Your regular reminder national vote share doesn’t always matter under FPTP – politicalbetting.com

System

Your regular reminder national vote share doesn’t always matter under FPTP – politicalbetting.com

I mention this because I was speaking with a Liberal Democrat about the dog that hasn’t barked, the Lib Dems not surging in the polls given the implosion of both the traditional big two parties, but several pollsters have the Lib Dems in fifth place but 2024 showed that is irrelevant with good targeting.

Read the full story here

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Possible... but perhaps not probable.

Battlebus

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

TheScreamingEagles

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

I set them up....

gettingbetter

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

MarqueeMark

Seeing Reform with three times the number of MPs of the LibDems - is FPTP really that bad?

Barnesian

The LDs are highly visible at 50%+ share in about 80 -100 seats and invisible with very low share in 500÷ seats.
This makes the LD national share meaningless.

AnneJGP

I take it the green bar isn't Green Party, or they'd have been mentioned. I don't see green on the key.

Ratters

Reform are close to the tipping point at which they win lots of seats. A majority or as good as one.

The trouble with being near the tipping point is there's still plenty of scope to fall short. Winning the popular at 27% will be very different to winning the popular vote at 32%. And it will also depend on how far back Labour/Tories are, or whether the smaller parties have lots of inefficient (wasted) votes.

On the second point, the lack of Lib Dem surge is probably a good thing for the anti-Reform vote. They will still win 70-odd seats and have limited scope to win more, so fewer wasted votes.

The Greens are surging but still well below their own tipping point or the geographical concentration of the Lib Dems. My guess is Labour replaces Starmer with someone more popular on the left pre-election and the Green vote falls back, at least in existing Labour seats being defended where Greens are nowhere today.

The Tories, meanwhile, may find more of their natural supporters returning home as memories of their last stint in office fade. Think of it as their radioactive legacy having a half life. The more time passes, the less of it remains.

My guess is Reform falls short of the tipping point.

AnneJGP

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Morris_Dancer

Communist dictatorship locks up British man who prefers democracy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp844kjj37vo

Morris_Dancer

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

ydoethur

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Dog shooters are now barred from the Liberal Democrats. Instead, they become senior figures in the Trump administration and lie to Congress.

Of course, they still get off Scott free.

Stuartinromford

Barnesian said:

The LDs are highly visible at 50%+ share in about 80 -100 seats and invisible with very low share in 500÷ seats.
This makes the LD national share meaningless.

On one hand, those 80-100 seats in the Waitrose belt make it very hard for the Conservatives to assemble a winning map.

On the other hand, it's still only 100 seats, and it's much harder to see what the next 100 seats even look like.

Roger

Makes sense. Voters applying their own tactical voting as I expect them to do next time.

Talking of which an unusually insightful piece by Owen Jones with a nice clip of Zack P who I would love to vote for if it didn't lead to Farage or Badenoch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOK-KcvFu5Q

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Communist dictatorship locks up British man who prefers democracy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp844kjj37vo

He was giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies.

Every Chinese apparatchik in Hong Kong should have soiled themselves at those words.

Stuartinromford

ydoethur said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Dog shooters are now barred from the Liberal Democrats. Instead, they become senior figures in the Trump administration and lie to Congress.

Of course, they still get off Scott free.

Unfortunately, that's now the Norm in America.

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

noneoftheabove

Stuartinromford said:

Barnesian said:

The LDs are highly visible at 50%+ share in about 80 -100 seats and invisible with very low share in 500÷ seats.
This makes the LD national share meaningless.

On one hand, those 80-100 seats in the Waitrose belt make it very hard for the Conservatives to assemble a winning map.

On the other hand, it's still only 100 seats, and it's much harder to see what the next 100 seats even look like.

Cities are a possibility if the Labour vote fractures and YP gets off the ground to compete with the Greens on the left.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Dog shooters are now barred from the Liberal Democrats. Instead, they become senior figures in the Trump administration and lie to Congress.

Of course, they still get off Scott free.

Unfortunately, that's now the Norm in America.

She is incapable of carrying out a simple illegal deportation without cocking the whole thing up.

HYUFD

Even if Reform do get the 30% of the vote polls are suggesting they will that does not mean they will win a majority of seats if there is tactical voting against them.

The LDs will likely retain their seats though as in the seats they hold as local by elections show their vote is holding up to beat the Tories or Reform even if the LD voteshare is on some polls even lower than 2024

HYUFD

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Reform and Advance?

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

2019 too given how Johnson changed the voting system for mayoral votes.

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Dog shooters are now barred from the Liberal Democrats. Instead, they become senior figures in the Trump administration and lie to Congress.

Of course, they still get off Scott free.

I Dred to think of what they will get up to next

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

stodge

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

StillWaters

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

ydoethur

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

ydoethur

Meanwhile, England have decided that Bashir, whom they have backed as the wildcard in Australia given his action, is not going to play at the ground in Australia that traditionally responds well to spin.

Mr Dancer, can you fire up the space cannon? Mr Key needs a passage.

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

TheScreamingEagles

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

ydoethur

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

Sorry, but that wasn't the case before 1867. There were several ways of doing it, usually but not always by selecting the top two.

Also I could have added 1872 which introduced the secret ballot, which certainly did change the fundamentals of the system.

stodge

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

I suppose that's true - it shouldn't be.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Did that make you a happy camper?

eek

An interesting Reform Councillor post from Staffordshire - he's put some figures on the most expensive SEN children and transport looks to be stupidly expensive..

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122147192180920582&set=a.122099721578920582

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

ydoethur

eek said:

An interesting Reform Councillor post from Staffordshire - he's put some figures on the most expensive SEN children and transport looks to be stupidly expensive..

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122147192180920582&set=a.122099721578920582

An interesting post. He could perhaps have added that they're spending all that money and still in breach of their statutory obligations on the subject.

One reason is the very limited number of specialist schools in Staffordshire (I think there are five, none of them south of Stafford itself) and the refusal of the council to pay for private or home schooling as an alternative. Which means, of course, that the transport costs are going to be exceedingly high to get them where they're told to go.

Northern_Al

ydoethur said:

Meanwhile, England have decided that Bashir, whom they have backed as the wildcard in Australia given his action, is not going to play at the ground in Australia that traditionally responds well to spin.

Mr Dancer, can you fire up the space cannon? Mr Key needs a passage.

Playing Tongue isn't the way to lick the Aussies.

bondegezou

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s been done before to some degree. Was the 1948 Representation of the People Act foreshadowed in Labour’s 1945 manifesto?

AnneJGP

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

Yes, but when none of the parties involved would have been elected directly into power, it might not seem so very alarming and more a pragmatic way forward.

bondegezou

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Why not?

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Did that make you a happy camper?

It did.

My most memorable stint as guest editor was when in the space of 48 hours the report into Boris Johnson was published, he resigned as an MP, three other Tory MPs followed suit, and then KABOOM, Nicola Sturgeon was arrested.

DougSeal

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

bondegezou

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Is there a memorial to mark the Exmoor layby?

I'd be mildly surprised if Auberon Waugh didn't have one set up.

Battlebus

eek said:

An interesting Reform Councillor post from Staffordshire - he's put some figures on the most expensive SEN children and transport looks to be stupidly expensive..

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122147192180920582&set=a.122099721578920582

It's a 'fixed price' contract, if you know what I mean.

TheScreamingEagles

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

Some days I cannot tell the difference between Justice Cantley’s summation and Peter Cook’s summation.

Carnyx

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

boulay

A fun read below for a Monday morning about Tom Baker.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

Some days I cannot tell the difference between Justice Cantley’s summation and Peter Cook’s summation.

Just been reading the rather edit: interesting account here - good to have a distant perspective as well as memories of reading Bron Waugh in the Eyes of the time.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Number-One-Defined-Britain/dp/1473651611

AnneJGP

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

I would very firmly disapprove of any system that could not elect the person who was everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice.

Morris_Dancer

AnneJGP said:

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

I would very firmly disapprove of any system that could not elect the person who was everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice.

That's an interesting perspective. It suggests that the negative view of someone should also have electoral weight.

Benpointer

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

We should do a PB top 10 political scandals. I guess we'd have to limit to post WW2 and UK only?

Here's my attempt:

1. Profumo (I would say that wouldn't I)
2. The Jeremy Thorpe Affair
3. Partygate
4. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (2009)
5. Cash for Questions
6. Currygate (No not the Covid one - I mean John Major and Edwina Curry, of course - the most unlikely scandal ever.)
7 John Stonehouse
8. SNP camper van
9. The Windrush Scandal
10. Greensill Capital and David Cameron Lobbying (added especially for TSE)

I exclude the Post Office Horizon scandal, utterly shocking though it was, because no politicians really got fingered for it.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

In Wales, Labour have just introduced not merely a new voting system but one that's entirely different from the system they had previously promised. (And much worse.)

Fairliered

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Is there a memorial to mark the Exmoor layby?

I'd be mildly surprised if Auberon Waugh didn't have one set up.

Is that the layby where Sturgeon parked her campervan?

MarqueeMark

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

We should do a PB top 10 political scandals. I guess we'd have to limit to post WW2 and UK only?

Here's my attempt:

1. Profumo (I would say that wouldn't I)
2. The Jeremy Thorpe Affair
3. Partygate
4. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (2009)
5. Cash for Questions
6. Currygate (No not the Covid one - I mean John Major and Edwina Curry, of course - the most unlikely scandal ever.)
7 John Stonehouse
8. SNP camper van
9. The Windrush Scandal
10. Greensill Capital and David Cameron Lobbying (added especially for TSE)

I exclude the Post Office Horizon scandal, utterly shocking though it was, because no politicians really got fingered for it.

Wot - no T Dan Smith-Poulson-Reginal Maudling?

ydoethur

AnneJGP said:

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

I would very firmly disapprove of any system that could not elect the person who was everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice.

Richard III nods in fervent agreement with you.

(Although ironically he wasn't exactly first choice either, but he was so remarkably unselfaware I'm sure that never crossed his mind.)

bondegezou

A third of the UK population already have regular elections under something other than FPTP (London, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Until very recently, everyone had regular elections under something other than FPTP because police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections were under SV, until the Tories changed that to FPTP (which Labour are now changing back, but they’re also getting rid of the PCCs).

Omnium

@BlancheLivermore

Last night I said I'd get back to you about your assertion that all integer sided right-angled triangles contain a (maximal) circle that is of integer radius. You are of course correct - quite easy to see too. (I was very much the worse for wear last night)

Benpointer

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

Some days I cannot tell the difference between Justice Cantley’s summation and Peter Cook’s summation.

Just been reading the rather edit: interesting account here - good to have a distant perspective as well as memories of reading Bron Waugh in the Eyes of the time.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Number-One-Defined-Britain/dp/1473651611

Looks like an fascinating book. I asked Gemini for a list of the tials it covered and the 1960 Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial does not appear to be included which seems odd given the "Trials that Defined Modern Britain" tag line the book has.

Or is Gemini telling a porky?

tlg86

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

First past the post is the least worst system. Labour are having their chance (and messing it up). Someone else may well get their chance next time. That doesn't happen with PR.

bondegezou

Omnium said:

@BlancheLivermore

Last night I said I'd get back to you about your assertion that all integer sided right-angled triangles contain a (maximal) circle that is of integer radius. You are of course correct - quite easy to see too. (I was very much the worse for wear last night)

This is why I like PB. We’re not scared of tackling the big issues.

Benpointer

MarqueeMark said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

We should do a PB top 10 political scandals. I guess we'd have to limit to post WW2 and UK only?

Here's my attempt:

1. Profumo (I would say that wouldn't I)
2. The Jeremy Thorpe Affair
3. Partygate
4. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (2009)
5. Cash for Questions
6. Currygate (No not the Covid one - I mean John Major and Edwina Curry, of course - the most unlikely scandal ever.)
7 John Stonehouse
8. SNP camper van
9. The Windrush Scandal
10. Greensill Capital and David Cameron Lobbying (added especially for TSE)

I exclude the Post Office Horizon scandal, utterly shocking though it was, because no politicians really got fingered for it.

Wot - no T Dan Smith-Poulson-Reginal Maudling?

Fair challenge - I overlooked that one.

Fairliered

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

In Wales, Labour have just introduced not merely a new voting system but one that's entirely different from the system they had previously promised. (And much worse.)

The new system in Wales ironically may boost Reform and enable it to pip Plaid for first as it removes the constituency vote and is just effectively pure PR, so there won't be any tactical voting against Reform.

Though a Plaid and Labour government is almost certain to be the end result anyway

Daveyboy1961

AnneJGP said:

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

I would very firmly disapprove of any system that could not elect the person who was everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice.

So would I, but none of the PR systems are like that. Even AV ranks the candidates in terms of their first votes. If a candidate had no first votes they would be at the bottom!

Roger

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

We should do a PB top 10 political scandals. I guess we'd have to limit to post WW2 and UK only?

Here's my attempt:

1. Profumo (I would say that wouldn't I)
2. The Jeremy Thorpe Affair
3. Partygate
4. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (2009)
5. Cash for Questions
6. Currygate (No not the Covid one - I mean John Major and Edwina Curry, of course - the most unlikely scandal ever.)
7 John Stonehouse
8. SNP camper van
9. The Windrush Scandal
10. Greensill Capital and David Cameron Lobbying (added especially for TSE)

I exclude the Post Office Horizon scandal, utterly shocking though it was, because no politicians really got fingered for it.

Iraq. Suicide of David Kelly. Johnathan Aitkin's Sword of Truth

Peter_the_Punter

@Ratters

'The Tories, meanwhile, may find more of their natural supporters returning home as memories of their last stint in office fade. Think of it as their radioactive legacy having a half life. The more time passes, the less of it remains.'

That's quite a good way of putting it.

Their fourteen years was a pretty mixed bag. If you took out the Johnson/Truss period, it wasn't too bad. As you indicate, the memory should fade with time. I

It's not my team, but if it were I'd stick with Badenoch and keep Jenrick on the subs bench.

Sunil_Prasannan

For @TheScreamingEagles

Dave Cameron just "loves" AV (words of wisdom from 2011):

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13039687.amp

He said: "It's a system - AV - so undemocratic that you can vote for a mainstream party just once, whereas someone can vote for a fringe party like the BNP and it's counted three times...

"It's so unfair that the candidates who come second or third can end up winning."

Mr Cameron likened an election to the Grand National horse race, saying that changing the voting system would not guarantee a clear winner.

He said AV was "not good enough for Aintree and it's not good enough for politics".

AV was only used in Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, the prime minister said, whereas "our system is used by half the world".

Mr Cameron closed his speech by quoting former Prime Minister Sir Winston, calling AV "the system where the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates".

Carnyx

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

More specifically to stop any one party (read: SNP) ever winning a majority. Which Mr Salmond disproved albeit after a decade.

Carnyx

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

Some days I cannot tell the difference between Justice Cantley’s summation and Peter Cook’s summation.

Just been reading the rather edit: interesting account here - good to have a distant perspective as well as memories of reading Bron Waugh in the Eyes of the time.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Number-One-Defined-Britain/dp/1473651611

Looks like an fascinating book. I asked Gemini for a list of the tials it covered and the 1960 Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial does not appear to be included which seems odd given the "Trials that Defined Modern Britain" tag line the book has.

Or is Gemini telling a porky?

No: the criterion is Court Number One. There are other courts within the Old Bailey.

another_richard

I see that the Chilean leftists have exceeded even the idiocy of the US Dems by choosing an actual communist as their presidential candidate.

And lost badly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Chilean_general_election

Roger

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Ratters

'The Tories, meanwhile, may find more of their natural supporters returning home as memories of their last stint in office fade. Think of it as their radioactive legacy having a half life. The more time passes, the less of it remains.'

That's quite a good way of putting it.

Their fourteen years was a pretty mixed bag. If you took out the Johnson/Truss period, it wasn't too bad. As you indicate, the memory should fade with time. I

It's not my team, but if it were I'd stick with Badenoch and keep Jenrick on the subs bench.

It's not my team either so so would I!

Carnyx

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Ratters

'The Tories, meanwhile, may find more of their natural supporters returning home as memories of their last stint in office fade. Think of it as their radioactive legacy having a half life. The more time passes, the less of it remains.'

That's quite a good way of putting it.

Their fourteen years was a pretty mixed bag. If you took out the Johnson/Truss period, it wasn't too bad. As you indicate, the memory should fade with time. I

It's not my team, but if it were I'd stick with Badenoch and keep Jenrick on the subs bench.

Especially as exponential maths has unhappy connotations for the Party in Government ...

bondegezou

Daveyboy1961 said:

AnneJGP said:

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

1969
1918
1885
1867

The precedent is well and truly set.

Franchise extension isn’t the same as altering the system.

Those all included significant changes to the way that voting happened including the abolition of several seats with multiple MPs. (I could have added 1948 from that point of view as well.)

Not the fundamentals of the system

MPs represent a geographic community (with the partial exception of the former university seats). The person with the most votes is selected as the representative of that community for a period of time.

Everything else is detail.

So switching to AV would be fine. That preserves MPs representing a geographic community, with the person with most votes selected.

I would very firmly disapprove of any system that could not elect the person who was everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice.

So would I, but none of the PR systems are like that. Even AV ranks the candidates in terms of their first votes. If a candidate had no first votes they would be at the bottom!

Condorcet delivers what Anne wants… although it has other problems.

algarkirk

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

I doubt if it's true that we can't go on using FPTP. We are capable of continuing with anachronisms indefinitely. The greatest difficulties are these. Firstly those with power to change it have, obviously, just gained from FPTP because they form the government. We can note also that the LDs are not shouting loudly about the 2024 unfairness to Reform.

Secondly, this is like the monarchy/House of Lords etc. It may be anachronistic, but with what do you replace it?

My own tentative view is that very limited AV is the best. In GEs you can, if you wish, name a second choice which counts as a whole vote from when your first choice is eliminated.

bondegezou

Sunil_Prasannan said:

For @TheScreamingEagles

Dave Cameron just "loves" AV (words of wisdom from 2011):

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13039687.amp

He said: "It's a system - AV - so undemocratic that you can vote for a mainstream party just once, whereas someone can vote for a fringe party like the BNP and it's counted three times...

"It's so unfair that the candidates who come second or third can end up winning."

Mr Cameron likened an election to the Grand National horse race, saying that changing the voting system would not guarantee a clear winner.

He said AV was "not good enough for Aintree and it's not good enough for politics".

AV was only used in Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, the prime minister said, whereas "our system is used by half the world".

Mr Cameron closed his speech by quoting former Prime Minister Sir Winston, calling AV "the system where the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates".

David Cameron was picked as Tory leader by a system rather similar to AV.

bondegezou

algarkirk said:

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

I doubt if it's true that we can't go on using FPTP. We are capable of continuing with anachronisms indefinitely. The greatest difficulties are these. Firstly those with power to change it have, obviously, just gained from FPTP because they form the government. We can note also that the LDs are not shouting loudly about the 2024 unfairness to Reform.

Secondly, this is like the monarchy/House of Lords etc. It may be anachronistic, but with what do you replace it?

My own tentative view is that very limited AV is the best. In GEs you can, if you wish, name a second choice which counts as a whole vote from when your first choice is eliminated.

So, Supplementary Vote, as used in mayoral/PCC elections until recently.

Carnyx

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Is there a memorial to mark the Exmoor layby?

I'd be mildly surprised if Auberon Waugh didn't have one set up.

Is that the layby where Sturgeon parked her campervan?

Be surprised if she did, anywhere, never mind anywhere near Porlock Weir - she doesn't drive ISTR.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

In Wales, Labour have just introduced not merely a new voting system but one that's entirely different from the system they had previously promised. (And much worse.)

The new system in Wales ironically may boost Reform and enable it to pip Plaid for first as it removes the constituency vote and is just effectively pure PR, so there won't be any tactical voting against Reform.

Though a Plaid and Labour government is almost certain to be the end result anyway

Was it LLafur in Wales, or Labour in UKG, that changed the system? I ask as IIRC the Holyrood voting system is not devolved from London (but memory is shaky here).

Theuniondivvie

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

If Holyrood had been set up with FPTP would Scotland now be independent?
(of course on the dubious premise of Westminster paying any attention to repeated SNP majorities)

Roger

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

There were much ruder ones than that!

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

Is there a memorial to mark the Exmoor layby?

I'd be mildly surprised if Auberon Waugh didn't have one set up.

Is that the layby where Sturgeon parked her campervan?

Be surprised if she did, anywhere, never mind anywhere near Porlock Weir - she doesn't drive ISTR.

Driving without a licence, lockerup!

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

If Holyrood had been set up with FPTP would Scotland now be independent?
(of course on the dubious premise of Westminster paying any attention to repeated SNP majorities)

Time no doubt for the periodic reminder that Mrs T acknowledged that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scotland - never mind Holyrood - was sufficient to cede independence. (Not that she thought it likely to happen: she might not have been so willing to admit it, otherwise).

DecrepiterJohnL

Benpointer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

We should do a PB top 10 political scandals. I guess we'd have to limit to post WW2 and UK only?

Here's my attempt:

1. Profumo (I would say that wouldn't I)
2. The Jeremy Thorpe Affair
3. Partygate
4. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal (2009)
5. Cash for Questions
6. Currygate (No not the Covid one - I mean John Major and Edwina Curry, of course - the most unlikely scandal ever.)
7 John Stonehouse
8. SNP camper van
9. The Windrush Scandal
10. Greensill Capital and David Cameron Lobbying (added especially for TSE)

I exclude the Post Office Horizon scandal, utterly shocking though it was, because no politicians really got fingered for it.

Wot - no T Dan Smith-Poulson-Reginal Maudling?

Fair challenge - I overlooked that one.

Major/Currie was only revealed after both had left office. It was hardly a scandal. That would leave room for Poulson.

Also the various spy revelations. Although there were so many, like Burgess & Mclean; Philby, the third man, who defected after being cleared by the Prime Minister; assorted others like Blake, Vassal and the Portland spy ring – it is likely they collectively played a part in ending 50s-60s Conservative rule. Then their reprise in the 1980s embarrassed the Thatcher government, with Blunt unmasked as the fourth man, and official lies and lying officials in the Spycatcher affair.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

If Holyrood had been set up with FPTP would Scotland now be independent?
(of course on the dubious premise of Westminster paying any attention to repeated SNP majorities)

Time no doubt for the periodic reminder that Mrs T acknowledged that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scotland - never mind Holyrood - was sufficient to cede independence. (Not that she thought it likely to happen: she might not have been so willing to admit it, otherwise).

Mrs T also never held a referendum on any subject as PM.

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

Fairliered said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

A system of gerrymandering set up to keep Labour in power permanently, with the help of the Lib Dems, which was successful until Labour were so useless that they were deservedly kicked out.

If Holyrood had been set up with FPTP would Scotland now be independent?
(of course on the dubious premise of Westminster paying any attention to repeated SNP majorities)

No, for as the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster alone has the final say on the Union, not Holyrood

NickPalmer

tlg86 said:

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

First past the post is the least worst system. Labour are having their chance (and messing it up). Someone else may well get their chance next time. That doesn't happen with PR.

Pure d'Hondt is used in Denmark (with a 2% cutoff) and IMHO works quite well. You get alliances of left/centre-left and right/centre-right, with one or two centrist parties uncommitted, and can vote not only for a left/right choice but a rather precise variant - perhaps a little more free market plus a little more social caring (Radical Liberals) or a more regulated market without massive state ownership (socialist people's party). I remember rather diffidently (as a foreigner) endorsing the latter in conversation with a traditional conservative - he was shocked at my apologetic tone, and said that was a perfectly reasonable choice, just not his. The system rewards clarity but also willingness to comprimse, whereas FPTP does exactly the opposite.

d'Hondt would be a mess where no firm(ish) alliances form, so every election produces a messy result and months of negotiations. Ultimately you can't really solve political problems (lack of clarity of alternative options) by tweaking the system. But FPTP has clearly had its day in Britain, as one more election with the winner under 30% will demonstate.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

Holyrood - voting system set up by Lab and LDs, in a very, erm, *specific* way that I don't recall (admittedly it was a long time ago) being put in any manifesto.

Edit: No specific mandate, except in suchlike as voting at Holyrood was seen as legitimising it, as it was agreed at and implemented by Westminster.

In Wales, Labour have just introduced not merely a new voting system but one that's entirely different from the system they had previously promised. (And much worse.)

The new system in Wales ironically may boost Reform and enable it to pip Plaid for first as it removes the constituency vote and is just effectively pure PR, so there won't be any tactical voting against Reform.

Though a Plaid and Labour government is almost certain to be the end result anyway

Was it LLafur in Wales, or Labour in UKG, that changed the system? I ask as IIRC the Holyrood voting system is not devolved from London (but memory is shaky here).

Llafur

HYUFD

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Ratters

'The Tories, meanwhile, may find more of their natural supporters returning home as memories of their last stint in office fade. Think of it as their radioactive legacy having a half life. The more time passes, the less of it remains.'

That's quite a good way of putting it.

Their fourteen years was a pretty mixed bag. If you took out the Johnson/Truss period, it wasn't too bad. As you indicate, the memory should fade with time. I

It's not my team, but if it were I'd stick with Badenoch and keep Jenrick on the subs bench.

Jenrick is biding his time. If Badenoch stays then if Reform overtake the Tories on seats at the next GE he will likely join Farage, maybe even in government if Farage has become PM. If Reform don't overtake the Tories he will aim to be Tory leader after the next GE assuming a Tory defeat and reunite the populist right in a post Farage era, Farage likely by then having resigned as Reform leader

MattW

DougSeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

AnneJGP said:

Perhaps if Reform does achieve a majority and then falls apart, the resulting sort-of coalition government will change the voting system and then call a fresh election.

Altering the voting system without a mandate is a rather alarming precedent to set.

It’s already been set.

The Cons changed the voting system foir Mayors to FPTP under Boris (?). Did they have a mandate for that?

I can see that a change to AV now that we are in a multiparty environment would be worthwhile, but honestly I think that the current Govt are just too timid to do that; they are frightened little mice.

(Good morning all.)

That would not address my main current concern, which is the possibility absentee or highly partisan MPs not representing all their constituents. TBF to Agent Anderson, I do not have hard proof of that as I have not tested it to destruction yet.

DecrepiterJohnL

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

StillWaters said:

stodge said:

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

Oh dear, 50 years on and the old jokes are still getting an airing.

I never understand why the Conservatives are so hostile to Ed Milliband's Net Zero policy. After all, they tried it in the mid 1970s.

The aim was to reduce our dependence on imported oil and coal and what a success - between fuel rationing and power cuts, we cut our use of oil and coal substantially.

Unfortunately, as per usual, the Conservatives didn't have the courage to see the policy through but it was a good try and especially courageous to bring it in during winter.

There are some actions that are so iconic that they leash you for ever. Like student fees

It’s my second favourite scandal after the SNP motor home scandal.

It’s a black comedy that would be rejected as too far-fetched, if a scriptwriter submitted it.

Some days I cannot tell the difference between Justice Cantley’s summation and Peter Cook’s summation.

Just been reading the rather edit: interesting account here - good to have a distant perspective as well as memories of reading Bron Waugh in the Eyes of the time.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Court-Number-One-Defined-Britain/dp/1473651611

Looks like an fascinating book. I asked Gemini for a list of the tials it covered and the 1960 Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial does not appear to be included which seems odd given the "Trials that Defined Modern Britain" tag line the book has.

Or is Gemini telling a porky?

No: the criterion is Court Number One. There are other courts within the Old Bailey.

Lady Chatterley was tried in Number 1 court, so is a shocking omission given it did lead to the permissive society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) –
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP

MattW

ydoethur said:

eek said:

An interesting Reform Councillor post from Staffordshire - he's put some figures on the most expensive SEN children and transport looks to be stupidly expensive..

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122147192180920582&set=a.122099721578920582

An interesting post. He could perhaps have added that they're spending all that money and still in breach of their statutory obligations on the subject.

One reason is the very limited number of specialist schools in Staffordshire (I think there are five, none of them south of Stafford itself) and the refusal of the council to pay for private or home schooling as an alternative. Which means, of course, that the transport costs are going to be exceedingly high to get them where they're told to go.

Is five a smaller number?

Do we have copmparators?

Taz

Battlebus said:

The LD dog didn't bark because someone shot it

RIP Rinka 😢

Roger

OT. For the last three nights there has been a black guy aged about 25 sleeping on a bench in a square outside my house here in Villefranche. It's quite cold at night and I've been feeling progressively worse about sleeping in a comfortable bed while he's sleeping out in the open with just a coat on. It's very unusual to see anyone sleeping rough here and he's not begging. Infact he seems to be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. So my choices were .....

1. Invite him in and give him a bed. (The Mother Theresa solution)
2. Give him some money so he could eat. (The good Socialist solution)
3. Call the Gendarmes and get him removed (The Max PB solution)

tlg86

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

First past the post is the least worst system. Labour are having their chance (and messing it up). Someone else may well get their chance next time. That doesn't happen with PR.

Pure d'Hondt is used in Denmark (with a 2% cutoff) and IMHO works quite well. You get alliances of left/centre-left and right/centre-right, with one or two centrist parties uncommitted, and can vote not only for a left/right choice but a rather precise variant - perhaps a little more free market plus a little more social caring (Radical Liberals) or a more regulated market without massive state ownership (socialist people's party). I remember rather diffidently (as a foreigner) endorsing the latter in conversation with a traditional conservative - he was shocked at my apologetic tone, and said that was a perfectly reasonable choice, just not his. The system rewards clarity but also willingness to comprimse, whereas FPTP does exactly the opposite.

d'Hondt would be a mess where no firm(ish) alliances form, so every election produces a messy result and months of negotiations. Ultimately you can't really solve political problems (lack of clarity of alternative options) by tweaking the system. But FPTP has clearly had its day in Britain, as one more election with the winner under 30% will demonstate.

The compromises with first past the post happen before the election.

Sandpit

It's Monday. You might hate your job. But at least you're not a Russian general about to tell Putin that you lost the city you've claimed to have captured 4 times.

https://x.com/darthputinkgb/status/2000498186339934464

DecrepiterJohnL

Roger said:

OT. For the last three nights there has been a black guy aged about 25 sleeping on a bench in a square outside my house here in Villefranche. It's quite cold at night and I've been feeling progressively worse about sleeping in a comfortable bed while he's sleeping out in the open with just a coat on. It's very unusual to see anyone sleeping rough here and he's not begging. Infact he seems to be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. So my choices were .....

1. Invite him in and give him a bed. (The Mother Theresa solution)
2. Give him some money so he could eat. (The good Socialist solution)
3. Call the Gendarmes and get him removed (The Max PB solution)

Give money to a local homelessness charity along with this chap's particulars. (The classic embarrassed liberal solution.)

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

NickPalmer said:

tlg86 said:

gettingbetter said:

Now we don't have a 2 party system any more, we can't go on using FPTP. Or does anyone think we are going back to a 2 party system,? Or that FPTP is a good system with lots of parties? The knocking on the door is STV.

First past the post is the least worst system. Labour are having their chance (and messing it up). Someone else may well get their chance next time. That doesn't happen with PR.

Pure d'Hondt is used in Denmark (with a 2% cutoff) and IMHO works quite well. You get alliances of left/centre-left and right/centre-right, with one or two centrist parties uncommitted, and can vote not only for a left/right choice but a rather precise variant - perhaps a little more free market plus a little more social caring (Radical Liberals) or a more regulated market without massive state ownership (socialist people's party). I remember rather diffidently (as a foreigner) endorsing the latter in conversation with a traditional conservative - he was shocked at my apologetic tone, and said that was a perfectly reasonable choice, just not his. The system rewards clarity but also willingness to comprimse, whereas FPTP does exactly the opposite.

d'Hondt would be a mess where no firm(ish) alliances form, so every election produces a messy result and months of negotiations. Ultimately you can't really solve political problems (lack of clarity of alternative options) by tweaking the system. But FPTP has clearly had its day in Britain, as one more election with the winner under 30% will demonstate.

The compromises with first past the post happen before the election.

Which is infinitely better than the compromises happening after the election. Isn’t that true Mr Clegg?

bondegezou

Roger said:

OT. For the last three nights there has been a black guy aged about 25 sleeping on a bench in a square outside my house here in Villefranche. It's quite cold at night and I've been feeling progressively worse about sleeping in a comfortable bed while he's sleeping out in the open with just a coat on. It's very unusual to see anyone sleeping rough here and he's not begging. Infact he seems to be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. So my choices were .....

1. Invite him in and give him a bed. (The Mother Theresa solution)
2. Give him some money so he could eat. (The good Socialist solution)
3. Call the Gendarmes and get him removed (The Max PB solution)

The Mother Theresa solution would be to baptise him and then let him die in the cold.

Battlebus

Roger said:

OT. For the last three nights there has been a black guy aged about 25 sleeping on a bench in a square outside my house here in Villefranche. It's quite cold at night and I've been feeling progressively worse about sleeping in a comfortable bed while he's sleeping out in the open with just a coat on. It's very unusual to see anyone sleeping rough here and he's not begging. Infact he seems to be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. So my choices were .....

1. Invite him in and give him a bed. (The Mother Theresa solution)
2. Give him some money so he could eat (The good Socialist solution)
3. Call the Gendarmes and get him removed (The Max PB solution)

What are the local ordinances about rough sleeping? You might want to check what the gendarmerie will do before you get involved. In some parts of Spain, they'll find a space in a church or hall for you if you are having to sleep out.

As an aside, was on a group tour in Central America with a lot of North Americans. They introduced the subject of rough sleeping and what a problem it was. When I told them about the Homelessness Reduction Act and the obligation to house people you could see the wheels go round and them mentally saying WTF with these communists.