I think a tick box for which party you'd like to give a taxpayer's £1 to on your ballot paper, plus caps on individual donations to £10000 per 5 year Parliament would be the way to go (and donations only by UK tax payers)
@anotherDave "corporal punishment seems the most likely candidate."
"Bring back the birch" has a nostalgic ring to it.
I believe 40% of the adult population like to be spanked and the general popularity of domiatrices, I'm not sure of the deterrence of corporal punishment.
On topic: Mike has chosen a rather selective set of data here. He's ignored the Dissatisfaction numbers, and he's also ignored the most astonishing figure of all, Ed Miliband's absolutely appalling ratings amongst Labour supporters.
"We won’t win in 2015 with another fudge; we’ll only win with fearlessness. And this is the crux of the issue. The party is still fearful of looking like it is anti-business or anti-competition even when all the evidence suggests that when it comes to rail – public is best. It’s not subjectivity, rationality or popularity holding the party leadership back but a long out of date perception that in the case of rail, private is good and public is bad.
It has to end, and soon.
Rail was the last big privatisation. Its proponents didn’t know if it would work but the free market evangelists thought it was worth a go. But trains can’t compete on one railway track and so you end up in the worst of all worlds: no competition but no collaboration either. Southwest trains would like to thank you for choosing to travel on our trains today. Choose? When did we ever get a choice?"
The attack ads will be relentless. Labour probably ought to make them an election issue (and political party funding).
That and the "bedroom tax" is all they will have to talk about.
I find it very telling that, current poll leads notwithstanding, so many senior players in Labour seem to be saying - largely in off the record briefings although sometimes accidentally on it - that Labour looks to be doomed in 2015. I'm curious to know if this is based purely on their political instincts, honed over 30 odd years of losing to Thatcher and Major, winning under Blair and losing again under Brown - or based on a bit more solidity, such as their internal polling and doorstep reactions.
There certainly seems to be a mood abroad within the Labour Party that Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
On topic: Mike has chosen a rather selective set of data here. He's ignored the Dissatisfaction numbers, and he's also ignored the most astonishing figure of all, Ed Miliband's absolutely appalling ratings amongst Labour supporters.
Just to say that I like Ed and seriously distrust (especially) salesmen and most modern day bureaucrats.
But all politicians ARE salesmen. Often of the most brazen kind - knowingly selling a product that may not exist and even if it does, it probably won't work..... But see how it shines? Oh, believe in my shiny idea! Be dazzled by it!
That said, Ed doesn't even seem to have worked out the concept to sell yet. If he does, I suspect it will come with a five-thousand page operating manual....
I think a tick box for which party you'd like to give a taxpayer's £1 to on your ballot paper, plus caps on individual donations to £10000 per 5 year Parliament would be the way to go (and donations only by UK tax payers)
As long as there is an option for 'not one penny of my money is to go to a political party' And union donations are banned, as are corporate donations. Of course, there is also the problem of non tax payers deciding where to give a £1 of money they have not contributed to. I wonder which party of handouts would benefit most from that?
I'm not convinced anything much is happening, except that the Tories temporarily recovered a bit from UKIP from the Juncker episode, and it's now maybe wearing off.
The bottom line using YouGov has actually been the same for a very long time - Lab 35-39, Con 30-35. Most people who are actually going to vote have IMO essentially decided, taking into account leader ratings, economy, NHS and everything else. You do meet quite a few people who say they're not sure, haven't thought about it, etc. - then looking at the records you often see they didn't vote at all in the last couple of elections. The pool of genuinely undecided people who actually vote is in my experience UNUSUALLY small - maybe 10%. I've never encountered anything like it except after the Falklands war.
@Pulpstar Chopping off peoples extremities might be effective, but personally I would think it might have a brutalizing effect on society. Your mileage will vary of course.
Just to say that I like Ed and seriously distrust (especially) salesmen and most modern day bureaucrats.
But all politicians ARE salesmen. Often of the most brazen kind - knowingly selling a product that may not exist and even if it does, it probably won't work..... But see how it shines? Oh, believe in my shiny idea! Be dazzled by it!
That said, Ed doesn't even seem to have worked out the concept to sell yet. If he does, I suspect it will come with a five-thousand page operating manual....
Yep, it's a jungle out there. Like all things in life it's a matter of degree. Concerning bureaucrats my perception is that "in the old days" bureaucrats in my sphere of activity tended to try to facilitate things, but that now---in their increasing numbers---they tend to try to get us to jump through hoops, thereby justifying themselves. Bring back technical colleges & polytechnics.
Seeing as he thinks it only matters who the local MP is anyway, I am surprised he bothered writing the thread
Of course in theory you are voting for an individual MP, but, in practice, for most people the most important consideration is the party label. We look at national opinion polls, after all, as our main source of information on voting intention. Obviously the quality of the individual candidate matters, and some MPs build up a good personal vote, and some become personally unpopular, but for most voters (and especially most voters in key marginals), it's the party which primarily matters in deciding whom they vote for.
Within that, perceptions of the suitability of the leader are very important. It would be eccentric to suggest that Michael Foot wasn't a huge drag on Labour in 1983, or that Blair wasn't a huge asset for them in 1997.
@Pulpstar Chopping off peoples extremities might be effective, but personally I would think it might have a brutalizing effect on society. Your mileage will vary of course.
When I was a kid I was assured that there was no greater evil than drugs ^_~ (80s)
The attack ads will be relentless. Labour probably ought to make them an election issue (and political party funding).
That and the "bedroom tax" is all they will have to talk about.
I find it very telling that, current poll leads notwithstanding, so many senior players in Labour seem to be saying - largely in off the record briefings although sometimes accidentally on it - that Labour looks to be doomed in 2015. I'm curious to know if this is based purely on their political instincts, honed over 30 odd years of losing to Thatcher and Major, winning under Blair and losing again under Brown - or based on a bit more solidity, such as their internal polling and doorstep reactions.
There certainly seems to be a mood abroad within the Labour Party that Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
Which senior figures have said Labour is doomed? Link please
Lynton has thrown, and continues to throw buckets of the smelly stuff over Ed, with Rupert's private newspapers providing the smelly stuff.Yet,it won't stick,the conclusion of which must be the Tories are,indeed,deeply fearful of him,his intellectual self-confidence and ability to win.The problem, too,with throwing buckets of smelly stuff around is potential blow-back.Also,really top-shelf manure is hard to find.
@Pulpstar Chopping off peoples extremities might be effective, but personally I would think it might have a brutalizing effect on society. Your mileage will vary of course.
When I was a kid I was assured that there was no greater evil than drugs ^_~ (80s)
All this debate assumes drugs are a great evil. That is a very odd assumption from politicians who themselves are keen drug takers.
"We won’t win in 2015 with another fudge; we’ll only win with fearlessness. " -- yes well Financier, that is just code for 'we want more left wingery socialism'.
Seeing as he thinks it only matters who the local MP is anyway, I am surprised he bothered writing the thread
Of course in theory you are voting for an individual MP, but, in practice, for most people the most important consideration is the party label. We look at national opinion polls, after all, as our main source of information on voting intention. Obviously the quality of the individual candidate matters, and some MPs build up a good personal vote, and some become personally unpopular, but for most voters (and especially most voters in key marginals), it's the party which primarily matters in deciding whom they vote for.
Within that, perceptions of the suitability of the leader are very important. It would be eccentric to suggest that Michael Foot wasn't a huge drag on Labour in 1983, or that Blair wasn't a huge asset for them in 1997.
Nevertheless, thanks to Mike for actually bothering to analyse the numbers.
Sound mathematical analysis vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.
I'm all in favour of harsher prison sentences for Chris Huhne.
"We won’t win in 2015 with another fudge; we’ll only win with fearlessness. " -- yes well Financier, that is just code for 'we want more left wingery socialism'.
"We won’t win in 2015 with another fudge; we’ll only win with fearlessness. " -- yes well Financier, that is just code for 'we want more left wingery socialism'.
So they should have done, given the vast increase in the subsidy. Meanwhile, that famous left winger Boris has renationalised the West Anglia line, looking to boost investment and reliability.
@BobaFett The alchohol industry is a supplier of an addictive and sometimes socially destructive drug. But if you have friends in high places, you can get special privileges. American prohibition made criminals rich and drove drinkers to ingest "hooch" of dubious quality. Having discovered this we tried the same with drugs......which helped the newly decriminalized drinks industry.
Sound mathematical analysis vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Actually, the only wishful thinking that is noticeable in UK politics at the moment is the extraordinary complacency amongst Labour supporters about the implications of a potential Miliband victory (or even worse, and more likely, half-victory). Obviously the saner figures aren't kidding themselves, but they get dismissed as 'Blairites' and are therefore non-people. It's an absolutely astonishing myopia.
Which senior figures have said Labour is doomed? Link please
Well, you could start with yesterday's Sunday Times, where Alan Johnson is being urged by Labour insiders to run as a stalking horse against Ed Miliband....
Which senior figures have said Labour is doomed? Link please
Well, you could start with yesterday's Sunday Times, where Alan Johnson is being urged by Labour insiders to run as a stalking horse against Ed Miliband....
Labour insiders?
As I say, show me the source where senior figures say Labour are doomed. Thanks
Sound mathematical analysis vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Actually, the only wishful thinking that is noticeable in UK politics at the moment is the extraordinary complacency amongst Labour supporters about the implications of a potential Miliband victory (or even worse, and more likely, half-victory). Obviously the saner figures aren't kidding themselves, but they get dismissed as 'Blairites' and are therefore non-people. It's an absolutely astonishing myopia.
There is no complacency. Just a lack of panic. Realise Tories have but two states of mind and cannot grasp the wider emotional range of others.
Which senior figures have said Labour is doomed? Link please
Well, you could start with yesterday's Sunday Times, where Alan Johnson is being urged by Labour insiders to run as a stalking horse against Ed Miliband....
Labour insiders?
As I say, show me the source where senior figures say Labour are doomed. Thanks
The Blairites are always foretelling the doom of Ed Miliband, and the (David) Milibandites are always talking him down.
If, God forbid, we end up with Ed Miliband as PM (and the current Labour front bench as the Cabinet), it will be a minor consolation that I'll be able to say I told you so. I'd give it until around the end of 2017 before it will be unquestionable that I have been right on this all along. Put the date in your diary!
Booze is one of the hardest drugs out there. It is also widely availble and made to taste nice
And thank goodness for that, and for the legion of responsible publicans that monitor and regulate it's ingestion. Just need to stop supermarkets, garages and corner shops selling it on the cheap and we will all be happy.
Booze is one of the hardest drugs out there. It is also widely availble and made to taste nice
And thank goodness for that, and for the legion of responsible publicans that monitor and regulate it's ingestion. Just need to stop supermarkets, garages and corner shops selling it on the cheap and we will all be happy.
I have never grasped why responsible publicans such as yourself cannot be trusted to do the same with much softer drugs like ecstasy.
Booze is one of the hardest drugs out there. It is also widely availble and made to taste nice
And thank goodness for that, and for the legion of responsible publicans that monitor and regulate it's ingestion. Just need to stop supermarkets, garages and corner shops selling it on the cheap and we will all be happy.
I have never grasped why responsible publicans such as yourself cannot be trusted to do the same with much softer drugs like ecstasy.
The attack ads will be relentless. Labour probably ought to make them an election issue (and political party funding).
That and the "bedroom tax" is all they will have to talk about.
I find it very telling that, current poll leads notwithstanding, so many senior players in Labour seem to be saying - largely in off the record briefings although sometimes accidentally on it - that Labour looks to be doomed in 2015. I'm curious to know if this is based purely on their political instincts, honed over 30 odd years of losing to Thatcher and Major, winning under Blair and losing again under Brown - or based on a bit more solidity, such as their internal polling and doorstep reactions.
There certainly seems to be a mood abroad within the Labour Party that Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
Which senior figures have said Labour is doomed? Link please
"There are a number of Shadow Cabinet members who seem more interested in what happens after the 2015 election than in their party’s chances in that election. Perhaps this is because they have decided that though their party is ahead now, voters will panic about Miliband as they start to try imagining him as Prime Minister. Better to get your off-the-record briefings in now, and not make too much of an effort batting for this guy when you think you’re doomed."
And plenty more similar stories over the last 3 years.
Please don't waste pixels pointing out that the individuals are not named.
And chill a bit, perhaps? You will have such a good laugh at the PB tories next May, when you'll also have made your fortune betting on Ed M PM, that I would have thought you could afford to keep your powder dry till then. Que sera, sera.
You appear to be conflating your personal partisan opinions with the views of the public.
Not at all. That is a mistake which I never make, as my political betting accounts demonstrate. I am predicting what the views of the public will become after a couple of years in the event of a Miliband victory, which is a different matter altogether.
It's very similar to the last French presidential election. I made a reasonable sum betting on an Hollande victory at just the right time, when the odds were still quite good. I also correctly pointed out on these very pages how an Hollande presidency would develop. The trajectory of a Miliband government would be much the same, but probably worse.
As it happens, I was one of the few people here strongly advocating betting on Labour in 2011 and 2012. As a result I've built up a very nice all-green position.
@dyedwoolie You are eminently sensible then. The criminalization of cannabis has lead to the creation of artificial compounds which have never been tested for long term effects. This compound, which can mixed with water and sprayed onto a herbal smoking mix, is less easily detected in the blood than cannabis, and is rapidly gaining a following amongst those subject to routine drug testing. Cannabis is detectable for up to a month, this compound for a day.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
You appear to be conflating your personal partisan opinions with the views of the public.
Not at all. That is a mistake which I never make, as my political betting accounts demonstrate. I am predicting what the views of the public will become after a couple of years in the event of a Miliband victory, which is a different matter altogether.
It's very similar to the last French presidential election. I made a reasonable sum betting on an Hollande victory at just the right time, when the odds were still quite good. I also correctly pointed out on these very pages how an Hollande presidency would develop. The trajectory of a Miliband government would be much the same, but probably worse.
As it happens, I was one of the few people here strongly advocating betting on Labour in 2011 and 2012. As a result I've built up a very nice all-green position.
But Mr Nabavi, JackW assures me Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister! - who will be right :O ?
As it is a publican has a duty to stamp out any hint of the use or dealing of illegal drugs on their premises. And report it accordingly (which I am more than happy to do, and do do I should add), and yet regulate and provide the legal drug alcohol, and provide a comfortable area for the consumption of another, tobacco. The question of drug use needs a serious rethink in my opinion
Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.
I'm all in favour of harsher prison sentences for Chris Huhne.
Surely there's something we can get him on?
In the good old days a bill of attainder would have been put through declaring him guilty of whatever Parliament saw fit.
Mike democracy is a great brake but not necessarily a great steering wheel.
We live in a rob Peter to pay Paul society. Paul can outvote Peter and so he votes himself a nice fat unaffordable welfare state. This model which has survived since the second world war is reaching the end of its shelf life. We’re all maxed out on debt and can’t bring ourselves to reform and compete as it doesn’t sell well with Paul. (and even less well with Pierre)
FPTP, STV, full PR, some whacky hybrid involving numbers squared, presidential systems – they all suffer from the core problem of not keeping the kiddies away from the sweetshop.
Surely it's time to recognise that the rule of law, and the fundamental rights of individuals not to be molested by the state is more important than democracy.
We have tyranny of the plurality (which is like tyranny of the majority, but which requires even fewer votes to achieve): and that means a few can vote to steal from the hardworking, strip rights from the blue-eyed, and can choose to ban things which were never criminal under common law.
A very wise man identified that as a problem more than 30 years ago
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
Don't most users smoke cannabis? So you make the outlets legal but people wouldn't be able to smoke the stuff in them.
Same as the Netherlands. Not allowed indoors if mixed with tobacco, fine on its own. It's not going to happen, of course.
Really? How utterly bonkers.Given that our lungs evolved to inhale fresh air and nothing else, it's more likely that inhaling burnt vegetation of any kind is very, very bad for them than that by a cruel chance the only one we do regularly smoke is uniquely damaging to them.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
I don't think that's fair: they support voting systems which maximise the number of seats they'll get and which increase the likelihood they'll get a sniff of government.
In other words, they behave like every other political party.
But Mr Nabavi, JackW assures me Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister! - who will be right :O ?
I hope he will, but I don't entirely share his confidence. My personal view is that a quite wide range of outcomes is possible. I agree with him that, when push comes to shove, the Great British Public will take a closer look at Ed and, in their characteristically sophisticated way will conclude, 'Nah, he's a plonker'. So I think there will probably be a shift away from Labour from the current polling position. The question is, will it be enough of a shift?
In addition, there is always the possibility of some disruptive development, which further adds to the uncertainty (in either direction, of course). Overall I don't think the current odds are too far out, except that Lab Maj looks too short to me.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
AFAIR the only questionable action from the LibDems was re equal sized constituencies. And that was after they’d been severely shafted by Dave and Osborne over AV. Which is fairer than FPTP but not much.
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
Don't most users smoke cannabis? So you make the outlets legal but people wouldn't be able to smoke the stuff in them.
Same as the Netherlands. Not allowed indoors if mixed with tobacco, fine on its own. It's not going to happen, of course.
Really? How utterly bonkers.Given that our lungs evolved to inhale fresh air and nothing else, it's more likely that inhaling burnt vegetation of any kind is very, very bad for them than that by a cruel chance the only one we do regularly smoke is uniquely damaging to them.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
The fairest way to get representation for significant vote share while not changing the system too much would be to reduce the number of constituencies by 50 and allocate one MP for each 2% of national vote share
If Scotland goes Indy that will make it easier
So if ukip got 12% but no MPs they'd get 6 in the H of C.
If Conservatives get 6% more than Labour they'd get 3 extra MPs making it more difficult for a party to win a majority without winning on vote share
Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.
I'm all in favour of harsher prison sentences for Chris Huhne.
Surely there's something we can get him on?
In the good old days a bill of attainder would have been put through declaring him guilty of whatever Parliament saw fit.
He'd have faced the same fate as Hugh De Spenser, the Younger. I believe the judgement of Sir William Trussell has stood the test of time.
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
Don't most users smoke cannabis? So you make the outlets legal but people wouldn't be able to smoke the stuff in them.
Same as the Netherlands. Not allowed indoors if mixed with tobacco, fine on its own. It's not going to happen, of course.
Might be possible in the Netherlands but not in the UK as the smoking ban includes any substance not just tobacco. However, as you say it won't happen.
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
Don't most users smoke cannabis? So you make the outlets legal but people wouldn't be able to smoke the stuff in them.
Same as the Netherlands. Not allowed indoors if mixed with tobacco, fine on its own. It's not going to happen, of course.
Really? How utterly bonkers.Given that our lungs evolved to inhale fresh air and nothing else, it's more likely that inhaling burnt vegetation of any kind is very, very bad for them than that by a cruel chance the only one we do regularly smoke is uniquely damaging to them.
Would you ban indoor fires? Frying things? Etc
Neither indoor fires nor frying produce smoke if done right, and if they did noone would voluntarily inhale it.
I wouldn't have banned indoor tobacco smoking either; just pointing out an inconsistency.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
The fairest way to get representation for significant vote share while not changing the system too much would be to reduce the number of constituencies by 50 and allocate one MP for each 2% of national vote share
If Scotland goes Indy that will make it easier
So if ukip got 12% but no MPs they'd get 6 in the H of C.
If Conservatives get 6% more than Labour they'd get 3 extra MPs making it more difficult for a party to win a majority without winning on vote share
That's a very fair system, and one - I believe - that's similar to the German one (the 'top up' system).
I've read that immigration is the voters' biggest bugbear right now, do labour even have a policy on this? (beyond calling people who are concerned racists?).
Frankly I couldn't care less what Huhne thinks, and the fact he is worming his way back to prominence with the connivance of the Guardian is pretty sickening.
I'm all in favour of harsher prison sentences for Chris Huhne.
Surely there's something we can get him on?
In the good old days a bill of attainder would have been put through declaring him guilty of whatever Parliament saw fit.
He'd have faced the same fate as Hugh De Spenser, the Younger. I believe the judgement of Sir William Trussell has stood the test of time.
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
Don't most users smoke cannabis? So you make the outlets legal but people wouldn't be able to smoke the stuff in them.
Same as the Netherlands. Not allowed indoors if mixed with tobacco, fine on its own. It's not going to happen, of course.
Really? How utterly bonkers.Given that our lungs evolved to inhale fresh air and nothing else, it's more likely that inhaling burnt vegetation of any kind is very, very bad for them than that by a cruel chance the only one we do regularly smoke is uniquely damaging to them.
Would you ban indoor fires? Frying things? Etc
Neither indoor fires nor frying produce smoke if done right, and if they did noone would voluntarily inhale it.
I wouldn't have banned indoor tobacco smoking either; just pointing out an inconsistency.
Yep, much inconsistency. And a big hit to the pub business. But there we are, it is what it is.
Mr. 1000, the Conservatives have regularly been mocked for not supporting AV which would (some reckon) be to their electoral advantage.
AV would not have been to their advantage in 2010, nor I suspect in 2011.
It is only the recent rise of UKIP that makes AV appear attractive to the Conservative Party.
STV would be the system that would work most to the advantage of the centre-right in the UK. I imagine that there would be very substantial transfers between Conservative and UKIP voters, whereas I think that Lib Dem and Green voters would transfer far less solidly to Labour.
But, it would require the Conservatives to give up their monopoly of representing centre-right voters, and therein lies the rub.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
Indeed. It's the height of LibDem hypocrisy to assert that there's something unfair about the electoral system and it needs to be changed. All they want is one that's differently unfair.
A system in which Parties A and B each get 49% of the vote and C gets 2% would mean C was permanently in coalition government, potentially always with only A, leaving 49% of the electorate completely unrepresented. LibDems aspire to this happy state because they're Party C.
I've read that immigration is the voters' biggest bugbear right now, do labour even have a policy on this? (beyond calling people who are concerned racists?).
We're in favour of negotiating limited benefit entitlement for the early period of migration - something that I reckon most countries and indeed most migrants will be fairly comfortable with. We aren't going to do anything about free EU movement itself. Nor are the Tories.
Personally on the doorstep I say that I can see advantages and drawbacks but honestly European free trade and free movement are an indissoluble package and the choice is between politicians who admit it, politicians who pretend they'll do something but won't, and politicians who dislike it so much that they'll waive the free trade bit too.
Some people accept that as a straight answer and say they'll vote for me despite qualms, others don't. It doesn't come up as often as you'd think from the polls, though - maybe because of the demography of the constituency.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
Indeed. It's the height of LibDem hypocrisy to assert that there's something unfair about the electoral system and it needs to be changed. All they want is one that's differently unfair.
A system in which Parties A and B each get 49% of the vote and C gets 2% would mean C was permanently in coalition government, potentially always with only A, leaving 49% of the electorate completely unrepresented. LibDems aspire to this happy state because they're Party C.
All political parties want electoral systems that favour them. If the Libs are guilty of hypocrisy, then so is everyone else.
Mr Eagles there were 12 labours of Hercules or Heracles if you name him properly
Presumably this sort of thing tells us something about how ancient languages were pronounced.
If the Romans pronounced it Herc'les and the Greeks pronounced it Her'cles, they could have spelt it differently but said it the same.
Yes sometimes you can deduce pronunciation from differential spelling of words that sound the same. However in this instance the Romans latinised the Greek mythos so Heracles became Hercules and most of the gods got new names Ares became Mars, Poseidon became Neptune etc.
''It doesn't come up as often as you'd think from the polls, though - maybe because of the demography of the constituency.''
I applaud your candour, but I wonder if your counterparts in Rotherham, Grimsby etc. have the same experience. Given the discontent that is reported in the labour ranks, I suspect not.
Fascinating article about UK demography, maybe explaining labour's success in London.
High house prices in Cities, mean only wealthy people can live there, equals Labour electoral success, seems an odd conclusion to me.
In any case, hasn't the cycle of life always been:
young - live in cramped City accomodation, either on own or with friends not quite so young - share flat with girlfriend / wife in fairly central place have kids - leave central area for greener place with schools
Certainly, that has been the path my friends have mostly taken over the last quarter century.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
Indeed. It's the height of LibDem hypocrisy to assert that there's something unfair about the electoral system and it needs to be changed. All they want is one that's differently unfair.
A system in which Parties A and B each get 49% of the vote and C gets 2% would mean C was permanently in coalition government, potentially always with only A, leaving 49% of the electorate completely unrepresented. LibDems aspire to this happy state because they're Party C.
Not really. If the voters became sufficiently pissed off with Party A & C stitching up government between them in this way then a small shift would put Party B in majority control.
So the power to decide would lie with the voters, whereas in FPTP there are a whole bunch of bizarre electoral geography factors that do a lot to determine the outcome - boundaries, differential turnout, concentration of vote, etc.
Also, when you consider the performance of the Lib Dems in the EU elections I don't think it's true that PR/STV would favour them. Sure, it would have done in 2010, but right now it would more effectively lead to a wipeout*, whereas reluctant tactical voting in Lib Dem/Conservative marginals will save many a Lib Dem MP under our FPTP system.
See for example the fate that befell the Green Party in Ireland, and is likely to be visited upon the Labour Party there - as punishment by the electorate for entering Coalition as a junior partner to FF and FG, respectively.
STV generally gives the voters much more control over the electoral outcome, so of course the politicians who do well out of the status quo - in Labour and the Conservatives - don't want it, because it removes their grip on power.
* The only exception being under a nationwide PR system, as in Israel, but no-one proposes that for the UK. STV is very different.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
I don't think that's fair: they support voting systems which maximise the number of seats they'll get and which increase the likelihood they'll get a sniff of government.
In other words, they behave like every other political party.
It's the hypocrisy that gets my goat. Labour and the Tories are happy to admit to be power-hungry self-serving organisations.
The Lib Dems think that they can pretend to be virtuous while supporting electoral reform (in their interests, in the name of "fair votes") while opposing boundary reform (which would be against their interests) because they weren't bought off with the ability to control the house of lords
Mr Eagles there were 12 labours of Hercules or Heracles if you name him properly
Presumably this sort of thing tells us something about how ancient languages were pronounced.
If the Romans pronounced it Herc'les and the Greeks pronounced it Her'cles, they could have spelt it differently but said it the same.
The Romans sometimes did exactly that - mehercle = mehercule, by Hercules, but the Greeks didn't (we can tell that from how it scans in a line of verse). The name is Greek, "glory of Hera" (if it were Latin it would be Juno, not Hera).
Fascinating article about UK demography, maybe explaining labour's success in London.
High house prices in Cities, mean only wealthy people can live there, equals Labour electoral success, seems an odd conclusion to me.
In any case, hasn't the cycle of life always been:
young - live in cramped City accomodation, either on own or with friends not quite so young - share flat with girlfriend / wife in fairly central place have kids - leave central area for greener place with schools
Certainly, that has been the path my friends have mostly taken over the last quarter century.
That is true for a particular for the middle class, but even for them it was not always the case and it certainly wasn't for those a little lower down the scale, the artisan class for want of a better expression.
You need also to factor in the effect of social housing. A few months ago I saw a map which colour coded London by housing type, the extent of social housing was surprising.
One final thought on your model, when the children come along and thinking about schools becomes important, our nice middle class family get out of the city faster than you can say diversity. Why is that?
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
AFAIR the only questionable action from the LibDems was re equal sized constituencies. And that was after they’d been severely shafted by Dave and Osborne over AV. Which is fairer than FPTP but not much.
They weren't shafted over AV: the Tories were always clear they were going to campaign against it (and Cameron tried to sit out for a long time). No2AV just ran a better, if somewhat vicious, campaign.
Rejecting equal sized constituencies because they weren't bribed with a fix-up of the House of Lords was an act of pique. From a political perspective it's understandable (although I think it undermined their credibility as it proved beyond doubt that they couldn't be a trusted partner in the Coalition, so I'm not sure the gain was worth it) - but as I said to rcs1000, it's the hypocrisy that stinks
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
The fairest way to get representation for significant vote share while not changing the system too much would be to reduce the number of constituencies by 50 and allocate one MP for each 2% of national vote share
If Scotland goes Indy that will make it easier
So if ukip got 12% but no MPs they'd get 6 in the H of C.
If Conservatives get 6% more than Labour they'd get 3 extra MPs making it more difficult for a party to win a majority without winning on vote share
That's a very fair system, and one - I believe - that's similar to the German one (the 'top up' system).
It sounds like the Japanese system, which keeps the small parties on life support but still lets the big ones (mostly the big one, as the opposition has a hard time sticking together) get nearly all the seats. I think the German version is designed for a more proportional total outcome, so if you're over-represented in the constituency section you don't get any of the top-ups?
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
AFAIR the only questionable action from the LibDems was re equal sized constituencies. And that was after they’d been severely shafted by Dave and Osborne over AV. Which is fairer than FPTP but not much.
They weren't shafted over AV: the Tories were always clear they were going to campaign against it (and Cameron tried to sit out for a long time). No2AV just ran a better, if somewhat vicious, campaign.
Rejecting equal sized constituencies because they weren't bribed with a fix-up of the House of Lords was an act of pique. From a political perspective it's understandable (although I think it undermined their credibility as it proved beyond doubt that they couldn't be a trusted partner in the Coalition, so I'm not sure the gain was worth it) - but as I said to rcs1000, it's the hypocrisy that stinks
Oh Gawd , more Conservation whinging that a voting system which gives them 48% of the seats in the H of C for 37% of the vote is not biased enough in their favour .
This paragraph was particularly interesting (and rather surprising, I thought):
There is also some evidence to suggest that Miliband might also be contributing to Labour's vulnerability to Ukip; 62% of Labour voters who switched to Ukip in 2014 elections dislike or feel indifferent toward Miliband, compared with a far lower 45% of Conservative defectors who feel the same way about Cameron. While more Conservatives are switching to Ukip, this suggests that in relative terms Cameron might actually have an easier time than Miliband in winning some of them back. Around 80% of Conservative voters who are already planning to return to the fold in 2015 like Cameron, but only 61% of the Labour voters say they are thinking of coming back like Miliband.
As I've said before, a key factor in GE2015 will be the extent (if any) to which there is differential swingback from UKIP to Labour and the Tories. This is a big unknown, and is one reason why I think Nick P may be wrong to think not much will change between now and the election. That current 15% or so of UKIP support in the opinion polls is a significant consideration in assessing the probability of various scenarios.
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
I don't think that's fair: they support voting systems which maximise the number of seats they'll get and which increase the likelihood they'll get a sniff of government.
In other words, they behave like every other political party.
It's the hypocrisy that gets my goat. Labour and the Tories are happy to admit to be power-hungry self-serving organisations.
The Lib Dems think that they can pretend to be virtuous while supporting electoral reform (in their interests, in the name of "fair votes") while opposing boundary reform (which would be against their interests) because they weren't bought off with the ability to control the house of lords
Huzzah! Well said, Mr. Charles!
[Note to moderators: We really do need that like button back]
My analysis from last month that pointed out, with a year to go, only Michael Foot had worse leader ratings than Ed and Dave's ratings place him mid table.
Can't really argue with that. The Tories have absolutely no excuses not to win a majority next year.
The electoral system is biased against the blues.
The blues finish ahead of the reds by 7 points and they still can't get a majority.
The Reds finish ahead of the blues by 7 points and it is a Lab majority of 100 plus.
It is like the seven Labours of Hercules for The Tories to win a majority.
You need to remember that the LibDems only support fair voting systems when it is in their interest.
Indeed. It's the height of LibDem hypocrisy to assert that there's something unfair about the electoral system and it needs to be changed. All they want is one that's differently unfair.
A system in which Parties A and B each get 49% of the vote and C gets 2% would mean C was permanently in coalition government, potentially always with only A, leaving 49% of the electorate completely unrepresented. LibDems aspire to this happy state because they're Party C.
Not really. If the voters became sufficiently pissed off with Party A & C stitching up government between them in this way then a small shift would put Party B in majority control.
So the power to decide would lie with the voters, whereas in FPTP there are a whole bunch of bizarre electoral geography factors that do a lot to determine the outcome - boundaries, differential turnout, concentration of vote, etc.
That would follow only in the very narrow hypothetical that I posited, where Party C stays in power off a 2% poll share. If they had 10% instead, they would still be handily last but would be far harder to shift from power. You'd have A with 45% kept in power by their 10%, with B permanently shut out.
To overturn the status quo, B would need to get from 45% to 51%, something not seen outside Tower Hamlets and Labour rotten boroughs.
A far likelier result would be a decline in turnout as B's supporters don't bother voting. You'd also quite likely get a situation where B got 49%, A got 41%, and C got 10%, so the government is formed by the two defeated parties.
It would resemble the outcome of the battle of Waterloo, where the best army in the campaign was defeated by the second best with the assistance of the worst.
Oh Gawd , more Conservation whinging that a voting system which gives them 48% of the seats in the H of C for 37% of the vote is not biased enough in their favour .
To be fair, Mark, both the Conservative and Labour Parties do very well out of the current system. 65% of the vote in 2010 and nearly 90% of the seats. I thought some numpty would pipe up with the 49-49-2 scenario but we have the wonderful real example of 2010 when not 49% but 64% were effectively ignored with a party winning a majority on 36% of the vote.
AV is of course not proportionate and as you can't have a system where 100% of voters are represented (except in North Korea) it comes down to the simple concept of making each and every vote at least count in some way.
Currently, my vote in East Ham along with every Tory and indeed every non-Labour vote is wasted and has no meaning - the Labour votes elect Stephen Timms (or whoever) but because there is no recognition under the current FPTP system for the national support a Party achieves, millions of votes are rendered redundant.
The argument that while recognising the validity of some form of constituency link there needs to be some recognition of the national strength of parties (with exceptions for SNP, PC and other nationalist groupings) seems irrefutable. As others have said, however, the current system may be broke but it works fine for the Conservative and Labour Parties and these turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas !!
As long as each one knows they will eventually get their turn whether they have to wait 13 years, 18 years or whatever, there is no incentive for them to change.
Comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-lieu-of-prison-bring-back-the-lash/2011/06/10/AGBIpUWH_story.html
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/June Pol Monitor charts_WR_FINAL.pdf
"We won’t win in 2015 with another fudge; we’ll only win with fearlessness. And this is the crux of the issue. The party is still fearful of looking like it is anti-business or anti-competition even when all the evidence suggests that when it comes to rail – public is best. It’s not subjectivity, rationality or popularity holding the party leadership back but a long out of date perception that in the case of rail, private is good and public is bad.
It has to end, and soon.
Rail was the last big privatisation. Its proponents didn’t know if it would work but the free market evangelists thought it was worth a go. But trains can’t compete on one railway track and so you end up in the worst of all worlds: no competition but no collaboration either. Southwest trains would like to thank you for choosing to travel on our trains today. Choose? When did we ever get a choice?"
I find it very telling that, current poll leads notwithstanding, so many senior players in Labour seem to be saying - largely in off the record briefings although sometimes accidentally on it - that Labour looks to be doomed in 2015. I'm curious to know if this is based purely on their political instincts, honed over 30 odd years of losing to Thatcher and Major, winning under Blair and losing again under Brown - or based on a bit more solidity, such as their internal polling and doorstep reactions.
There certainly seems to be a mood abroad within the Labour Party that Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
We could adopt aspects of Sharia law?
This would suit the pro corporal punishment side, and show an openness to integration?
Win win?
Here’s A Video Of Cherie Blair Dancing To The Backstreet Boys
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/heres-a-video-of-cherie-blair-dancing-to-the-backstreet-boys
You wave your wiffle stick at me, and it will be excommunicated! ;-)
That said, Ed doesn't even seem to have worked out the concept to sell yet. If he does, I suspect it will come with a five-thousand page operating manual....
And union donations are banned, as are corporate donations.
Of course, there is also the problem of non tax payers deciding where to give a £1 of money they have not contributed to. I wonder which party of handouts would benefit most from that?
The bottom line using YouGov has actually been the same for a very long time - Lab 35-39, Con 30-35. Most people who are actually going to vote have IMO essentially decided, taking into account leader ratings, economy, NHS and everything else. You do meet quite a few people who say they're not sure, haven't thought about it, etc. - then looking at the records you often see they didn't vote at all in the last couple of elections. The pool of genuinely undecided people who actually vote is in my experience UNUSUALLY small - maybe 10%. I've never encountered anything like it except after the Falklands war.
Chopping off peoples extremities might be effective, but personally I would think it might have a brutalizing effect on society.
Your mileage will vary of course.
Concerning bureaucrats my perception is that "in the old days" bureaucrats in my sphere of activity tended to try to facilitate things, but that now---in their increasing numbers---they tend to try to get us to jump through hoops, thereby justifying themselves.
Bring back technical colleges & polytechnics.
Within that, perceptions of the suitability of the leader are very important. It would be eccentric to suggest that Michael Foot wasn't a huge drag on Labour in 1983, or that Blair wasn't a huge asset for them in 1997.
There is no greater evil than a drugs war being fought without reasoned thinking, and at the behest of vested interests.
People could choose car or plane over train. Passenger numbers and investment have incresed since privatisation
And talk about the east coast line is also leftish propaganda
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-griffiths/rail-nationalisation_b_3973007.html
http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2014/06/labours-dor-idea-‘costly-and-ill-thought-through’/
Sound mathematical analysis vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, that famous left winger Boris has renationalised the West Anglia line, l
The alchohol industry is a supplier of an addictive and sometimes socially destructive drug.
But if you have friends in high places, you can get special privileges.
American prohibition made criminals rich and drove drinkers to ingest "hooch" of dubious quality.
Having discovered this we tried the same with drugs......which helped the newly decriminalized drinks industry.
As I say, show me the source where senior figures say Labour are doomed. Thanks
Booze is one of the hardest drugs out there. It is also widely availble and made to taste nice
If, God forbid, we end up with Ed Miliband as PM (and the current Labour front bench as the Cabinet), it will be a minor consolation that I'll be able to say I told you so. I'd give it until around the end of 2017 before it will be unquestionable that I have been right on this all along. Put the date in your diary!
You appear to be conflating your personal partisan opinions with the views of the public.
You are in favour of licensed cannabis outlets then Woolie?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/theres-poison-in-the-shadow-cabinet-and-it-could-cost-ed-miliband-the-election/
And plenty more similar stories over the last 3 years.
Please don't waste pixels pointing out that the individuals are not named.
And chill a bit, perhaps? You will have such a good laugh at the PB tories next May, when you'll also have made your fortune betting on Ed M PM, that I would have thought you could afford to keep your powder dry till then. Que sera, sera.
It's very similar to the last French presidential election. I made a reasonable sum betting on an Hollande victory at just the right time, when the odds were still quite good. I also correctly pointed out on these very pages how an Hollande presidency would develop. The trajectory of a Miliband government would be much the same, but probably worse.
As it happens, I was one of the few people here strongly advocating betting on Labour in 2011 and 2012. As a result I've built up a very nice all-green position.
It's not going to happen, of course.
You are eminently sensible then.
The criminalization of cannabis has lead to the creation of artificial compounds which have never been tested for long term effects.
This compound, which can mixed with water and sprayed onto a herbal smoking mix, is less easily detected in the blood than cannabis, and is rapidly gaining a following amongst those subject to routine drug testing.
Cannabis is detectable for up to a month, this compound for a day.
You have mail via "Vanilla"
Thank you.
Huhne's article just strikes me as special pleading.
The question of drug use needs a serious rethink in my opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship
Several countries are now relaxing the rules on "soft" drugs, but Britain will, as usual, be slow on the uptake.
In other words, they behave like every other political party.
In addition, there is always the possibility of some disruptive development, which further adds to the uncertainty (in either direction, of course). Overall I don't think the current odds are too far out, except that Lab Maj looks too short to me.
If Scotland goes Indy that will make it easier
So if ukip got 12% but no MPs they'd get 6 in the H of C.
If Conservatives get 6% more than Labour they'd get 3 extra MPs making it more difficult for a party to win a majority without winning on vote share
It is only the recent rise of UKIP that makes AV appear attractive to the Conservative Party.
I wouldn't have banned indoor tobacco smoking either; just pointing out an inconsistency.
If the Romans pronounced it Herc'les and the Greeks pronounced it Her'cles, they could have spelt it differently but said it the same.
But, it would require the Conservatives to give up their monopoly of representing centre-right voters, and therein lies the rub.
A system in which Parties A and B each get 49% of the vote and C gets 2% would mean C was permanently in coalition government, potentially always with only A, leaving 49% of the electorate completely unrepresented. LibDems aspire to this happy state because they're Party C.
"Not even Labour Supporters seem to like Ed"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/labour-voters-like-ed-miliband-ukip
Personally on the doorstep I say that I can see advantages and drawbacks but honestly European free trade and free movement are an indissoluble package and the choice is between politicians who admit it, politicians who pretend they'll do something but won't, and politicians who dislike it so much that they'll waive the free trade bit too.
Some people accept that as a straight answer and say they'll vote for me despite qualms, others don't. It doesn't come up as often as you'd think from the polls, though - maybe because of the demography of the constituency.
Fascinating article about UK demography, maybe explaining labour's success in London.
I applaud your candour, but I wonder if your counterparts in Rotherham, Grimsby etc. have the same experience. Given the discontent that is reported in the labour ranks, I suspect not.
In any case, hasn't the cycle of life always been:
young - live in cramped City accomodation, either on own or with friends
not quite so young - share flat with girlfriend / wife in fairly central place
have kids - leave central area for greener place with schools
Certainly, that has been the path my friends have mostly taken over the last quarter century.
Fair enough. What's your explanation for Labour's success in the capital in the euros?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10950335/SNPs-retribution-threat-to-pro-UK-Scottish-firms.html
So the power to decide would lie with the voters, whereas in FPTP there are a whole bunch of bizarre electoral geography factors that do a lot to determine the outcome - boundaries, differential turnout, concentration of vote, etc.
Also, when you consider the performance of the Lib Dems in the EU elections I don't think it's true that PR/STV would favour them. Sure, it would have done in 2010, but right now it would more effectively lead to a wipeout*, whereas reluctant tactical voting in Lib Dem/Conservative marginals will save many a Lib Dem MP under our FPTP system.
See for example the fate that befell the Green Party in Ireland, and is likely to be visited upon the Labour Party there - as punishment by the electorate for entering Coalition as a junior partner to FF and FG, respectively.
STV generally gives the voters much more control over the electoral outcome, so of course the politicians who do well out of the status quo - in Labour and the Conservatives - don't want it, because it removes their grip on power.
* The only exception being under a nationwide PR system, as in Israel, but no-one proposes that for the UK. STV is very different.
The Lib Dems think that they can pretend to be virtuous while supporting electoral reform (in their interests, in the name of "fair votes") while opposing boundary reform (which would be against their interests) because they weren't bought off with the ability to control the house of lords
You need also to factor in the effect of social housing. A few months ago I saw a map which colour coded London by housing type, the extent of social housing was surprising.
One final thought on your model, when the children come along and thinking about schools becomes important, our nice middle class family get out of the city faster than you can say diversity. Why is that?
Rejecting equal sized constituencies because they weren't bribed with a fix-up of the House of Lords was an act of pique. From a political perspective it's understandable (although I think it undermined their credibility as it proved beyond doubt that they couldn't be a trusted partner in the Coalition, so I'm not sure the gain was worth it) - but as I said to rcs1000, it's the hypocrisy that stinks
There is also some evidence to suggest that Miliband might also be contributing to Labour's vulnerability to Ukip; 62% of Labour voters who switched to Ukip in 2014 elections dislike or feel indifferent toward Miliband, compared with a far lower 45% of Conservative defectors who feel the same way about Cameron. While more Conservatives are switching to Ukip, this suggests that in relative terms Cameron might actually have an easier time than Miliband in winning some of them back. Around 80% of Conservative voters who are already planning to return to the fold in 2015 like Cameron, but only 61% of the Labour voters say they are thinking of coming back like Miliband.
As I've said before, a key factor in GE2015 will be the extent (if any) to which there is differential swingback from UKIP to Labour and the Tories. This is a big unknown, and is one reason why I think Nick P may be wrong to think not much will change between now and the election. That current 15% or so of UKIP support in the opinion polls is a significant consideration in assessing the probability of various scenarios.
[Note to moderators: We really do need that like button back]
To overturn the status quo, B would need to get from 45% to 51%, something not seen outside Tower Hamlets and Labour rotten boroughs.
A far likelier result would be a decline in turnout as B's supporters don't bother voting. You'd also quite likely get a situation where B got 49%, A got 41%, and C got 10%, so the government is formed by the two defeated parties.
It would resemble the outcome of the battle of Waterloo, where the best army in the campaign was defeated by the second best with the assistance of the worst.
AV is of course not proportionate and as you can't have a system where 100% of voters are represented (except in North Korea) it comes down to the simple concept of making each and every vote at least count in some way.
Currently, my vote in East Ham along with every Tory and indeed every non-Labour vote is wasted and has no meaning - the Labour votes elect Stephen Timms (or whoever) but because there is no recognition under the current FPTP system for the national support a Party achieves, millions of votes are rendered redundant.
The argument that while recognising the validity of some form of constituency link there needs to be some recognition of the national strength of parties (with exceptions for SNP, PC and other nationalist groupings) seems irrefutable. As others have said, however, the current system may be broke but it works fine for the Conservative and Labour Parties and these turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas !!
As long as each one knows they will eventually get their turn whether they have to wait 13 years, 18 years or whatever, there is no incentive for them to change.