60%). Of course if UKIP+Tories >50% then different possibilities open up.
UKIP 25% Moderate Tory 15%
No coalition possible
Social Democrats 30% Greens/assorted lefties 10%
No coalition possible
Liberals 15% Nationalists 5%
If the Liberals refuse to do a deal with UKIP then the choice is Moderate/Liberal/Social Democrat or Liberal/Social Democrat/GreenAL
UKIP is frozen out (I am assuming that there is enough of a difference between UKIP and the Social Democrats to make a coalition unviable).
Well for starters your basic assumption needs adjustment.
Even on European elections polling under PR (and on a poll focused on EU issues under PR UKIP will be at its peak) Cameron's Tories get 24% according to polling last week so 9% above the poll rating you gave them. At general elections UKIP would probably fall a bit from EU elections, though PR should still take them to about 15-20%.
I would agree with your figures for the social democrats/Labour and the Greens/assorted lefties. I would also agree with 10-15% for the Liberals and 5% for the nationalists (assuming Scotland stays within the UK).
The choices could be Moderate Tory/Liberal under such a scenario or Social Democrat/Greens or sometimes SocialDemocrat/Greens/Liberal or Moderate Tory/UKIP if the Liberals have a particularly good showing or UKIP have a particularly good showing. The nats and Ulster Unionists could also be players in very tight elections. Vote shares will vary depending on what are the voters' priorities Anyway got to got the bank
200/1 for UKIP in Cannock Chase isn't right IMO. Ought to be something like 50/1. They got 25% of the vote in last year's local elections, the same as the Tories, with Labour on 40%.
Seems me to have all the makings of a 2nd place at least... don't think they should be anything like 25s
UKIP plus far right parties got 14% last time...The tories must be fancied to lose a lot of support for Labour to be 1/6.. all it needs is for UKIP to start taking votes from Labour as well and it could be close
General Election 2010: Dudley North[5]
Labour Ian Austin 14,923 38.7 -3.9 Conservative Graeme Brown 14,274 37.0 +5.6 Liberal Democrat Mike Beckett 4,066 10.5 0.0 UKIP Malcolm Davies 3,267 8.5 +3.9 BNP Ken Griffiths 1,899 4.9 -4.8 National Front Kevin Inman 173 0.4 N/A
Sign of the times: there will be a public meeting at Ullapool Village Hall on 14 April, to support the campaign for Scottish independence.
Fair enough. Fairly unremarkable. But look closer. Look at the list of organisations providing speakers:
- Business for Scotland - Liberal Democrat Voters for Independence - Scottish Green Party - Women for Independence - Labour for Independence
This campaign is getting more interesting by the day.
Well it could hardly get duller could it ?
Alan , that is because you are so far south , it is much better up here, we have actually seen Darling twice.
I'm still closer to Scotland than the Rev S Campbell though.
On the other hand you are not working hard for a YES vote. The Rev is doing a grand job, much to the dismay of many unionists and newspapers etc.
Ah, Campbell the 'Pretendy Minister' with the dubious views. Not someone I'd choose as my poster boy.
you prefer the millionaire crooks in Westminster. I note you infer things but don't have the courage to post them, preferring to rely on innuendo that has been proven to be false.
3 HOURS AGO A viable independent country wouldn't need to use someone else's currency.
I really cannot see why "independent" Scotland wants the rUK to run its economic policy. Independence means independence, any rUK backtracking on this would lose all credibility, which is why this unamed "minister" is not willing to go public.
There would be a probably terminal political price for a unionist party that backpedalled on the issue.
You boys really are thick , it is a negotiating position. Unlike the unionists who have painted themselves in to a corner , Scotland has 5 options still viable. Who knows which is the preferred one, certainly not unionists.
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
What relevance does that have in respect to supporting independence, as much as where he currently resides I believe. Unionists are just sick that they are losing the media war and can only stoop to insults and innuendo whilst being unable to rebutt the content. Typical unionist ploy.
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
As you are desperate to , please enlighten us.........
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
It seems that it's the PB Tories that are most obsessed about what tim 'would' think. Perhaps you should all start a petition for his return..
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
It seems that it's the PB Tories that are most obsessed about what tim 'would' think. Perhaps you should all start a petition for his return..
Desperation setting in as they see Bitter Together floundering and all their tough talk unravelling. They could not run a bath.
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
As you are desperate to , please enlighten us.........
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
It seems that it's the PB Tories that are most obsessed about what tim 'would' think. Perhaps you should all start a petition for his return..
We are unlikely to hear from Flash for a while , he has form when called out, will have legged it.
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
As you are desperate to , please enlighten us.........
Tumbleweed will follow
Or even 9/11...
What a big jessie , spit it out you yellow bellied low life coward
Citing WoS's no.1 stalker as a benchmark, quelle surprise.
Sine you know WoS, can you tell me which church he was ordained into as a Minister? No one else seems to have any idea.
What is it about those clamouring for Independence and 'secrets'? Why do they hide things?
Touching as you evident fascination for all things indy is (you've got to fill that tim-shaped hole in your life somehow), you'll just have to accept that it isn't secretiveness, it's just that it really, really doesn't matter if you're informed or not.
Not sure tim would have approved of Saint Somerset's comments on Hillsborough...
It seems that it's the PB Tories that are most obsessed about what tim 'would' think. Perhaps you should all start a petition for his return..
Desperation setting in as they see Bitter Together floundering and all their tough talk unravelling. They could not run a bath.
They wouldn't need to run the bath at Bath - the Romans fixed that for them.
But it's all very odd, especially if it really is a Tory minister coming out with confirmation of what just about half of Scots with an opinion think, that Mr Osborne and co. were basically coming out with a terminological inexactitude. I thought for a bit it was a bid to keep Faslane, as the BBC are suggested to be spinning, but it's insane for No to remind everyone of what is very unpopular in Scotland - even with Ms Lamont and the Labour MSPs (when they are not in bed with the Tories that is).
3 HOURS AGO A viable independent country wouldn't need to use someone else's currency.
I really cannot see why "independent" Scotland wants the rUK to run its economic policy. Independence means independence, any rUK backtracking on this would lose all credibility, which is why this unamed "minister" is not willing to go public.
There would be a probably terminal political price for a unionist party that backpedalled on the issue.
You boys really are thick , it is a negotiating position. Unlike the unionists who have painted themselves in to a corner , Scotland has 5 options still viable. Who knows which is the preferred one, certainly not unionists.
An option of a currency union is not on the table, apart from fantasists.
Scotland has other options but not that one, but who cares: any lie will do to get independence.
'"Of course there would be a currency union," the minister told the Guardian in remarks that will serve as a major boost to the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, who accused the UK's three main political parties of "bluff, bluster and bullying" after they all rejected a currency union.'
Hmm, who to believe, a silly little troll on an obscure website, or a respected political correspondent on a national broadsheet. Decisions, decisions.
Lots of interesting points made this morning and made very politely too, which is nice. However, the debate has been on how to best elect representatives to the commons, I would suggest that is to put the cart before the horse.
Our present system has come down to us from one that evolved to deal with the two party politics of the 17th century and which in its essentials hasn't changed much since the 18th. The franchise has got bigger and the Lords has been tinkered with, but any parliamentarian of from the mid-18th century onwards would instantly recognise, and probably feel at home in today's parliament.
Now, as a general rule I am all in favour of slow evolution of institutions and it is a practice that has served the UK well over the centuries. However, since WWII so fast has the pace of change in society been and so much more involved in day to day life is government expected to be that our present constitutional arrangements are now obsolete and unfit for purpose. Changing how members of the Commons are elected will, to use the cliche, be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
A new constitutional settlement is required. Personally I'd like to see something more like the French or US system with a directly elected head of government who can appoint anyone he/she wants to the executive and the job of the Commons would be to hold them to account. I'd also like to see far, far more devolution (in England I think this should be down to the County /City level, the Welsh and Northern Irish can come up with their own model) and with, as Mr. Charles suggests, a clear distinction between centrally mandated and centrally funded programmes and local ones that would be funded from local taxes. Whatever idea is settled upon it will change the role of the Commons, once that is done, and only once that is done, then it will be time to talk about voting systems.
Cameron should go into the 2015 Ge election not with a move to PR in his manifesto. He should go in with a promise (dare I say cast-iron guarantee) to set up a constitutional convention to propose a system of government fit for the 21st century.
Re last para: But he and the Conservative party at large won't. This is because they confuse the evolutionary nature of our constitution with maintaining the status quo.
Lots of interesting points made this morning and made very politely too, which is nice. However, the debate has been on how to best elect representatives to the commons, I would suggest that is to put the cart before the horse.
Our present system has come down to us from one that evolved to deal with the two party politics of the 17th century and which in its essentials hasn't changed much since the 18th. The franchise has got bigger and the Lords has been tinkered with, but any parliamentarian of from the mid-18th century onwards would instantly recognise, and probably feel at home in today's parliament.
Now, as a general rule I am all in favour of slow evolution of institutions and it is a practice that has served the UK well over the centuries. However, since WWII so fast has the pace of change in society been and so much more involved in day to day life is government expected to be that our present constitutional arrangements are now obsolete and unfit for purpose. Changing how members of the Commons are elected will, to use the cliche, be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
A new constitutional settlement is required. Personally I'd like to see something more like the French or US system with a directly elected head of government who can appoint anyone he/she wants to the executive and the job of the Commons would be to hold them to account. I'd also like to see far, far more devolution (in England I think this should be down to the County /City level, the Welsh and Northern Irish can come up with their own model) and with, as Mr. Charles suggests, a clear distinction between centrally mandated and centrally funded programmes and local ones that would be funded from local taxes. Whatever idea is settled upon it will change the role of the Commons, once that is done, and only once that is done, then it will be time to talk about voting systems.
Cameron should go into the 2015 Ge election not with a move to PR in his manifesto. He should go in with a promise (dare I say cast-iron guarantee) to set up a constitutional convention to propose a system of government fit for the 21st century.
Comments
But what's your point on Blaenau Gwent? I don't see an incumbent losing there at all, unless you're thinking of the "People's Voice" guy losing the seat back to Labour, but that looks more like reversion to the mean. And where troughers made it to the election they don't seem to have done exceptionally badly compared to the ones who didn't bother standing, so it's not at all obvious that the ones in safe seats who did stand down would have been clobbered by the voters if they'd run.
The bottom line is that if you get a safe seat under FPTP you have nothing to fear from the voters. There are exceptions to that, but they're incredibly rare.
UKIP 25%
Moderate Tory 15%
No coalition possible
Social Democrats 30%
Greens/assorted lefties 10%
No coalition possible
Liberals 15%
Nationalists 5%
If the Liberals refuse to do a deal with UKIP then the choice is Moderate/Liberal/Social Democrat or Liberal/Social Democrat/GreenAL
UKIP is frozen out (I am assuming that there is enough of a difference between UKIP and the Social Democrats to make a coalition unviable).
Even on European elections polling under PR (and on a poll focused on EU issues under PR UKIP will be at its peak) Cameron's Tories get 24% according to polling last week so 9% above the poll rating you gave them. At general elections UKIP would probably fall a bit from EU elections, though PR should still take them to about 15-20%.
I would agree with your figures for the social democrats/Labour and the Greens/assorted lefties. I would also agree with 10-15% for the Liberals and 5% for the nationalists (assuming Scotland stays within the UK).
The choices could be Moderate Tory/Liberal under such a scenario or Social Democrat/Greens or sometimes SocialDemocrat/Greens/Liberal or Moderate Tory/UKIP if the Liberals have a particularly good showing or UKIP have a particularly good showing. The nats and Ulster Unionists could also be players in very tight elections. Vote shares will vary depending on what are the voters' priorities
Anyway got to got the bank
UKIP plus far right parties got 14% last time...The tories must be fancied to lose a lot of support for Labour to be 1/6.. all it needs is for UKIP to start taking votes from Labour as well and it could be close
General Election 2010: Dudley North[5]
Labour Ian Austin 14,923 38.7 -3.9
Conservative Graeme Brown 14,274 37.0 +5.6
Liberal Democrat Mike Beckett 4,066 10.5 0.0
UKIP Malcolm Davies 3,267 8.5 +3.9
BNP Ken Griffiths 1,899 4.9 -4.8
National Front Kevin Inman 173 0.4 N/A
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100265477/has-labour-ditched-arnie-graf-the-obama-guru-who-was-supposed-to-win-them-the-election/
Tumbleweed will follow
But it's all very odd, especially if it really is a Tory minister coming out with confirmation of what just about half of Scots with an opinion think, that Mr Osborne and co. were basically coming out with a terminological inexactitude. I thought for a bit it was a bid to keep Faslane, as the BBC are suggested to be spinning, but it's insane for No to remind everyone of what is very unpopular in Scotland - even with Ms Lamont and the Labour MSPs (when they are not in bed with the Tories that is).
Scotland has other options but not that one, but who cares: any lie will do to get independence.
http://tinyurl.com/p7w76d2
Hmm, who to believe, a silly little troll on an obscure website, or a respected political correspondent on a national broadsheet. Decisions, decisions.
Our present system has come down to us from one that evolved to deal with the two party politics of the 17th century and which in its essentials hasn't changed much since the 18th. The franchise has got bigger and the Lords has been tinkered with, but any parliamentarian of from the mid-18th century onwards would instantly recognise, and probably feel at home in today's parliament.
Now, as a general rule I am all in favour of slow evolution of institutions and it is a practice that has served the UK well over the centuries. However, since WWII so fast has the pace of change in society been and so much more involved in day to day life is government expected to be that our present constitutional arrangements are now obsolete and unfit for purpose. Changing how members of the Commons are elected will, to use the cliche, be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
A new constitutional settlement is required. Personally I'd like to see something more like the French or US system with a directly elected head of government who can appoint anyone he/she wants to the executive and the job of the Commons would be to hold them to account. I'd also like to see far, far more devolution (in England I think this should be down to the County /City level, the Welsh and Northern Irish can come up with their own model) and with, as Mr. Charles suggests, a clear distinction between centrally mandated and centrally funded programmes and local ones that would be funded from local taxes. Whatever idea is settled upon it will change the role of the Commons, once that is done, and only once that is done, then it will be time to talk about voting systems.
Cameron should go into the 2015 Ge election not with a move to PR in his manifesto. He should go in with a promise (dare I say cast-iron guarantee) to set up a constitutional convention to propose a system of government fit for the 21st century.
Mr. Carnyx, that may well have been me, although my prediction those numbers would dramatically change has been proven correct.