Bollocks. You cannot have 'equal votes' in a non-proportional system. Another one who cannot grasp how FPP works.
Yes you can - you could have all constituency sizes the same, rather than some constituencies with 80000 people and others with 50000. What people do with their votes is up to them, but the starting point should be equal. Surely that's not to difficult to grasp?
To do that you will have to lump in coherent towns/islands with slivers of distant places to make up the numbers. The Western Isles would be lumped in with a chunk of the mainland with which it had no relationship. It would be a dog's breakfast.
And there is a good reason for treating, for instance, the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles as special cases. That is very from - for instance - saying that Kensington is very different to the western part of Hammersmith.
So you are already introducing special cases. Sign of a rotten system is that you have to break it to make it work. Forget your example of west London. Try adding tiny slivers of distant towns to whole other towns separated by open country - that is the consequence of seat equalisation. It was a bonkers proposal for the geographically challenged.
There was a margin of error ( +/- 5K?) to deal with that.
But equally, the difference between Fleet and Alton in Hampshire is not that significant.
The margin of error +/- 5% was insufficient to deal with that hence the proposed constituency with 3 left over bits of Cheshire with no relationship to each other and no transport connections between them . A MofE of +/- 10% would have worked much better .
Don't have a view on the detail, although a difference from 54 - 66K voters does seem quite a lot. You'd have though, though that there would have been a way to solve for the constituency that you are referring to.
Got it - so the Tories need to make the electoral system more robust to protect the country from the actions of people who "illogically" do not vote Tory.
No. Voters balance all sorts of different things in their voting decision.
* Tribalism - I personally believe that this is illogical * Thinking that "saving the NHS" is the only thing that matters - I disagree, but logical given a certain value set, and could encourage one to vote Labour * Education: believing that "fairness" is more important than achieving the best possible education outcome for as many kids as possible - again, I disagree, but logical given a certain value set and could encourage one to vote Labour
There are lots of non-economic and non-character reasons to vote Labour. Your analysis is flawed because it implies that economy/character are the only things that matter
We may find that the entire Tory electoral strategy is based on the economy and character.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.
Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.
That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.
In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.
MPs represent all their constituents, not just the ones that are on the electoral register. Many options were suggested to reflect this. The Tories ignored these and chose the one that suited them best.
No, they didn't. Parliament chose it.
But I am concerned that there is no incentive to encourage people to register/vote. Basing constituency sizes on one of these factors does create an incentive - perhaps you can suggest an alternative?
Listening to the radio as driving to work, was amazed to hear a NUT officer saying that he expected public support for the strike, as it is fair.
Obviously does not think of parents or if a parent will be at home anyway due to the strike.
How can a strike, about 2 weeks before school holidays (and teachers get more holidays than working parents), mid-week, that will cost parents more in child care or will have to sacrifice a day's holiday, be popular and supported by the parents?
Just looking at the Wales web-site, found more schools closed in Labour voting areas than in the other areas.
Well, we don't need to speculate as there's a poll, which shows the public evenly divided on this one:
People of working age (which will include most parents) support the strike, 65+ people oppose it (but that could be because of elderly people tend to vote Tory and people of working age tend to vote Labour, who knows?).
The reason the strike is more popular than some strikes is perhaps that people are sympathetic to the people striking - e.g. most people quite like teachers, firefighters and health workers in general and have the impression that their pay isn't very good.
Got it - so the Tories need to make the electoral system more robust to protect the country from the actions of people who "illogically" do not vote Tory.
No. Voters balance all sorts of different things in their voting decision.
* Tribalism - I personally believe that this is illogical * Thinking that "saving the NHS" is the only thing that matters - I disagree, but logical given a certain value set, and could encourage one to vote Labour * Education: believing that "fairness" is more important than achieving the best possible education outcome for as many kids as possible - again, I disagree, but logical given a certain value set and could encourage one to vote Labour
There are lots of non-economic and non-character reasons to vote Labour. Your analysis is flawed because it implies that economy/character are the only things that matter
We may find that the entire Tory electoral strategy is based on the economy and character.
That's very likely.
But in my view that's a strategy with a ceiling of a 40% share. Most likely they will gain some of the people who were scared off by Mandelson's campaign last time ("the Tories aren't baby eaters") and will lose others, so they will end up more or less where they started. (I reckon they will be at c. 35%)
To have any chance of breaching 40% they need to find a message that resonates with those parts of the electorate that don't view these factors as the most important.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.
Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.
That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.
In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.
Are non-voters not represented by their MP? If they are, why should they not be counted?
The point is there is no "obviously correct" solution. Doubtless each party would estimate whether it was favoured or not by various unregistered groups -- recent arrivals, non-nationals, under-18s and so on -- before producing a principled argument one way or the other.
How many more elections that don't produce a one-party majority will it take before the call is for a "grand coalition"? If we really do need to cut pensions and dismantle the NHS, for example, wouldn't it be better for this to be done by a National Unity government than an avowedly partisan one?
The boundary changes proposed at the time by Cameron were a better start point than the current ones if you view, as Gasman says a starting point for FPTP as having equal size seats (Which is surely a good start point for a constituency system...)
The current system is already mandated to have equal constituency sizes, but with weaker tolerances than proposed by the Tories, so that constituency boundaries can more easily reflect local geographical boundaries.
I don't see how you can make the constituency link totemic at the same time as forcing the system to create ridiculous seats with a lack of cohesion.
Tory posters to the thread are entirely right to point to Labour's democratic deficit on this issue - the absurd record of only devolving power to places where they believed they would be in perpetual control (London, Scotland, Wales, etc), the use of bespoke electoral systems that they thought would favour them in each type of election (AMS for Scotland and Wales, SV for Mayoral elections), the transparently biased introduction of all postal vote elections in regions with higher Labour votes in an attempt to help Blair win a European election.
It's a lamentable record, but the Tories and Labour are two sides of the same coin in that respect, and their proposed boundary changes were simply the same sort of partisan crap. If the change would have benefited Labour then they would never have proposed it.
Making the system better for the voters is not their concern. They've been in no rush to bring in the power of recall for example - they're only interested now when bringing it in just before Labour take over gives them a temporary partisan advantage.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Actually the Tories campaigned to retain FPTP, but the totally biased and unfair boundaries which the sneaky, duplicitous Lib-Dems stitched them up over.
Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.
That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.
In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.
I don't accept that the current state of voter registration has anything to do with a refusal by a small minority of the population to register to avoid a tax 25 years ago.
As for the idea that HMG should have done more to encourage voter registration, every household gets sent the forms. If they are not returned the forms are sent again. If still not returned a personal visit is made (usually two) then, if no contact is made, a final reminder is sent by post. It is a criminal offence to fail to complete the registration forms (though I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted). What more can be expected?
The idea that data supplied for one purpose cannot be used for another has long been a principle of government and is enshrined in law. It is true that this principle has been stretched over recent years, but it is still sound. I don't believe the public would care for a massive "big brother" database, that was one of the objections to the identity card scheme. I might add that from personal experience the fear of their details coming to official notice and being shared between departments is one of the reasons that people refuse to put themselves on the electoral register.
It will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of individual voter registration has on the number of registered voters. I think we will see a significant drop.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
They'll only move their head office and tax location in any case, all of them will still operate branches in Scotland whatever the case.
It will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of individual voter registration has on the number of registered voters. I think we will see a significant drop.
Well, duh. The entire purpose of it is to disenfranchise Labour voters. It's a move straight from the GOP playbook.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
Rubbish. Mike's graph above shows that both the Tories and Labour gain massively from the current system. The Conservatuves wanted to gerrymander the system to give themselves an even bigger premium. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks they would have been pushing for the changes did they not advantage them is a credulous fool. I don't recall the Tories lobbying to change the system when it favoured them over Labour in the 1980s.
@BobaFett Obviously you do not know the meaning of 'gerrymander' To start with equal numbers of the electorate for each constituency (as far as is geographically possible) is not gerrymandering. It is democracy.
However to try to keep unequally electorate-sized constituencies for reasons of political advantage is, in effect, gerrymandering and is against democracy.
Garbage. Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. That is exactly what the Tories had proposed. Get over it.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.
Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.
That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.
In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.
MPs represent all their constituents, not just the ones that are on the electoral register. Many options were suggested to reflect this. The Tories ignored these and chose the one that suited them best.
No, they didn't. Parliament chose it.
But I am concerned that there is no incentive to encourage people to register/vote. Basing constituency sizes on one of these factors does create an incentive - perhaps you can suggest an alternative?
In the US they based constituencies on the population as recorded in the census. That's the obvious way to do it, since as SO says MPs represent constituents not just voters.
Listening to the radio as driving to work, was amazed to hear a NUT officer saying that he expected public support for the strike, as it is fair.
Obviously does not think of parents or if a parent will be at home anyway due to the strike.
How can a strike, about 2 weeks before school holidays (and teachers get more holidays than working parents), mid-week, that will cost parents more in child care or will have to sacrifice a day's holiday, be popular and supported by the parents?
Just looking at the Wales web-site, found more schools closed in Labour voting areas than in the other areas.
Well, we don't need to speculate as there's a poll, which shows the public evenly divided on this one:
People of working age (which will include most parents) support the strike, 65+ people oppose it (but that could be because of elderly people tend to vote Tory and people of working age tend to vote Labour, who knows?).
The reason the strike is more popular than some strikes is perhaps that people are sympathetic to the people striking - e.g. most people quite like teachers, firefighters and health workers in general and have the impression that their pay isn't very good.
Listening to the radio as driving to work, was amazed to hear a NUT officer saying that he expected public support for the strike, as it is fair.
Obviously does not think of parents or if a parent will be at home anyway due to the strike.
How can a strike, about 2 weeks before school holidays (and teachers get more holidays than working parents), mid-week, that will cost parents more in child care or will have to sacrifice a day's holiday, be popular and supported by the parents?
Just looking at the Wales web-site, found more schools closed in Labour voting areas than in the other areas.
Well, we don't need to speculate as there's a poll, which shows the public evenly divided on this one:
People of working age (which will include most parents) support the strike, 65+ people oppose it (but that could be because of elderly people tend to vote Tory and people of working age tend to vote Labour, who knows?).
The reason the strike is more popular than some strikes is perhaps that people are sympathetic to the people striking - e.g. most people quite like teachers, firefighters and health workers in general and have the impression that their pay isn't very good.
Actually the Tories campaigned to retain FPTP, but the totally biased and unfair boundaries which the sneaky, duplicitous Lib-Dems stitched them up over.
If you want fair votes, campaign for PR. Otherwise keep quiet! :-)
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Of course they won't leave.
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
Actually the Tories campaigned to retain FPTP, but the totally biased and unfair boundaries which the sneaky, duplicitous Lib-Dems stitched them up over.
If you want fair votes, campaign for PR. Otherwise keep quiet! :-)
Or make it illegal for Labour to buy votes for benefits. No taxation, no representation. I.e. Tax benefits
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
I don't have a particularly strong view on population vs registered voters. I like actual voters because it encourages parties to get turnout even in safe seats. But perhaps there are other ways to do this.
"The unlikely information that Hitler's role in WW2 was "overlooked" or that the hole in the ozone layer is caused by "arseholes" are among the many bloopers submitted by university lecturers to the Times Higher Education magazine's annual exam howlers competition.
One student gave an unusual summary on the future of transportation in a paper on vehicle emissions, suggesting that "In future all cars (will) be fitted with Catholic converters".
All credit for Mike for throwing one in. The only surprise is that he eschewed his normal strategy of publishing it first thing on a Monday morning when PBers are even more grumpy than normal. Disappointing.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.
Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.
That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.
In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.
MPs represent all their constituents, not just the ones that are on the electoral register. Many options were suggested to reflect this. The Tories ignored these and chose the one that suited them best.
No, they didn't. Parliament chose it.
But I am concerned that there is no incentive to encourage people to register/vote. Basing constituency sizes on one of these factors does create an incentive - perhaps you can suggest an alternative?
Parliament chose not to proceed with the equal sized constituency plan the Tories favoured.
• Seasonally adjusted, the UK's deficit on trade in goods and services was estimated to have been £2.4 billion in May 2014, compared with £2.1 billion in April 2014.
• There was a deficit of £9.2 billion on goods, partly offset by an estimated surplus of £6.8 billion on services.
• In May 2014 exports of goods increased by £0.1 billion to £24.1 billion and imports of goods increased by £0.5 billion to £33.3 billion resulting in a widening of the goods deficit by £0.4 billion. The increase in imports of goods was attributed to aircraft.
• In May 2014 exports of goods to the EU decreased by 0.2% to £12.2 billion and imports of goods increased by 1.6% to 17.4 billion. For the same period, exports of goods to countries outside the EU increased by 1.5% to £11.9 billion and imports of goods increased by 1.7% to £15.9 billion, reflecting an increase in imports of semi-manufactured goods.
• In the three months ending May 2014, exports of goods increased by 0.1% to £72.6 billion and imports of goods increased by 0.5% to £98.9 billion. In the three months ending May 2014, the export of goods excluding oil and erratics increased by 0.9% to £60.6 billion; reflecting a £0.4 billion increase in exports of cars. Imports of goods excluding oil and erratics increased by 0.2% to £83.8 billion for the same period.
A bit of rebalancing towards non EU trade continuing recent trends but EU exports continue to be depressed.
All credit for Mike for throwing one in. The only surprise is that he eschewed his normal strategy of publishing it first thing on a Monday morning when PBers are even more grumpy than normal. Disappointing.
We need a thread on how Ashcroft proves that at 3% of the national vote the Lib Dems will retain 57 seats.
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
That story was in a blog on the Telegraph website yesterday. Implausible in my view as it would a damn fool thing to do because it would undermine a lot of the work that is going on in both departments and make Cameron look like a lying berk in the process. However, as Cameron hasn't got a strategic bone in his body and is a useless politician he might go for it.
Actually the Tories campaigned to retain FPTP, but the totally biased and unfair boundaries which the sneaky, duplicitous Lib-Dems stitched them up over.
If you want fair votes, campaign for PR. Otherwise keep quiet! :-)
Or make it illegal for Labour to buy votes for benefits. No taxation, no representation. I.e. Tax benefits
Taxing all benefits? Including pensions? Would hurt Tory supporters most of all.
@Robert_Of_Sheffield I would say it was unlikely. sensible perhaps, if they could make sure IDS was only allowed to shuffle paper clips. Universal Credit is a mess at the moment, and moving IDS would be like admitting that four years had been more or less wasted. I would expect him out of the department inside a week if the Tories won the election though. edit, much the same as Landsley with the health reforms only, trickier with the election so close.
DyedWoolie election and Sindy prediction update Sindy - Yes 48.5, No 51.5, race tightening GE 2015 Lab 318 Tory 275 Lib Dem 21 Green 2 UKIP 2 NI and Nats 32
Idiot is PM of minority government, back to the polls in a year
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
Rubbish. Mike's graph above shows that both the Tories and Labour gain massively from the current system. The Conservatuves wanted to gerrymander the system to give themselves an even bigger premium. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks they would have been pushing for the changes did they not advantage them is a credulous fool. I don't recall the Tories lobbying to change the system when it favoured them over Labour in the 1980s.
@BobaFett Obviously you do not know the meaning of 'gerrymander' To start with equal numbers of the electorate for each constituency (as far as is geographically possible) is not gerrymandering. It is democracy.
However to try to keep unequally electorate-sized constituencies for reasons of political advantage is, in effect, gerrymandering and is against democracy.
Garbage. Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. That is exactly what the Tories had proposed. Get over it.
Yes that is what Labour is always trying to do.
The Tories were proposing two separate and distinct things: constituency boundaries to reflect equal populations of the electorate and also reduce the number of MPs and hence constituencies. Those are two separate and distinct matters.
BTW are you on strike today and are extra grumpy because you are on enforced housework/child-minding duty?
I don't have a particularly strong view on population vs registered voters. I like actual voters because it encourages parties to get turnout even in safe seats. But perhaps there are other ways to do this.
I don't have a strong view either, but I don't know where the data would come from if the constituency is to be based on population. What accurate dataset exists for population numbers? The census is I suppose the nearest, but that is substantially made up of projections these days and in any case is only collected once every ten years.
Actually the Tories campaigned to retain FPTP, but the totally biased and unfair boundaries which the sneaky, duplicitous Lib-Dems stitched them up over.
If you want fair votes, campaign for PR. Otherwise keep quiet! :-)
Or make it illegal for Labour to buy votes for benefits. No taxation, no representation. I.e. Tax benefits
Taxing all benefits? Including pensions? Would hurt Tory supporters most of all.
A price worth paying. Pensions could be adjusted to ensure no loss of income.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
Rubbish. Mike's graph above shows that both the Tories and Labour gain massively from the current system. The Conservatuves wanted to gerrymander the system to give themselves an even bigger premium. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks they would have been pushing for the changes did they not advantage them is a credulous fool. I don't recall the Tories lobbying to change the system when it favoured them over Labour in the 1980s.
@BobaFett Obviously you do not know the meaning of 'gerrymander' To start with equal numbers of the electorate for each constituency (as far as is geographically possible) is not gerrymandering. It is democracy.
However to try to keep unequally electorate-sized constituencies for reasons of political advantage is, in effect, gerrymandering and is against democracy.
Garbage. Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. That is exactly what the Tories had proposed. Get over it.
Yes that is what Labour is always trying to do.
The Tories were proposing two separate and distinct things: constituency boundaries to reflect equal populations of the electorate and also reduce the number of MPs and hence constituencies. Those are two separate and distinct matters.
BTW are you on strike today and are extra grumpy because you are on enforced housework/child-minding duty?
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
Why would Cameron want to put "safe pair of hands" Hammond in charge of Universal Credit ? :Innocent Face:
I don't think there is any contradiction between wanting to keep first past the post which gives the larger parties more seats, but also at the same time wanting to remove the bias towards particular parties due to the boundaries.
Of course those that want PR will continue to pretend not to know the difference.
The contortions of sophistry which Labour and LibDem supporters go through in an attempt to justify the fact that some areas of the country (Labour-supporting areas, as it happens) get more MPs per 100,000 registered voters than other areas are a wonder to behold.
The complete non-sequitur that this disgraceful bias within the system we have is somehow OK because there might be arguments in favour of a different voting system is particularly bonkers. Irrespective of the voting system, Wales and the North East should not get disproportionately large numbers of MPs, especially since that bias happens to help one particular party. That is so obvious and unarguable that one can only marvel at the intellectual dishonesty of anyone who pretends otherwise.
Parliament chose not to proceed with the equal sized constituency plan the Tories favoured.
No. Parliament agreed a mandate. The Boundary Commission executed on it in an independent manner. Two political parties then decided they would overthrow the validly executed work of the Boundary Commission.
The right time to object to the mandate was when it was debated on. Labour did, which was fair, and then continued to vote against the result (I don't like this because it establishes the principle that the Boundary Commission's work is subject to partisan review, but it's justifable given they opposed the mandate in the first place). It is the LibDems who acted undemocratically.
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
Actually moving IDS to Defence is plausible.
Before IDS became Tory Leader, he was Shadow Defence Secretary, and he did a decent job, plus as an ex Guardsman, he'd have some credibility in the eyes of the MOD Mandarins and Soldiers.
Anyone know who was the last Defence Secretary that was a soldier?
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
Actually moving IDS to Defence is plausible.
Before IDS became Tory Leader, he was Shadow Defence Secretary, and he did a decent job, plus as an ex Guardsman, he'd have some credibility in the eyes of the MOD Mandarins and Soldiers.
Anyone know who was the last Defence Secretary that was a soldier?
The system massively favours the Tories as it is. Your party was lobbying for an even greater premium. It really is that simple I'm afraid. I don't recall the Tories whining about the system in the 1980s when is massively favoured them.
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
That story was in a blog on the Telegraph website yesterday. Implausible in my view as it would a damn fool thing to do because it would undermine a lot of the work that is going on in both departments and make Cameron look like a lying berk in the process. However, as Cameron hasn't got a strategic bone in his body and is a useless politician he might go for it.
I could see it making some sense after the election if - big if - Cameron is still PM. Hammond is good at execution; once the principles are established UC should be about execution. IDS might accept defence given his military background.
Good news, in that Charles now thinks that STV is not too bad after all.
Not such good news, in that he does not seem to understand it.
When he says " Perhaps we could cap the number of votes at, say, 3 (for a 4 member seat) - haven't worked through the implications though", he seems to be unaware that STV stands for Single Votes that are Transferable. This means that each person´s vote is already capped - at just one!
The contortions of sophistry which Labour and LibDem supporters go through in an attempt to justify the fact that some areas of the country (Labour-supporting areas, as it happens) get more MPs per 100,000 registered voters than other areas are a wonder to behold.
The complete non-sequitur that this disgraceful bias within the system we have is somehow OK because there might be arguments in favour of a different voting system is particularly bonkers. Irrespective of the voting system, Wales and the North East should not get disproportionately large numbers of MPs, especially since that bias happens to help one particular party. That is so obvious and unarguable that one can only marvel at the intellectual dishonesty of anyone who pretends otherwise.
Irony klaxon.
Anyone defending a system allocating +50% of seats to any Party gaining only mid 30% of votes cannot accuse others of sophistry.
Parliament chose not to proceed with the equal sized constituency plan the Tories favoured.
No. Parliament agreed a mandate. The Boundary Commission executed on it in an independent manner. Two political parties then decided they would overthrow the validly executed work of the Boundary Commission.
The right time to object to the mandate was when it was debated on. Labour did, which was fair, and then continued to vote against the result (I don't like this because it establishes the principle that the Boundary Commission's work is subject to partisan review, but it's justifable given they opposed the mandate in the first place). It is the LibDems who acted undemocratically.
Parliament changed its mind, which is something Parliament is entitled to do.
"Winston Churchill once offered the world a shrewd analysis of what it is be truly bold when he said: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” Although the former Conservative Prime Minister is an unlikely person to think of when it comes to the British labour movement, today, as more than one million public sector workers go on strike, the Labour leadership should take heed of what he said."
The system massively favours the Tories as it is. Your party was lobbying for an even greater premium. It really is that simple I'm afraid. I don't recall the Tories whining about the system in the 1980s when is massively favoured them.
What utter garbage. It doesn't 'favour the Tories'. It rewards any party with wide electoral appeal, which is a different thing altogether.
Anyway you are, as usual, dishonestly evading the point. We are not discussing what voting system is best. We are discussing constituency sizes. Given that we have FPTP - and that is the system, whether one prefers another system or not - what possible justification could there be for building into it a bias in favour of voters in Wales and the North East? If we had STV or any other constituency-based voting system, such a bias would still be equally unacceptable.
Some information coming out on the terrorism emergency, which as speculated on the previous thread turns out to be that the government is being sued by ISPs having been deliberately breaking the law for several months.
The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.
We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.
But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.
Rubbish. Mike's graph above shows that both the Tories and Labour gain massively from the current system. The Conservatuves wanted to gerrymander the system to give themselves an even bigger premium. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks they would have been pushing for the changes did they not advantage them is a credulous fool. I don't recall the Tories lobbying to change the system when it favoured them over Labour in the 1980s.
@BobaFett Obviously you do not know the meaning of 'gerrymander' To start with equal numbers of the electorate for each constituency (as far as is geographically possible) is not gerrymandering. It is democracy.
However to try to keep unequally electorate-sized constituencies for reasons of political advantage is, in effect, gerrymandering and is against democracy.
Garbage. Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. That is exactly what the Tories had proposed. Get over it.
Oh dear. When you start to lie you just harm your own argument and lose the little remaining credibility you have.
"gerrymandering ... drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals" Encyclopaedia Britannica
"the process of dividing a region in which people vote in a way that gives one political group an unfair advantage" Macmillan Dictionary
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
I've just seen a poster on another political discussion site claiming that IDS and Hammond are expected to swap jobs next week. Supposedly, they heard this from a Tory whip.
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
That story was in a blog on the Telegraph website yesterday. Implausible in my view as it would a damn fool thing to do because it would undermine a lot of the work that is going on in both departments and make Cameron look like a lying berk in the process. However, as Cameron hasn't got a strategic bone in his body and is a useless politician he might go for it.
I could see it making some sense after the election if - big if - Cameron is still PM. Hammond is good at execution; once the principles are established UC should be about execution. IDS might accept defence given his military background.
After the election for sure, all bets are off and if, big if, Cameron is still PM he will want to get Hammond out of the MoD. There is a strategic defence review (code for yet another round of Treasury-led cuts) next year and neither Cameron or the Treasury will want someone at the MoD who knows anything about the department. IDS would be the ideal choice, a military background for appearances sake but a complete ignorance of the details of his brief.
@TheScreamingEagles Yes, it is sad your favoured party has to rely on the pittance from membership fees. Why not hold a few fund raisers and get foreign donors to tell their companies to donate, that might help?
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
Bobafett said "Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
I don't see how that is contradicted by your dictionary definitions.
The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.
Everyone knew that. Watching Tories twist and jerk to proclaim otherwise is too funny.
"Winston Churchill once offered the world a shrewd analysis of what it is be truly bold when he said: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” Although the former Conservative Prime Minister is an unlikely person to think of when it comes to the British labour movement, today, as more than one million public sector workers go on strike, the Labour leadership should take heed of what he said."
Labour should do the right thing and condemn these strikes. The leaders of the major unions have one aim, increasing their influence. If they were acting in the best interests of their workers they would be fighting some councils who are maximising the impact of their reduced income again for political reasons. At present councils are putting fear into their workforce with a stream of threats going right up to 2018, it is wrong totally wrong.
I would hope most see sense and go into work and force a change in outlook by cancelling the Union subs.
Do Labour supporters honestly not see the problem at all with the issue on the boundaries favouring a particular party? Would they not complain if the bias was against their chosen party rather than for it?
They just start pointing to different potential voting systems they like and saying anything other than them is unfair so you can't complain about the clear bias in the current system. It's all a bit mental.
Even more bonkers is their lack of acknowledgement of the fact that their party never brought in a fairer system to the one they're all complaining about despite being the last party to have a majority.
It just confirms my belief that a lot of Labour supporters use emotion rather than logic when forming their views. It harms the Tories and therefore it must be the right thing, even though they know deep down if the situation was reversed they'd be going absolutely crazy.
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
Bobafett said "Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
I don't see how that is contradicted by your dictionary definitions.
The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.
Everyone knew that. Watching Tories twist and jerk to proclaim otherwise is too funny.
"Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
Only Labour supporters could describe removing a systematic bias in favour of one party (which so happens is theirs) as gerrymandering.
"Gerrymandering is removing postal fraud so it suits your party".
We are discussing constituency sizes. Given that we have FPTP - and that is the system, whether one prefers another system or not - what possible justification could there be for building into it a bias in favour of voters in Wales and the North East?
Nothing in the way the current system is formulated creates such a bias. The small bias that does currently exist has developed in recent years because people move from Labour voting areas to Tory voting areas and the boundaries are necessarily based on out-of-date information.
The boundary commission was also previously told that because the local link with a constituency was important - one of the main reasons for retaining FPTP we are often told - there should be a certain tolerance to variations in constituency size so that constituency boundaries match up with sensible local community boundaries as much as possible.
There is no reason why this has to result in a bias in favour to Labour - indeed in the past it resulted in a bias in favour of the Conservatives. That it does so at the moment is accidental, and there are drawbacks to changing the system in the way that the Tories proposed. Mainly that the constituency boundaries become more contrived and unnatural to meet the stricter tolerance.
The Tories would not propose this if the bias were currently favouring them. They are as bad as Labour.
" At present councils are putting fear into their workforce with a stream of threats going right up to 2018"
Could you, please, expand on that, Mr. Mac? What threats are councils making? How are councils putting fear into their workforce? What is the significance of 2018?
Well if ever there was a thread that showed the two main parties like nothing more than to squabble over minute details while ignoring the bigger picture this has to be it
Mikes chart shows that labour and Tories are hugely over represented in the H of C, while voters who don't like either are vastly under represented or not represented at all. Yet their sense of entitlement blinds them
In football terms this us like Chelsea and Man C complaining that the other is getting too much money from a rich owner
Nah, multi-member STV would be the way to go if you had to.
Retains the constituency link, gives residents different options post election if they have strong views about which MP they deal with, allows flexibility for voters do choose what they do.
I don't like the fact that people who vote for minority parties get repeated do-overs. Perhaps we could cap the number of votes at, say, 3 (for a 4 member seat) - haven't worked through the implications though.
What on Earth does "get repeated do-overs" mean? And how could you "cap the number of votes at, say, 3" when each voter has one vote only anyway?
Look at the graph at the top of the page. It takes 3.5 times as many votes to elect a LibDem MP as a Tory or Labour MP. So it's not really surprising that the LDs can drop 50% and still retain a number of MPs.They'll only be in office if neither of the two big parties is popular enough to pull ahead. It's FPTP.
No, it does not "take" 3.5 times as many votes to elect a Lib Dem MP as a Conservative or Labour MP. It takes about the same number - which tends to be somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000.
The Tories would not propose this if the bias were currently favouring them. They are as bad as Labour.
Well, I can't speak for all Tories, but I certainly would argue for removing any systematic bias, whichever party it favoured.
As for Labour, to give them their due, in the past they haven't been bad on this. To their credit, they corrected the over-representation of Scotland in time for the 2005 election, Scottish MPs were reduced from 72 (which favoured Labour considerably) to 59.
Essentially there has been cross-party agreement for decades on this, as you would expect in a democracy where most politicans are decent and honourable. This deliberate action to avoid equalisation is a new and disgraceful development.
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
Bobafett said "Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
I don't see how that is contradicted by your dictionary definitions.
The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.
Everyone knew that. Watching Tories twist and jerk to proclaim otherwise is too funny.
"Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
Only Labour supporters could describe removing a systematic bias in favour of one party (which so happens is theirs) as gerrymandering.
"Gerrymandering is removing postal fraud so it suits your party".
Equalisation can also be achieved with 650 seats. Having 600 seats has nothing to do with "equalisation".
Anyway, it will not happen in the next Parliament too !
I find it amazing the knots that Conservative party supporters have to cortort themselves into to support changing the boundaries to benefit themselves while opposing a proportional system. FPTP is not, in any way, a proportional system, folks.
It's a blatant case of gerrymandering introduced under the guise of the plausible deniability of supposed "fairness". The Conservatives are trying to introduce a system because it helps them.
The real underlying problem is that Tory supporters are ghettoising themselves into distinct geographical areas rather than integrating themselves into broader society.
" At present councils are putting fear into their workforce with a stream of threats going right up to 2018"
Could you, please, expand on that, Mr. Mac? What threats are councils making? How are councils putting fear into their workforce? What is the significance of 2018?
In the Council where my wife works Derbyshire, meetings have been called, literature sent out proposing various redundancies and job changes in every year up to 2018, in every mainly public facing department. The end result people put in fear not just for the short-term. Derbyshire copied Sheffield and I expect their are many more.
Nothing like this was drawn up when the Tories had control only last year the cuts are being made to be seen for political reasons, any Union worth it's salt would put a stop to it but it suits their agenda too.
It is a disgrace to the workforce involved and totally not genuine because who knows at this stage what government changes in policy will be after 2015.
@macisback More changes to union voting rules and a pay freeze continuing till 2018 for the public sector have been mentioned by the Tories. Other than that it seems to be more of the same, austerity for the poor, and subsidies for the rich. The Conservatives are consistent if nothing else.
@TheScreamingEagles Yes, it is sad your favoured party has to rely on the pittance from membership fees. Why not hold a few fund raisers and get foreign donors to tell their companies to donate, that might help?
You must have missed this
Labour party to auction £140k of art work and Sir Patrick Stewart voicemail message at election gala dinner
Labour party to auction £140k of art work and Sir Patrick Stewart voicemail message at election gala dinner
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
Bobafett said "Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
I don't see how that is contradicted by your dictionary definitions.
The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.
Everyone knew that. Watching Tories twist and jerk to proclaim otherwise is too funny.
"Gerrymandering is redrawing boundaries in a manner that suits your party. "
Only Labour supporters could describe removing a systematic bias in favour of one party (which so happens is theirs) as gerrymandering.
"Gerrymandering is removing postal fraud so it suits your party".
Equalisation can also be achieved with 650 seats. Having 600 seats has nothing to do with "equalisation".
Anyway, it will not happen in the next Parliament too !
Well I'd agree there was absolutely no need to try and reduce the number of MPs at all. It was a measure announced to "save money" after the expenses scandal I believe.
I'm sure they could have come to an agreement to equalise the boundaries whilst keeping 650 MPs.
I find it amazing the knots that Conservative party supporters have to cortort themselves into to support changing the boundaries to benefit themselves while opposing a proportional system. FPTP is not, in any way, a proportional system, folks.
It's a blatant case of gerrymandering introduced under the guise of the plausible deniability of supposed "fairness". The Conservatives are trying to introduce a system because it helps them.
The real underlying problem is that Tory supporters are ghettoising themselves into distinct geographical areas rather than integrating themselves into broader society.
Labour also support FPTP, unless it's in their manifesto to get rid of it which I seriously doubt.
The Tories might well be motivated to remove the bias in the system because it is against them, but whatever, there is bias in the system and it needs to be removed. And complaining about that happening is ridiculous.
TheScreamingEagles As long as it is a registered British voter who buys it? If it is a foreign oligarch using a made up company, I will complain about it the same as I did for the Thatcher portrait.
I should say that I have some reservations of the underlying premise of this thread in any event.
There are likely to be 2 major changes in voting patterns between 2010 and 2015. Firstly, the Lib Dems are likely to lose around 10 percentage points of their support. Secondly, UKIP are likely to gain 7-10 percentage points. How will these play out.
Looking at the Lib Dems first I think it is necessary to break their loss of support into various blocks. The first, and largest, are those who have typically been Labour orientated but have been willing in the past to vote tactically to keep the dreaded tories out. They are furious that their votes effectively put the dreaded tories in and will not make this mistake again. They will vote Labour but in seats that Labour are not competitive in. This will, somewhat ironically, give the tories a number of easy wins, especially in the south west and possibly in a couple of Scottish seats. I guess this will be 4 percentage points worth and it will gain Labour no seats at all.
The second block are those who were unhappy with Labour in 2010 for a variety of reasons from the madness of Brown, the Gulf war, the authoritarianism of the Blair years, etc etc. This block will vote Labour and they will make a difference. In seats like Broxtowe the squeeze on the Lib Dem vote will disproportionately favour Labour and result in some wins off the tories. Maybe 3%.
The third block are the free thinkers, anarchist, anti establishment types. They will probably vote green so their votes are just wasted. Maybe 2%.
The fourth block will think we are still in a serious economic situation and will be minded to vote tory. I recognise this is definitely one of the smaller blocks, maybe 2%.
Overall I think Labour will gain in seats and share of the vote from this movement but the movement in votes is likely to be greater than the gain in seats and much greater than the net gain given the tories will also benefit.
I find it amazing the knots that Conservative party supporters have to cortort themselves into to support changing the boundaries to benefit themselves while opposing a proportional system. FPTP is not, in any way, a proportional system, folks.
It's a blatant case of gerrymandering introduced under the guise of the plausible deniability of supposed "fairness". The Conservatives are trying to introduce a system because it helps them.
The real underlying problem is that Tory supporters are ghettoising themselves into distinct geographical areas rather than integrating themselves into broader society.
Labour also support FPTP, unless it's in their manifesto to get rid of it which I seriously doubt.
The Tories might well be motivated to remove the bias in the system because it is against them, but whatever, there is bias in the system and it needs to be removed. And complaining about that happening is ridiculous.
Labour aren't pretending to make FPTP in any way "fairer" though.
There's an argument for keeping the historical system (which I don't really agree with, but at least accept) and there's an argument for introducing PR, but there's very little argument to be made for adjusting the historical system just enough to help the Tories. It's intellectually dishonest.
And what is the bias compared to, exactly? There is no inherent reason the FPTP result should in any way match the popular vote. First Past the Post is not, in any way, a proportional system.
Well if ever there was a thread that showed the two main parties like nothing more than to squabble over minute details while ignoring the bigger picture this has to be it
Mikes chart shows that labour and Tories are hugely over represented in the H of C, while voters who don't like either are vastly under represented or not represented at all. Yet their sense of entitlement blinds them
In football terms this us like Chelsea and Man C complaining that the other is getting too much money from a rich owner
Well put. They may hate each other, but each fears they would be the ones to lose out the most if anyone else broke through, and so instinctively they will prefer measures which prevent that if they can and rally together.
The obvious thing to do to make it fair while keeping the constituency relationship.
Reduce the number of constituencies to 600 and give a seat in the H of C for every 2% of the national vote
How could anyone argue this wouldn't be fairer?
You'd be surprised just how many wood crawl out of the woodwork - and no doubt some claiming the vulnerable and babies would die as a result - Polly for one I'd imagine. ; )
@kle4 I would agree, but it should be pointed out that politics equals power, and a fairer voting system would reduce that power and hand it to the electorate. (if you boil down the case for FPTP that was the argument)
" At present councils are putting fear into their workforce with a stream of threats going right up to 2018"
Could you, please, expand on that, Mr. Mac? What threats are councils making? How are councils putting fear into their workforce? What is the significance of 2018?
In the Council where my wife works Derbyshire, meetings have been called, literature sent out proposing various redundancies and job changes in every year up to 2018, in every mainly public facing department. The end result people put in fear not just for the short-term. Derbyshire copied Sheffield and I expect their are many more.
Nothing like this was drawn up when the Tories had control only last year the cuts are being made to be seen for political reasons, any Union worth it's salt would put a stop to it but it suits their agenda too.
It is a disgrace to the workforce involved and totally not genuine because who knows at this stage what government changes in policy will be after 2015.
Thanks for that, Mr. Mac. As you describe it there would seem to be two possible interpretations. One the council is giving advance notice of what might happen and encouraging staff to contribute ideas as to how to preserve services when money is going to be very tight regardless of who wins next year. An alternative is that the council is trying to frighten the staff and make them more likely to vote Labour so as to avoid the fate that awaits them if the baby-eating Tories get in.
Turning to UKIP they suffer the old SDP disadvantage of having very widely spread but quite shallow support. They will do very badly under FPTP until they can identify suitable clusters. But it is worth considering the effect of their share of the vote.
My guess is that they will gain a lot of votes in safe tory seats. Those seats will remain safe so the effect is to improve the ratio between the tories votes and tory seats.
If the Tory vote overall is down this may not help them all that much but if the tories can score anything like they did in 2010 it is very likely that their vote to seat ratio will improve and that they will do better than they did then in the tory/Labour marginals. If they keep their share of the vote those votes have to come from somewhere.
There will be some seats where the increase in the UKIP vote will help Labour take seats because of the disproportionate source of those votes from the tories. How many of these there are might well determine the election.
None of this will remove the advantages that Labour has under the current system. The differential turnout between safe Labour seats and safe tory seats is just too great. 35% of the vote for Labour will undoubtedly be more efficient in terms of winning seats than 35% for the tories. The boundaries are a relatively small part of that, much less important than the differential turnout.
I just think that the difference may not be as great as it was in 2010 and as shown in the thread header. For the losing party to get the most seats per vote in FPTP is truly remarkable. I think it will prove to be a statistical freak and not be matched in 2015.
I must say that I've generally voted LD even when not enamored of them as I think the country will be worse off if we don't have a strong third party (ideally UKIP and the LDs would both get a good number of MPs, but that won't happen) and so if uncertain I can support them (and in words if not actions I can get behind many of their ideas), but this emergency law stuff is becoming the straw breaking the camel's back for me. I simply don't believe they, or the others, consider the balance between security and the rights of the people effectively, they've gone native and accepted that whatever the security and intelligence services say they need and who cares about the implications, must be accepted, and while sometimes that is the case, they appear to have abandoned the intermediate stage of assessing how necessary it is; their tactics and timing in getting it through make me doubtful of any claims that they have. When when will ID cards or an equivalent be back on the table, or 90+ day detention, or some new imposition I wonder?
I think I'll vote for an independent if one stands in my patch in 2015. If they don't, it's going to be a tough choice. Of course, I live in a safe seat with a distant second place LD vote which will no doubt collapse, so it makes no difference on the outcome, but still.
Comments
But I am concerned that there is no incentive to encourage people to register/vote. Basing constituency sizes on one of these factors does create an incentive - perhaps you can suggest an alternative?
http://ht.ly/yXxVn
People of working age (which will include most parents) support the strike, 65+ people oppose it (but that could be because of elderly people tend to vote Tory and people of working age tend to vote Labour, who knows?).
The reason the strike is more popular than some strikes is perhaps that people are sympathetic to the people striking - e.g. most people quite like teachers, firefighters and health workers in general and have the impression that their pay isn't very good.
But in my view that's a strategy with a ceiling of a 40% share. Most likely they will gain some of the people who were scared off by Mandelson's campaign last time ("the Tories aren't baby eaters") and will lose others, so they will end up more or less where they started. (I reckon they will be at c. 35%)
To have any chance of breaching 40% they need to find a message that resonates with those parts of the electorate that don't view these factors as the most important.
The point is there is no "obviously correct" solution. Doubtless each party would estimate whether it was favoured or not by various unregistered groups -- recent arrivals, non-nationals, under-18s and so on -- before producing a principled argument one way or the other.
***
How many more elections that don't produce a one-party majority will it take before the call is for a "grand coalition"? If we really do need to cut pensions and dismantle the NHS, for example, wouldn't it be better for this to be done by a National Unity government than an avowedly partisan one?
I don't see how you can make the constituency link totemic at the same time as forcing the system to create ridiculous seats with a lack of cohesion.
Tory posters to the thread are entirely right to point to Labour's democratic deficit on this issue - the absurd record of only devolving power to places where they believed they would be in perpetual control (London, Scotland, Wales, etc), the use of bespoke electoral systems that they thought would favour them in each type of election (AMS for Scotland and Wales, SV for Mayoral elections), the transparently biased introduction of all postal vote elections in regions with higher Labour votes in an attempt to help Blair win a European election.
It's a lamentable record, but the Tories and Labour are two sides of the same coin in that respect, and their proposed boundary changes were simply the same sort of partisan crap. If the change would have benefited Labour then they would never have proposed it.
Making the system better for the voters is not their concern. They've been in no rush to bring in the power of recall for example - they're only interested now when bringing it in just before Labour take over gives them a temporary partisan advantage.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
As for the idea that HMG should have done more to encourage voter registration, every household gets sent the forms. If they are not returned the forms are sent again. If still not returned a personal visit is made (usually two) then, if no contact is made, a final reminder is sent by post. It is a criminal offence to fail to complete the registration forms (though I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted). What more can be expected?
The idea that data supplied for one purpose cannot be used for another has long been a principle of government and is enshrined in law. It is true that this principle has been stretched over recent years, but it is still sound. I don't believe the public would care for a massive "big brother" database, that was one of the objections to the identity card scheme. I might add that from personal experience the fear of their details coming to official notice and being shared between departments is one of the reasons that people refuse to put themselves on the electoral register.
It will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of individual voter registration has on the number of registered voters. I think we will see a significant drop.
Strikers not popular in the pub last night. Bone idle, money grabbing f******s, being one choice comment.
it's Fatcha innit?!
What's your job?
I be a teachinger, making the kidz do brains, Tories out!
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
10/07/2014 07:30
I have no doubt that Boris Johnson will be standing in the 2015 General Election....
I.e. Tax benefits
Is this plausible? What would the implications be, if true?
I don't have a particularly strong view on population vs registered voters. I like actual voters because it encourages parties to get turnout even in safe seats. But perhaps there are other ways to do this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28219353
"The unlikely information that Hitler's role in WW2 was "overlooked" or that the hole in the ozone layer is caused by "arseholes" are among the many bloopers submitted by university lecturers to the Times Higher Education magazine's annual exam howlers competition.
One student gave an unusual summary on the future of transportation in a paper on vehicle emissions, suggesting that "In future all cars (will) be fitted with Catholic converters".
More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10957547/All-cars-to-be-fitted-with-Catholic-converters-this-years-top-exam-howlers.html
All credit for Mike for throwing one in. The only surprise is that he eschewed his normal strategy of publishing it first thing on a Monday morning when PBers are even more grumpy than normal. Disappointing.
• Seasonally adjusted, the UK's deficit on trade in goods and services was estimated to have been £2.4 billion in May 2014, compared with £2.1 billion in April 2014.
• There was a deficit of £9.2 billion on goods, partly offset by an estimated surplus of £6.8 billion on services.
• In May 2014 exports of goods increased by £0.1 billion to £24.1 billion and imports of goods increased by £0.5 billion to £33.3 billion resulting in a widening of the goods deficit by £0.4 billion. The increase in imports of goods was attributed to aircraft.
• In May 2014 exports of goods to the EU decreased by 0.2% to £12.2 billion and imports of goods increased by 1.6% to 17.4 billion. For the same period, exports of goods to countries outside the EU increased by 1.5% to £11.9 billion and imports of goods increased by 1.7% to £15.9 billion, reflecting an increase in imports of semi-manufactured goods.
• In the three months ending May 2014, exports of goods increased by 0.1% to £72.6 billion and imports of goods increased by 0.5% to £98.9 billion. In the three months ending May 2014, the export of goods excluding oil and erratics increased by 0.9% to £60.6 billion; reflecting a £0.4 billion increase in exports of cars. Imports of goods excluding oil and erratics increased by 0.2% to £83.8 billion for the same period.
A bit of rebalancing towards non EU trade continuing recent trends but EU exports continue to be depressed.
another_richard will not be happy.
I would say it was unlikely. sensible perhaps, if they could make sure IDS was only allowed to shuffle paper clips.
Universal Credit is a mess at the moment, and moving IDS would be like admitting that four years had been more or less wasted. I would expect him out of the department inside a week if the Tories won the election though.
edit, much the same as Landsley with the health reforms only, trickier with the election so close.
Sindy - Yes 48.5, No 51.5, race tightening
GE 2015
Lab 318
Tory 275
Lib Dem 21
Green 2
UKIP 2
NI and Nats 32
Idiot is PM of minority government, back to the polls in a year
The Tories were proposing two separate and distinct things: constituency boundaries to reflect equal populations of the electorate and also reduce the number of MPs and hence constituencies. Those are two separate and distinct matters.
BTW are you on strike today and are extra grumpy because you are on enforced housework/child-minding duty?
In descending order, Luanda, N'Djemena, Hong Kong, Singapore, Zurich, Geneva, Tokyo, Bern, Moscow, Shanghai.
London is number 12 (up from 25).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/10957826/The-10-most-expensive-cities-in-the-world.html
Of course those that want PR will continue to pretend not to know the difference.
The complete non-sequitur that this disgraceful bias within the system we have is somehow OK because there might be arguments in favour of a different voting system is particularly bonkers. Irrespective of the voting system, Wales and the North East should not get disproportionately large numbers of MPs, especially since that bias happens to help one particular party. That is so obvious and unarguable that one can only marvel at the intellectual dishonesty of anyone who pretends otherwise.
The right time to object to the mandate was when it was debated on. Labour did, which was fair, and then continued to vote against the result (I don't like this because it establishes the principle that the Boundary Commission's work is subject to partisan review, but it's justifable given they opposed the mandate in the first place). It is the LibDems who acted undemocratically.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10958074/Women-have-it-easy-in-the-workplace-today-claims-business-pioneer-Dame-Stephanie-Shirley.html
“Duke of Westminster-owned Stanford Hall in Leicestershire to become state-of-the-art rehabilitation centre funded by private donations”
Whether Victorian style philanthropy or noblesse oblige – tis a very good thing imho.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10958094/British-Armys-injured-soldiers-to-be-treated-at-300m-centre-in-stately-home.html
Before IDS became Tory Leader, he was Shadow Defence Secretary, and he did a decent job, plus as an ex Guardsman, he'd have some credibility in the eyes of the MOD Mandarins and Soldiers.
Anyone know who was the last Defence Secretary that was a soldier?
Francis Pym?
The system massively favours the Tories as it is. Your party was lobbying for an even greater premium. It really is that simple I'm afraid. I don't recall the Tories whining about the system in the 1980s when is massively favoured them.
Not such good news, in that he does not seem to understand it.
When he says " Perhaps we could cap the number of votes at, say, 3 (for a 4 member seat) - haven't worked through the implications though", he seems to be unaware that STV stands for Single Votes that are Transferable. This means that each person´s vote is already capped - at just one!
Clearly, it is the best system by far.
We'll launch a nation wide civil disobedience strike and taxpayers strike.
No taxation without representation, as it were.
We'll see how long Miliband's government will last without rich Tories paying taxes.
Anyone defending a system allocating +50% of seats to any Party gaining only mid 30% of votes cannot accuse others of sophistry.
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/the-labour-leadership-is-wrong-we-should-have-the-courage-to-support-todays-strike/
Anyway you are, as usual, dishonestly evading the point. We are not discussing what voting system is best. We are discussing constituency sizes. Given that we have FPTP - and that is the system, whether one prefers another system or not - what possible justification could there be for building into it a bias in favour of voters in Wales and the North East? If we had STV or any other constituency-based voting system, such a bias would still be equally unacceptable.
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28237108#TWEET1179967
"gerrymandering ... drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals" Encyclopaedia Britannica
"the process of dividing a region in which people vote in a way that gives one political group an unfair advantage" Macmillan Dictionary
I'm unclear how equal constituencies created by an independent body are unfair by anything other than a playground definition. You're smart enough to know this, but clearly disingenous enough to pretend otherwise.
A union for the rich? I thought that was the "old boy network", and gentleman's clubs?
The simple explanation is the best, it comes down to money in the end.
Yes, it is sad your favoured party has to rely on the pittance from membership fees.
Why not hold a few fund raisers and get foreign donors to tell their companies to donate, that might help?
I don't see how that is contradicted by your dictionary definitions.
The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.
Everyone knew that. Watching Tories twist and jerk to proclaim otherwise is too funny.
I would hope most see sense and go into work and force a change in outlook by cancelling the Union subs.
They just start pointing to different potential voting systems they like and saying anything other than them is unfair so you can't complain about the clear bias in the current system. It's all a bit mental.
Even more bonkers is their lack of acknowledgement of the fact that their party never brought in a fairer system to the one they're all complaining about despite being the last party to have a majority.
It just confirms my belief that a lot of Labour supporters use emotion rather than logic when forming their views. It harms the Tories and therefore it must be the right thing, even though they know deep down if the situation was reversed they'd be going absolutely crazy.
Only Labour supporters could describe removing a systematic bias in favour of one party (which so happens is theirs) as gerrymandering.
"Gerrymandering is removing postal fraud so it suits your party".
The boundary commission was also previously told that because the local link with a constituency was important - one of the main reasons for retaining FPTP we are often told - there should be a certain tolerance to variations in constituency size so that constituency boundaries match up with sensible local community boundaries as much as possible.
There is no reason why this has to result in a bias in favour to Labour - indeed in the past it resulted in a bias in favour of the Conservatives. That it does so at the moment is accidental, and there are drawbacks to changing the system in the way that the Tories proposed. Mainly that the constituency boundaries become more contrived and unnatural to meet the stricter tolerance.
The Tories would not propose this if the bias were currently favouring them. They are as bad as Labour.
" At present councils are putting fear into their workforce with a stream of threats going right up to 2018"
Could you, please, expand on that, Mr. Mac? What threats are councils making? How are councils putting fear into their workforce? What is the significance of 2018?
Mikes chart shows that labour and Tories are hugely over represented in the H of C, while voters who don't like either are vastly under represented or not represented at all. Yet their sense of entitlement blinds them
In football terms this us like Chelsea and Man C complaining that the other is getting too much money from a rich owner
As for Labour, to give them their due, in the past they haven't been bad on this. To their credit, they corrected the over-representation of Scotland in time for the 2005 election, Scottish MPs were reduced from 72 (which favoured Labour considerably) to 59.
Essentially there has been cross-party agreement for decades on this, as you would expect in a democracy where most politicans are decent and honourable. This deliberate action to avoid equalisation is a new and disgraceful development.
The House of Commons is debating the UK's opt out from Justice and Home Affairs, including the European Arrest Warrant, today.
If you have a strong opinion on that, you might want to email your MP.
http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/
Anyway, it will not happen in the next Parliament too !
'The "equalisation of boundaries" was an attempt by Tories to redraw districts so they benefitted.'
So will Labour abolish the Boundary Commission as under their logic it no longer has any purpose?
It's a blatant case of gerrymandering introduced under the guise of the plausible deniability of supposed "fairness". The Conservatives are trying to introduce a system because it helps them.
The real underlying problem is that Tory supporters are ghettoising themselves into distinct geographical areas rather than integrating themselves into broader society.
Nothing like this was drawn up when the Tories had control only last year the cuts are being made to be seen for political reasons, any Union worth it's salt would put a stop to it but it suits their agenda too.
It is a disgrace to the workforce involved and totally not genuine because who knows at this stage what government changes in policy will be after 2015.
48.2% (Equal 2 way split)
___________________
Con 301 46.3% -1.9%
Lab 324 49.8% +1.6%
32.1% (3 way split)
___________________
Con 225 34.6% +2.5%
Lab 291 44.7% +12.6%
LD 106 16.3% -15.8%
21.4% (4 way split)
___________________
Con 218 33.5% +12.1%
Lab 275 42.3% +20.9%
LD 111 17.0% -4.4%
UKIP 17 2.6% -18.8%
2010 GE:(4 way split)
___________________
Con 307 37.0% +10.2%
Lab 258 29.7% +10.0%
LD 62 23.6% -14.1%
UKIP 0 3.2% -3.2%
2015 Current Electoral Calculus
___________________
Con 249 31.5% +6.8%
Lab 349 34.9% +18.8%
LD 19 7.6% -4.7%
UKIP 0 16.7% -16.7%
More changes to union voting rules and a pay freeze continuing till 2018 for the public sector have been mentioned by the Tories.
Other than that it seems to be more of the same, austerity for the poor, and subsidies for the rich.
The Conservatives are consistent if nothing else.
Labour party to auction £140k of art work and Sir Patrick Stewart voicemail message at election gala dinner
Labour party to auction £140k of art work and Sir Patrick Stewart voicemail message at election gala dinner
I'm sure they could have come to an agreement to equalise the boundaries whilst keeping 650 MPs.
The Tories might well be motivated to remove the bias in the system because it is against them, but whatever, there is bias in the system and it needs to be removed. And complaining about that happening is ridiculous.
As long as it is a registered British voter who buys it? If it is a foreign oligarch using a made up company, I will complain about it the same as I did for the Thatcher portrait.
There are likely to be 2 major changes in voting patterns between 2010 and 2015. Firstly, the Lib Dems are likely to lose around 10 percentage points of their support. Secondly, UKIP are likely to gain 7-10 percentage points. How will these play out.
Looking at the Lib Dems first I think it is necessary to break their loss of support into various blocks.
The first, and largest, are those who have typically been Labour orientated but have been willing in the past to vote tactically to keep the dreaded tories out. They are furious that their votes effectively put the dreaded tories in and will not make this mistake again. They will vote Labour but in seats that Labour are not competitive in. This will, somewhat ironically, give the tories a number of easy wins, especially in the south west and possibly in a couple of Scottish seats. I guess this will be 4 percentage points worth and it will gain Labour no seats at all.
The second block are those who were unhappy with Labour in 2010 for a variety of reasons from the madness of Brown, the Gulf war, the authoritarianism of the Blair years, etc etc. This block will vote Labour and they will make a difference. In seats like Broxtowe the squeeze on the Lib Dem vote will disproportionately favour Labour and result in some wins off the tories. Maybe 3%.
The third block are the free thinkers, anarchist, anti establishment types. They will probably vote green so their votes are just wasted. Maybe 2%.
The fourth block will think we are still in a serious economic situation and will be minded to vote tory. I recognise this is definitely one of the smaller blocks, maybe 2%.
Overall I think Labour will gain in seats and share of the vote from this movement but the movement in votes is likely to be greater than the gain in seats and much greater than the net gain given the tories will also benefit.
to be continued.
Reduce the number of constituencies to 600 and give a seat in the H of C for every 2% of the national vote
How could anyone argue this wouldn't be fairer?
There's an argument for keeping the historical system (which I don't really agree with, but at least accept) and there's an argument for introducing PR, but there's very little argument to be made for adjusting the historical system just enough to help the Tories. It's intellectually dishonest.
And what is the bias compared to, exactly? There is no inherent reason the FPTP result should in any way match the popular vote. First Past the Post is not, in any way, a proportional system.
ICM/Guardian 2009-07-11
Con 41
Lab 27
Lib 20
I would agree, but it should be pointed out that politics equals power, and a fairer voting system would reduce that power and hand it to the electorate. (if you boil down the case for FPTP that was the argument)
My guess is that they will gain a lot of votes in safe tory seats. Those seats will remain safe so the effect is to improve the ratio between the tories votes and tory seats.
If the Tory vote overall is down this may not help them all that much but if the tories can score anything like they did in 2010 it is very likely that their vote to seat ratio will improve and that they will do better than they did then in the tory/Labour marginals. If they keep their share of the vote those votes have to come from somewhere.
There will be some seats where the increase in the UKIP vote will help Labour take seats because of the disproportionate source of those votes from the tories. How many of these there are might well determine the election.
None of this will remove the advantages that Labour has under the current system. The differential turnout between safe Labour seats and safe tory seats is just too great. 35% of the vote for Labour will undoubtedly be more efficient in terms of winning seats than 35% for the tories. The boundaries are a relatively small part of that, much less important than the differential turnout.
I just think that the difference may not be as great as it was in 2010 and as shown in the thread header. For the losing party to get the most seats per vote in FPTP is truly remarkable. I think it will prove to be a statistical freak and not be matched in 2015.
I think I'll vote for an independent if one stands in my patch in 2015. If they don't, it's going to be a tough choice. Of course, I live in a safe seat with a distant second place LD vote which will no doubt collapse, so it makes no difference on the outcome, but still.