That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
Except of course once in power, even with a workable majority, the PM can simply decide, for good reasons or otherwise, to dump a manifesto commitment or, come to that, the party can decide to dump the PM and go off in another direction. So voters don't really know what they are voting for even with the current system.
That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
Except of course once in power, even with a workable majority, the PM can simply decide, for good reasons or otherwise, to dump a manifesto commitment or, come to that, the party can decide to dump the PM and go off in another direction. So voters don't really know what they are voting for even with the current system.
A Directly Elected Dictator would solve this problem.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
I think you're the naive one.
Under the present system, consider:-
i) How many people vote for a party despite what's in their manifesto?
ii) How many parties abandon manifesto 'commitments'?
iii) How many parties enact legislation which never got within a 100 miles of a manifesto?
Manifestos are largely a sham, in other words.
The bottom line is, under PR, FTPTP or any other system, voters can still punish parties for perceived duplicity and incompetence during their term of office.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
I think you're the naive one.
Under the present system, consider:-
First consider how many people know what's in the manifesto at all.
Mr Nabavi that is why the much derided concept of ideology is so critical as it can give you a steer to how a person approaches issues. Too few politicians talk about their philosophy, too few even think about it. I often disagree with Carswell and Hannan but at least on any issue you can give a decent stab as to their approach and how they'll come down, far too many politicians are a bit too scatter gun.
The most absurd bit about our current system of governance is that hardly any parliamentary candidates spell out their views on any important issue before the election. Go and look at your MP's website and see how many of them list their general views on anything controversial on education, healthcare and defence versus generic platitudes and stuff about pot holes.
Indeed, I don't believe it is necessary or desirable to have a preformed view on everything but a guiding approach to issues isn't difficult. Plus I really don't care what MPs think about potholes or the like. I do care what they think about the broad sweep. Too many parliamentarians behave like superannuated social workers, too many are treated like elected short circuits to the system. I'm none too keen on the system of surgeries either, politics isn't an agony aunt service.
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
That you failed to mention that ultimate sign of British identity, the cup of tea, is unforgivable.
".... stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab..."
But you don't drink! Eating a kebab sober .......eeeeerch. How can you?
P.S. Quite right about insulting the Frogs. Dunno about the Aussies, though, that might be some Yorkshire thing.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
Under the current system we have the ability of parties to completely ignore their manifestos if they so choose and still whip their MPs to do as they are told. Remember Labour ended up in court arguing that their manifesto was not in any way binding - and they won the point.
At least in a system where we elect individual representatives with the power of recall if they do not abide by their promises - at least by voting for what they said they would even if they lose the Parliamentary vote - then you have the electorate knowing they have someone representing their wishes.
Under the current system the only thing most MPs are representing is the party line and their own political careers irrespective of what their constituents want.
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
That you failed to mention that ultimate sign of British identity, the cup of tea, is unforgivable.
".... stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab..."
But you don't drink! Eating a kebab sober .......eeeeerch. How can you?
That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
Except of course once in power, even with a workable majority, the PM can simply decide, for good reasons or otherwise, to dump a manifesto commitment or, come to that, the party can decide to dump the PM and go off in another direction. So voters don't really know what they are voting for even with the current system.
A Directly Elected Dictator would solve this problem.
So would returning to a proper monarchy, something on the Elizabeth I lines, which would be my prefered choice.
P.S. Just realised I replied to a Coporeal post about Kebabs and British Values when I meant to reply to you. Apologies to both of you.
I was taking an overall view of an electoral system as a way of electing a government. Does it make a difference if someone you don't like is elected on a list or in a safe seat?
How is someone elected under an open list or STV system more of a party hack than an A-lister parachuted in to a safe seat?
Surprising then that when polled how many of them list some form of coalition as their preferred outcome then.
It makes a difference because any sort of list system implies that instead of being one voice in a hundred thousand directly electing someone who is theoretically responsible for representing myself and my fellow constituents and our interests we are now each one voice in a million electing 8 people to theoretically represent the interests of a much wider area which may well have conflicting interests. It becomes easy for them to pass the buck and try and avoid blame for the crap that falls on us from parliament because there is no direct line of who is representing who. It is representation by committee and we know how good committees are for anything.
As to how many want a coalition last poll I saw suggest about 20% hardly a convincing majority in favour really is it? A lot of that in addition will be down to the fact that the two majorities possible are both so godawful that people go for the lesser of three evils.
Electorally we are trapped between Scylla and Charybdis where there are no longer any good choices merely trying to work out which is going to be the least painful way to go..
And now I have to find a horizontal surface and lie on it as some of us have to be up in 5 hours
That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
Except of course once in power, even with a workable majority, the PM can simply decide, for good reasons or otherwise, to dump a manifesto commitment or, come to that, the party can decide to dump the PM and go off in another direction. So voters don't really know what they are voting for even with the current system.
A Directly Elected Dictator would solve this problem.
So would returning to a proper monarchy, something on the Elizabeth I lines, which would be my prefered choice.
P.S. Just realised I replied to a Coporeal post about Kebabs and British Values when I meant to reply to you. Apologies to both of you.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Not a purpose, a beginning. It's irrelevant how empty the universe is -it exists. You can't explain that, or even come close.
I think you need to be more precise with your usage of words. Existence and purpose are different things.
No, I agree that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe. But the existence of a creator adds nothing to explain this problem. It simply moves the conundrum up a level.
I'm not so sure they are that different. If we know everything about when, we will know why. On that note, night all!
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
That you failed to mention that ultimate sign of British identity, the cup of tea, is unforgivable.
I'm not a tea drinker and considering my ancestors come from the Indian Sub-continent...
I don't drink tea either so don't worry!
And yet... my mum thinks I make the best cup of tea in the world!
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
Manifestos are far more clear cut than they used to be.
This bullet pointing of policies, level of detail etc used to be derided as shopping list politics and has only been around for maybe the last 20 years or so.
Before that you got short philosophic documents with general themes and maybe the odd concrete proposal.
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
Oh I agree. Just saying it rather undermines Richard N's point that a manifesto means voters know what they are voting for. Clearly if the party can just ignore it after the election then that is not the case.
Remember Labour ended up in court arguing that their manifesto was not in any way binding - and they won the point.
That is not quite the position. The case you are referring to is the judgment of the Divisional Court (Richards LJ, MacKay J) in R (on the application of Wheeler) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs[2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin). The court held that the government had not made any promise about holding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty (at [40]). Even supposing such a promise had been made, the court would have still refused the application. As Lord Justice Richards stated (at [41]):
The subject-matter, nature and context of a promise of this kind place it in the realm of politics, not of the courts, and the question whether the government should be held to such a promise is a political rather than a legal matter. In particular, in this case the decision on the holding of a referendum lay with Parliament, and it was for Parliament to decide whether the government should be held to any promise previously made.
The court further held at [44]:
There is authority that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot reasonably extend to the public at large, as opposed to particular individuals or bodies who are directly affected by the executive action under consideration
The court further held that the granting of relief in such proceedings would be contrary to Article IX of the Bill of Rights, and the privileges and immunities of Parliament (see [51]).
The most absurd bit about our current system of governance is that hardly any parliamentary candidates spell out their views on any important issue before the election. Go and look at your MP's website and see how many of them list their general views on anything controversial on education, healthcare and defence versus generic platitudes and stuff about pot holes.
Indeed, I don't believe it is necessary or desirable to have a preformed view on everything but a guiding approach to issues isn't difficult. Plus I really don't care what MPs think about potholes or the like. I do care what they think about the broad sweep. Too many parliamentarians behave like superannuated social workers, too many are treated like elected short circuits to the system. I'm none too keen on the system of surgeries either, politics isn't an agony aunt service.
FWIW my website describes everything I've ever said over the last 10 years on education, health, transport, defence, ID cards, Iraq, Syria, the EU and a myriad of other things, including my Communist past and cases where I've since changed my mind. There's a search facility so people who are especially interested in one subject can explore how my thinking's evolved:
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
Manifestos are far more clear cut than they used to be.
This bullet pointing of policies, level of detail etc used to be derided as shopping list politics and has only been around for maybe the last 20 years or so.
Before that you got short philosophic documents with general themes and maybe the odd concrete proposal.
Very true and I don't think the new style serves us, the voters, any better. Remember Blair's pledge cards and that idiot Prescott saying, "Judge me by whether ....". Just spin and nonsense. If a party put out a side of A4 saying the general direction of where they would like to take us, circumstances permitting, it would do just as well and, probably, have the advantage of being honest.
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
I'm sad/cool enough to be able to rattle off several such by-elections.
How about why the Libs/SDP won Glasgow Hillhead and Bermondsey?
Ok, maybe not Bermondsey, perhaps we shouldn't open that can of hornets.
If you prefer there's the SNP in Hamilton.
Hamilton by-election, 1967 - Result
SNP (Winnie Ewing) 18,397 46.0% (+46.0) Lab 16,598 41.5% (-29.7) Con 4,986 12.5% (-16,3)
SNP gain from Labour on a swing of 37.9
Incidentally, the by-election was caused by the resignation of Tom Fraser. He was the Minister of Transport who introduced the 70 mph speed limit on motorways.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Not a purpose, a beginning. It's irrelevant how empty the universe is -it exists. You can't explain that, or even come close.
I think you need to be more precise with your usage of words. Existence and purpose are different things.
No, I agree that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe. But the existence of a creator adds nothing to explain this problem. It simply moves the conundrum up a level.
I'm not so sure they are that different. If we know everything about when, we will know why. On that note, night all!
So assuming that the 'God' you believe in created the universe, then that still leaves the question why did 'he' bother?
@corporeal I prefer the concept of more philosophical documents than a tick sheet of specifics but I doubt we are going to get away from it any time soon.
@Richard_Tyndall I doubt parties 'just ignore it' but the trouble with the need to be hyper-specific increases hostages to fortune and circumstance. I'd rather a party alive to changes in conditions than one that ploughs on regardless 'because it was in the manifesto'.
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
Mr Nabavi that is why the much derided concept of ideology is so critical as it can give you a steer to how a person approaches issues. Too few politicians talk about their philosophy, too few even think about it. I often disagree with Carswell and Hannan but at least on any issue you can give a decent stab as to their approach and how they'll come down, far too many politicians are a bit too scatter gun.
The most absurd bit about our current system of governance is that hardly any parliamentary candidates spell out their views on any important issue before the election. Go and look at your MP's website and see how many of them list their general views on anything controversial on education, healthcare and defence versus generic platitudes and stuff about pot holes.
Indeed, I don't believe it is necessary or desirable to have a preformed view on everything but a guiding approach to issues isn't difficult. Plus I really don't care what MPs think about potholes or the like. I do care what they think about the broad sweep. Too many parliamentarians behave like superannuated social workers, too many are treated like elected short circuits to the system. I'm none too keen on the system of surgeries either, politics isn't an agony aunt service.
Mr. Jim, I used to have the same opinion as you regarding MPs acting as "glorified social workers" and "agony aunts". Then I had a conversation with Nick Palmer about the sort of people who came to see him at his surgeries and the sort of problems that they brought along. Now I am far less dogmatic on the issue. On balance I think they are a good idea. Politicians have forced themselves into every aspect of our lives so its only right they should be there to help those people whose lives are being screwed up by the bureaucracy.
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 PC +5.3 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus 14.4 ?!? Ouch!
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus14.4 ?!? Ouch!
His figures are misleading. They increased their share of the vote by 0.4% in Oldham,
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I'm not a defender of the sanctity of the manifesto, in fact I tend to think a tick list of specifics wholly undesirable. My defence of FPTP is two fold, firstly I believe in single member constituencies because I've seen at local level the pitfalls of multiple member situations and secondly because I don't think representation should be determined on the blandest person who upsets people the least.
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
It wasn't particularly directed at you, Richard.
I agree about the whipping. An idea invented by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1880s to corral their fissiparous members:- soon adopted, alas, by all other parties....
I have mentioned a pragmatic solution before. Delayed Secret Voting by MPs.
Accountability demands voters know how their MP voted. But a two-week (?) delay before publishing the division list would almost break the power of the Whips, I suggest...
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
And how are you planning on removing the whips power?
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus14.4 ?!? Ouch!
His figures are misleading. They increased their share of the vote by 0.4% in Oldham,
You know I thought you meant Mikes figures were misleading, and much as I would have agreed I felt bad that you were being disloyal
But you werent!
I just wanted to point out the low base that UKIP are coming from. So to say 27.8 is no good, you have to remember that they got 3.6 the previous time, and so on
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
Last month's election result in India produced a whopping majority for the BJP, even excluding its electoral allies....
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
It wasn't particularly directed at you, Richard.
I agree about the whipping. An idea invented by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1880s to corral their fissiparous members:- soon adopted, alas, by all other parties....
I have mentioned a pragmatic solution before. Delayed Secret Voting by MPs.
Accountability demands voters know how their MP voted. But a two-week (?) delay before publishing the division list would almost break the power of the Whips, I suggest...
Why would it do that? (Also whipping in effect if not name has been around far longer than that).
@RodCrosby I don't think you will eliminate whipping because governments that rely on the nebulous concept of Parliamentary confidence simply won't permit that to be regularly tested. So to survive the government will whip, the opposition will do likewise. Whilst the survival of a government is dependent on divisions in Parliament that government will seek to stack the deck.
'Busker puts Better Together staff between a rock and a hard place' - The campaign to save the Union has been plunged into chaos by a Glasgow busker.
The busker, Jim Ward, 54, plays for up to eight hours a day, most weekdays, campaign insiders say.
His repertoire - which Better Together staffers complain is "limited" - includes John Williams's Deer Hunter theme music and Apache, the instrumental made famous by Hank Marvin and The Shadows.
A Better Together insider said: "Everyone's whistling Apache. No-one can get it out of their heads. He plays three songs on a loop and it's become very hard for folk to concentrate.
"Right now he is doing more for independence than Alex Salmond."
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus14.4 ?!? Ouch!
His figures are misleading. They increased their share of the vote by 0.4% in Oldham,
You know I thought you meant Mikes figures were misleading, and much as I would have agreed I felt bad that you were being disloyal
But you werent!
I just wanted to point out the low base that UKIP are coming from. So to say 27.8 is no good, you have to remember that they got 3.6 the previous time, and so on
the trend is UKIPs friend
The trend is clear. UKIP still aren't winning seats at Westminster.
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
It wasn't particularly directed at you, Richard.
I agree about the whipping. An idea invented by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1880s to corral their fissiparous members:- soon adopted, alas, by all other parties....
I have mentioned a pragmatic solution before. Delayed Secret Voting by MPs.
Accountability demands voters know how their MP voted. But a two-week (?) delay before publishing the division list would almost break the power of the Whips, I suggest...
Why would it do that?
Umm, becuse "arm-twisting" can't be done retrospectively, especially when there's another 'crucial' vote tonight... which we won't know the result of until a fortnight hence... and another important vote in a couple of days' time. Etc., etc.
The Whips would be chasing their own tails, eventually...
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus14.4 ?!? Ouch!
His figures are misleading. They increased their share of the vote by 0.4% in Oldham,
You know I thought you meant Mikes figures were misleading, and much as I would have agreed I felt bad that you were being disloyal
But you werent!
I just wanted to point out the low base that UKIP are coming from. So to say 27.8 is no good, you have to remember that they got 3.6 the previous time, and so on
the trend is UKIPs friend
The trend is clear. UKIP still aren't winning seats at Westminster.
Ha! There have only been 1% of seats contested, all unfavourable! Utterly ridiculous comparison
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
I am not saying I am a defender of FPTP. Indeed I want far more radical change to the system than the proponents of PR who simply want to see the power of parties cemented into our politics even more firmly than they are now.
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
It wasn't particularly directed at you, Richard.
I agree about the whipping. An idea invented by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1880s to corral their fissiparous members:- soon adopted, alas, by all other parties....
I have mentioned a pragmatic solution before. Delayed Secret Voting by MPs.
Accountability demands voters know how their MP voted. But a two-week (?) delay before publishing the division list would almost break the power of the Whips, I suggest...
Why would it do that?
Umm, becuse "arm-twisting" can't be done retrospectively, especially when there's another 'crucial' vote tonight... which we won't know the result of until a fortnight hence... and another important vote in a couple of days' time. Etc., etc.
The Whips would be chasing their own tails, eventually...
I'd be interested in an MP's view (or xMP)
Sure it can. Those with a record of rebellions will find themselves bottom of the list for jobs, for committees, for access to ministers. For help in their constituency etc.
How the parties did in the seat they scored best in compared to 2010
Respect +52.8 UKIP +24.2 Labour +16.4 SNP +15.5 Sinn Fein -0.5 CON -8.9 LD -14.4
That is a better indication of fortunes than the graph shown by Mike Smithson. Of course, it is greatly distorted by where the by-elections have fallen, eg. only one each in Scotland and in Wales.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus14.4 ?!? Ouch!
His figures are misleading. They increased their share of the vote by 0.4% in Oldham,
You know I thought you meant Mikes figures were misleading, and much as I would have agreed I felt bad that you were being disloyal
But you werent!
I just wanted to point out the low base that UKIP are coming from. So to say 27.8 is no good, you have to remember that they got 3.6 the previous time, and so on
the trend is UKIPs friend
The trend is clear. UKIP still aren't winning seats at Westminster.
Ha! There have only been 1% of seats contested, all unfavourable! Utterly ridiculous comparison
Par for the course, wouldnt want it any different
On by-election trend we'd have had an SDP-Liberal government.
As it was, a quarter of the vote, 2% behind Labour. 23 seats.
Why would it do that? (Also whipping in effect if not name has been around far longer than that).
'A central aspect of Parnell's reforms was a new selection procedure to ensure the professional selection of party candidates committed to taking their seats. In 1884, he imposed a firm 'party pledge' which obliged party MPs to vote as a bloc in parliament on all occasions. The creation of a strict party whip and formal party structure was unique in party politics at the time. The Irish Parliamentary Party is generally seen as the first modern British political party, its efficient structure and control contrasting with the loose rules and flexible informality found in the main British parties, which came to model themselves on the Parnellite model.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell
SD Indeed, are row boats a diplomatic tool by the Swedes?
Before I head off, also thought the argument this morning that the European Parliament was fully behind Juncker somewhat ridiculous, considering the European Parliament elections saw big gains for Eurosceptic parties, from UKIP to Front National to the Danish Peoples' Party and even Syriza in Greece is anti austerity and anti Juncker. The only reason Juncker 'won' is because the EPP won a plurality of seats, but the EPP actually lost seats, it only stayed in front because the Social Democrats also lost seats, the EPP only won a 1/3 of the seats in total, nowhere near a majority. A far more sensible choice would be Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė who is a woman, from a new EU entrant in Eastern Europe and reformist, as well as still being backed by a party in the EPP. That way the EU shows it has heard the message of the elections for reform, while still appointing a candidate of the centre-right to lead the Commission. Anyway, night!
Why would it do that? (Also whipping in effect if not name has been around far longer than that).
'A central aspect of Parnell's reforms was a new selection procedure to ensure the professional selection of party candidates committed to taking their seats. In 1884, he imposed a firm 'party pledge' which obliged party MPs to vote as a bloc in parliament on all occasions. The creation of a strict party whip and formal party structure was unique in party politics at the time. The Irish Parliamentary Party is generally seen as the first modern British political party, its efficient structure and control contrasting with the loose rules and flexible informality found in the main British parties, which came to model themselves on the Parnellite model.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell
A formalisation, strengthening and structuring yes, but not a creation.
See Walpole's systems of patronage for one example.
I love the optimism of whoever is behind the anti-plain packaging adverts on pbc now (Lynton Crosby?). Like there's a groundswell of people out there just waiting to march the streets for the right to buy cigarettes in different coloured cartons.
Full YG: CON 31%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
This is a real bummer of a poll for the Tories, coming as it does on the back of another couple of disappointing polls for them which together suggest that their recent catching up with Labour has at best stuttered or even gone into reverse.
If they are not to lose the initiative over the summer months they need some far more encouraging polling figures and soon!
Why would it do that? (Also whipping in effect if not name has been around far longer than that).
'A central aspect of Parnell's reforms was a new selection procedure to ensure the professional selection of party candidates committed to taking their seats. In 1884, he imposed a firm 'party pledge' which obliged party MPs to vote as a bloc in parliament on all occasions. The creation of a strict party whip and formal party structure was unique in party politics at the time. The Irish Parliamentary Party is generally seen as the first modern British political party, its efficient structure and control contrasting with the loose rules and flexible informality found in the main British parties, which came to model themselves on the Parnellite model.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell
A formalisation, strengthening and structuring yes, but not a creation.
See Walpole's systems of patronage for one example.
The creation of the system as we know it, then. :roll
Yesterday I was at Broadstairs for sometime. It is premumably in Thanet South.
The place looks, judging by the people I saw in the streets and in ASDA, almost all white, the standard of living did not appear to be high, prices well below London [ but that is not saying much ] and agricultural just outside the town.
Full YG: CON 31%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
This is a real bummer of a poll for the Tories, coming as it does on the back of another couple of disappointing polls for them which together suggest that their recent catching up with Labour has at best stuttered or even gone into reverse.
If they are not to lose the initiative over the summer months they need some far more encouraging polling figures and soon!
@Richard_Tyndall It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
So the FPTP last-defenders fantasy of a sacrosanct 'manifesto' disappears in a puff of smoke..
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
Last month's election result in India produced a whopping majority for the BJP, even excluding its electoral allies....
The BJP got 282 seats out of 543. It is with allies that it got 336.
BJP+ got 38.7% of the votes. Congress in 2009 received over 37% of the votes.
The anti BJP vote was far more divided than before. Particularly, in the north with the advent of the AAP.
Good to see that Ladbrokes have at last reinstated their GE single constituency markets, always assuming one can successfully navigate their horrendous website, which I can't - the only way I can get there is via oddschecker ....Grrh!
Perhaps Shadsy could spend 10 minutes out of his busy day to explain here on PB.com, preferably in words of one syllable, precisely how this is supposed to work.
Also, I'm unable to find the GE seat bands for either Labour or Conservative, although this market continues to be provided for the LibDems as it seemingly has been for yonks .... all very strange!
SD Indeed, are row boats a diplomatic tool by the Swedes?
Yes. Harpsund is the country residence for the Prime Minister of Sweden (ie. equivalent of Chequers or Camp David).
The PM often potters about the lake in a little rowing boat (eka) with other heads of government:
- "It is tradition that guests at the estate take a small trip, with the Prime Minister, in the rowing boat (Harpsundsekan), a tradition introduced by Prime Minister Tage Erlander."
Good to see that Ladbrokes have at last reinstated their GE single constituency markets, always assuming one can successfully navigate their horrendous website, which I can't - the only way I can get there is via oddschecker ....Grrh!
Perhaps Shadsy could spend 10 minutes out of his busy day to explain here on PB.com, preferably in words of one syllable, precisely how this is supposed to work.
Also, I'm unable to find the GE seat bands for either Labour or Conservative, although this market continues to be provided for the LibDems as it seemingly has been for yonks .... all very strange!
What makes it even more infuriating is that Ladbrokes' website lacks a Search function. Other betting websites are nearly as bad, but at least you can type in a suitable keyword like 'Turnout' or 'Inverness' and probably find the relevant prices. Why Ladbrokes omit such a normal function is simply weird. The problem is made worse by the vast number of markets Shadsy prices up, so manual navigation is pretty much impossible.
Full YG: CON 31%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
This is a real bummer of a poll for the Tories, coming as it does on the back of another couple of disappointing polls for them which together suggest that their recent catching up with Labour has at best stuttered or even gone into reverse.
If they are not to lose the initiative over the summer months they need some far more encouraging polling figures and soon!
The crossover I am not keen to see is:
the Greens overtaking the Lib Dems.
I disagree. I look forward to the Greens overtaking the Lib Dems.
I would not vote for them myself, but at least voters know what they stand for: what you see is what you get.
A vote for the Lib Dems is just "squidgy": nobody has the faintest idea what they stand for. Least of all the LDs themselves.
Thanet S Thanet N Folkestone Boston Louth Walsall N Dudley N Stoke N Stoke S Rotherham Hartlepool Great Grimsby Great Yarmouth Camborne Bognor Regis Worthing E Castle Point Harlow St Ives Devon N Forest of Dean
I've excluded Eastleigh because of the LD's excellent performance there in this year's local elections.
I would add Yeovil to that list, where they could just sneak in, in a 3 way Tory, Lib, UKIP split. They have polled very well in the seat, which has a large rural working class, in both 2013 council and 2014 euro elections.
The tories have a good local candidate though, and their votes have held up very well since 2010 (UKIPs voters have mainly been Liberal defectors) so Tories may win it, with UKIP second and Libs third.
Thanet S Thanet N Folkestone Boston Louth Walsall N Dudley N Stoke N Stoke S Rotherham Hartlepool Great Grimsby Great Yarmouth Camborne Bognor Regis Worthing E Castle Point Harlow St Ives Devon N Forest of Dean
I've excluded Eastleigh because of the LD's excellent performance there in this year's local elections.
I would add Yeovil to that list, where they could just sneak in, in a 3 way Tory, Lib, UKIP split. They have polled very well in the seat, which has a large rural working class, in both 2013 council and 2014 euro elections.
The tories have a good local candidate though, and their votes have held up very well since 2010 (UKIPs voters have mainly been Liberal defectors) so Tories may win it, with UKIP second and Libs third.
More drivel .
2013 CC results for divisions making up the Yeovil Parliamentary seat
LD 35% Con 28% UKIP 25.6% Lab 7.4% Others 4%
Change since 2009 LD -12.6% Con -11.6% The Conservative vote has fallen by the same amount as the Lib Dems .
@blackburn63 However the numbers targeted will be reduced by the fact that some Conservative MPs in those two counties particularly will not be run against, because they will pledge to vote to leave the EU regardless of any renegotiation secured by David Cameron, if he is still PM, or to vote for a leader who favours withdrawal from the EU if he is not.
Not sure that that's a tactic that washes now. Maybe, when UKIP were positioning themselves as a party to out-tory the tories. But now that their positioning is more nuanced, they are chasing WWC labour votes as much as Tory, and they need to stand in every seat. Are you suggesting they would also give a free pass to sitting anti-EU labour MPs? I suspect not.
For me, there's a fundamental flaw in the mathematics here.
The proposition that UKIP have never scored more than 27.8% dooms them to failure as the previous lowest winning vote share was more than that is flawed in that in GE10, UKIP generally scored a very much smaller share of the vote.
However, now, by obtaining a share in the high twenties in more than one by election suggests they are truly a fourth party. So, 100% divided by 3 (lib/lab/con) is 33.3% - 100% divided by 4 (lib/lab/con/UKIP) is 25%. I do not think, therefore, that lessons from GE10 necessarily carry forward to GE15
Quite a reasonable and in depth analysis of UKIP voting there, antifrank. Three things to remember though: 1. 2013 was the first year that UKIP has stood in any UK wide election with express intention of gaining councillors and forming a foundation for further gains. 2. UKIP is the only party that is growing in actual membership percentage. 3. Newark was the first time that masses of activists and supporters came from all over the country to the call for volunteers (Eastliegh was only a foretaste).
Still agree with you that UKIP has a lot of growing and organising to do, and establishing new local party chapters is one of the agreed methods.
Comments
Under the present system, consider:-
i) How many people vote for a party despite what's in their manifesto?
ii) How many parties abandon manifesto 'commitments'?
iii) How many parties enact legislation which never got within a 100 miles of a manifesto?
Manifestos are largely a sham, in other words.
The bottom line is, under PR, FTPTP or any other system, voters can still punish parties for perceived duplicity and incompetence during their term of office.
That's about all they can do under any system...
But you don't drink! Eating a kebab sober .......eeeeerch. How can you?
P.S. Quite right about insulting the Frogs. Dunno about the Aussies, though, that might be some Yorkshire thing.
At least in a system where we elect individual representatives with the power of recall if they do not abide by their promises - at least by voting for what they said they would even if they lose the Parliamentary vote - then you have the electorate knowing they have someone representing their wishes.
Under the current system the only thing most MPs are representing is the party line and their own political careers irrespective of what their constituents want.
UKIP +24.2
LD -14.4
SNP +15.5
CON -8.9
Respect +52.8
Labour +16.4
Sinn Fein -0.5
P.S. Just realised I replied to a Coporeal post about Kebabs and British Values when I meant to reply to you. Apologies to both of you.
As to how many want a coalition last poll I saw suggest about 20% hardly a convincing majority in favour really is it? A lot of that in addition will be down to the fact that the two majorities possible are both so godawful that people go for the lesser of three evils.
Electorally we are trapped between Scylla and Charybdis where there are no longer any good choices merely trying to work out which is going to be the least painful way to go..
And now I have to find a horizontal surface and lie on it as some of us have to be up in 5 hours
It was right that the manifesto was shown to be non-binding in a legal sense. If a political party breaches a manifesto commitment that is something that should have political redress not legal redress. Plus if you put a legalistic interpretation on manifestos you would end up with the concept of not being able to stray beyond them which would either test politicians psychic powers of prediction or hamper their ability to deal with life's curve balls.
And yet... my mum thinks I make the best cup of tea in the world!
This bullet pointing of policies, level of detail etc used to be derided as shopping list politics and has only been around for maybe the last 20 years or so.
Before that you got short philosophic documents with general themes and maybe the odd concrete proposal.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Broxtoweinfo/conversations/messages
It's a specialised taste but some people do like it, including some who don't actually agree with a lot of it.
And that's before we consider those situations where FPTP is more likely than not to produce a hung parliament. Canada, India, (despite recent upsets)....United Kingdom?
Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible" [note:- not "Politics is the text of the manifesto"] It will always be thus...
SNP (Winnie Ewing) 18,397 46.0% (+46.0)
Lab 16,598 41.5% (-29.7)
Con 4,986 12.5% (-16,3)
SNP gain from Labour on a swing of 37.9
Incidentally, the by-election was caused by the resignation of Tom Fraser. He was the Minister of Transport who introduced the 70 mph speed limit on motorways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fraser
I prefer the concept of more philosophical documents than a tick sheet of specifics but I doubt we are going to get away from it any time soon.
@Richard_Tyndall
I doubt parties 'just ignore it' but the trouble with the need to be hyper-specific increases hostages to fortune and circumstance. I'd rather a party alive to changes in conditions than one that ploughs on regardless 'because it was in the manifesto'.
http://noprimeminister.org.uk/
Remove the whips power to force MPs to vote a particular way. All votes in Parliament to be free votes and a robust power of recall to allow constituents to remove MPs who are not representing their constituencies in the way they promised.
As far as the electoral system goes what would matter is that it is not based on proportionality between parties but produces MPs who represent the plurality of views within the constituency.
The Lib Dems best performance since 2010 has been minus 14.4 ?!? Ouch!
Here's the figures as of Feb this year
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/02/17/lib-dem-deposit-losses-at-the-general-election/
I agree about the whipping. An idea invented by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1880s to corral their fissiparous members:- soon adopted, alas, by all other parties....
I have mentioned a pragmatic solution before. Delayed Secret Voting by MPs.
Accountability demands voters know how their MP voted. But a two-week (?) delay before publishing the division list would almost break the power of the Whips, I suggest...
But you werent!
I just wanted to point out the low base that UKIP are coming from. So to say 27.8 is no good, you have to remember that they got 3.6 the previous time, and so on
the trend is UKIPs friend
I don't think you will eliminate whipping because governments that rely on the nebulous concept of Parliamentary confidence simply won't permit that to be regularly tested. So to survive the government will whip, the opposition will do likewise. Whilst the survival of a government is dependent on divisions in Parliament that government will seek to stack the deck.
- The campaign to save the Union has been plunged into chaos by a Glasgow busker.
The busker, Jim Ward, 54, plays for up to eight hours a day, most weekdays, campaign insiders say.
His repertoire - which Better Together staffers complain is "limited" - includes John Williams's Deer Hunter theme music and Apache, the instrumental made famous by Hank Marvin and The Shadows.
A Better Together insider said: "Everyone's whistling Apache. No-one can get it out of their heads. He plays three songs on a loop and it's become very hard for folk to concentrate.
"Right now he is doing more for independence than Alex Salmond."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/busker-puts-better-together-staff-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place.24441443
The Whips would be chasing their own tails, eventually...
I'd be interested in an MP's view (or xMP)
Par for the course, wouldnt want it any different
As it was, a quarter of the vote, 2% behind Labour. 23 seats.
Sad news about Rik Mayall today, as well as Blackadder, Bottom, the Young Ones etc his Alan B'Stard is a political classic.
Picture of the day has to be Cameron, Merkel, Reinfeldt and Rutte in a rowing boat together
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2652671/Cameron-interfering-Brussels-jobs-quintessence-turd-polishing-pointlessness-claims-Boris-Johnson.html
Anyway, off to Tuscany tomorrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1602&artikel=3772236
(the 3rd man is a translator)
Before I head off, also thought the argument this morning that the European Parliament was fully behind Juncker somewhat ridiculous, considering the European Parliament elections saw big gains for Eurosceptic parties, from UKIP to Front National to the Danish Peoples' Party and even Syriza in Greece is anti austerity and anti Juncker. The only reason Juncker 'won' is because the EPP won a plurality of seats, but the EPP actually lost seats, it only stayed in front because the Social Democrats also lost seats, the EPP only won a 1/3 of the seats in total, nowhere near a majority. A far more sensible choice would be Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė who is a woman, from a new EU entrant in Eastern Europe and reformist, as well as still being backed by a party in the EPP. That way the EU shows it has heard the message of the elections for reform, while still appointing a candidate of the centre-right to lead the Commission. Anyway, night!
See Walpole's systems of patronage for one example.
If they are not to lose the initiative over the summer months they need some far more encouraging polling figures and soon!
If there was a Gold Medal for nitpicking...
The place looks, judging by the people I saw in the streets and in ASDA, almost all white, the standard of living did not appear to be high, prices well below London [ but that is not saying much ] and agricultural just outside the town.
Looks like perfect Farage territory.
the Greens overtaking the Lib Dems.
BJP+ got 38.7% of the votes. Congress in 2009 received over 37% of the votes.
The anti BJP vote was far more divided than before. Particularly, in the north with the advent of the AAP.
Perhaps Shadsy could spend 10 minutes out of his busy day to explain here on PB.com, preferably in words of one syllable, precisely how this is supposed to work.
Also, I'm unable to find the GE seat bands for either Labour or Conservative, although this market continues to be provided for the LibDems as it seemingly has been for yonks .... all very strange!
The PM often potters about the lake in a little rowing boat (eka) with other heads of government:
- "It is tradition that guests at the estate take a small trip, with the Prime Minister, in the rowing boat (Harpsundsekan), a tradition introduced by Prime Minister Tage Erlander."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpsund
I would not vote for them myself, but at least voters know what they stand for: what you see is what you get.
A vote for the Lib Dems is just "squidgy": nobody has the faintest idea what they stand for. Least of all the LDs themselves.
The tories have a good local candidate though, and their votes have held up very well since 2010 (UKIPs voters have mainly been Liberal defectors) so Tories may win it, with UKIP second and Libs third.
2 hours 2 minutes 2 seconds
2013 CC results for divisions making up the Yeovil Parliamentary seat
LD 35% Con 28% UKIP 25.6% Lab 7.4% Others 4%
Change since 2009 LD -12.6% Con -11.6% The Conservative vote has fallen by the same amount as the Lib Dems .
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-latest-election-round-what-have-we.html
The proposition that UKIP have never scored more than 27.8% dooms them to failure as the previous lowest winning vote share was more than that is flawed in that in GE10, UKIP generally scored a very much smaller share of the vote.
However, now, by obtaining a share in the high twenties in more than one by election suggests they are truly a fourth party. So, 100% divided by 3 (lib/lab/con) is 33.3% - 100% divided by 4 (lib/lab/con/UKIP) is 25%. I do not think, therefore, that lessons from GE10 necessarily carry forward to GE15
Three things to remember though:
1. 2013 was the first year that UKIP has stood in any UK wide election with express intention of gaining councillors and forming a foundation for further gains.
2. UKIP is the only party that is growing in actual membership percentage.
3. Newark was the first time that masses of activists and supporters came from all over the country to the call for volunteers (Eastliegh was only a foretaste).
Still agree with you that UKIP has a lot of growing and organising to do, and establishing new local party chapters is one of the agreed methods.