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.
The 2013, and 2014 local elections have revealed target seats for UKIP.
As I have said before, I think that the UKIP vote will hold up strongly in safe seats but will collapse (I don't think that is too strong a word) in marginals, especially those currently held by the Conservatives.
Overall, the UKIP effect on seats changing hands will be very small.
This deliberate action to avoid equalisation is a new and disgraceful development.
I find it bizarre that I'm having this sort of argument with a Tory, the supposed bastion of pragmatism and opponents of weak-minded utopians.
There is no such thing as a perfect set of boundaries. Any set of boundaries will be a result of a number of compromises.
The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries over a utopian definition of fairness, because the very essence of the FPTP system is about the MP representing a local community.
If you want utopian perfectly-equal sized constituencies then you would be better off assigning people to constituencies at random. Then you could ensure they were all the same size. The Tory proposal after all did not equalise the size of constituencies.
One can have a valid debate about the right balance to strike between tolerating different constituency sizes and respecting sensible boundaries. I can tolerate random quirks in a system in favour of boundaries that more accurately reflect a local community.
It is impossible to have such a debate when both Labour and Tories only argue for the option that favours them.
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.
"Labour aren't pretending to make FPTP in any way "fairer" though."
Of course they aren't because they are benefitting from the bias towards them.
"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."
A system is biased if you reverse the votes and it doesn't reverse the results. If any party that gets 38% gets a majority then it is unbiased. If one party gets it and the others don't that is biased.
Saying it isn't proportional and therefore any bias in the system doesn't matter is ridiculous.
" 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.
Unfortunately for all those involved the second scenario is the real one.
"The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries"
Rubbish! If that were true we would never have a constituency like Arundel and South Downs, a "L" shaped block that is allied to no known natural or community boundary.
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.
So, IDS would be a plausible choice for Defence, but this week isn't a plausible time to move him. Cameron can't realistically hope to claim that IDS has done all the hard work of getting Universal Credit going, and he's just putting Hammond in to take care of the remaining minor details.
The rumour might be completely baseless, it might be based on rumours about a post-election cabinet, with the context lost, or maybe someone was just testing the wind - start a rumour, and see what kind of reaction it gets.
As I have said before, I think that the UKIP vote will hold up strongly in safe seats but will collapse (I don't think that is too strong a word) in marginals, especially those currently held by the Conservatives.
I can see why the UKIP vote might reduce in marginals, but I'll be surprised if it collapses.
"The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries"
Rubbish! If that were true we would never have a constituency like Arundel and South Downs, a "L" shaped block that is allied to no known natural or community boundary.
Do we have any as, er, interesting in design as some American districts? They can be works of art, almost.
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.
Wasn't the reason to reduce it so that all the MPs could actually fit in the House?
As I have said before, I think that the UKIP vote will hold up strongly in safe seats but will collapse (I don't think that is too strong a word) in marginals, especially those currently held by the Conservatives.
Overall, the UKIP effect on seats changing hands will be very small.
I tend to agree but it will be larger than it was in 2010 when it was under 5. My guess is that it might cost the tories 10-15 seats which could be significant in a close election.
The result may ultimately turn on how many 2010 Labour voters will vote for Ed. The lack of enthusiasm there in the polling is palpable. If some of these think the economy is the most important issue and turn tory the tories can win. If Ed can win them over he wins. They are Labour supporters so Ed has a significant head start but he still has work to do.
This key segment will give us all a dismal campaign in my opinion. The tories will try to scare this demographic by pointing out what Labour did to the economy with more competent leadership than they have now. Labour will try to scare them into voting Labour by going on and on about the cuts they know they themselves would have to bring in if they won the election. I don't expect a lot of positive campaigning from either side.
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.
Not at all. The simple truth is that the Tories were desperate for the measure to be introduced because it helped them. It really is as simple as that and any denial of that simple fact is utterly risible.
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.
Pompous and utterly laughable.
I saw no such campaign in the 1980s when the system helped the Tories.
Do you think we came down in the last shower Richard?
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.
"Gerrymanderis 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.
Wasn't the reason to reduce it so that all the MPs could actually fit in the House?
It would need to reduce by more than 50 in that case I think, although maybe if they include the standing spaces 600 fits but 650 doesn't I guess.
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.
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.
Not at all. The simple truth is that the Tories were desperate for the measure to be introduced because it helped them. It really is as simple as that and any denial of that simple fact is utterly risible.
I am sure that is why they were desperate for any measures proposed. I do personally accept the view that, if there is bias in one direction, and moves address that somewhat, it could be both fairer and still done for the benefit of one party. Judging if a move to benefit one party actually reduces overall unfairness is they key I guess.
This deliberate action to avoid equalisation is a new and disgraceful development.
I find it bizarre that I'm having this sort of argument with a Tory, the supposed bastion of pragmatism and opponents of weak-minded utopians.
There is no such thing as a perfect set of boundaries. Any set of boundaries will be a result of a number of compromises.
The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries over a utopian definition of fairness, because the very essence of the FPTP system is about the MP representing a local community.
If you want utopian perfectly-equal sized constituencies then you would be better off assigning people to constituencies at random. Then you could ensure they were all the same size. The Tory proposal after all did not equalise the size of constituencies.
One can have a valid debate about the right balance to strike between tolerating different constituency sizes and respecting sensible boundaries. I can tolerate random quirks in a system in favour of boundaries that more accurately reflect a local community.
It is impossible to have such a debate when both Labour and Tories only argue for the option that favours them.
There appears to be a lack of understanding that the boundaries are reviewed and changed on a regular basis.
I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on.
The only differences in the last (aborted) review and all the previous ones was the requirement to draw up a map with 600 seats instead of 650, and a requirement for tighter limits on size variation. To suggest either of those as gerrymandering seems to stretch the definition of the word to just beyond breaking point.
When the commission are doing the work (or maybe at a draft stage) it is traditional for the parties to have a period of consultation and lobbying.
At times the boundaries have had a left bias (Labour were good at lobbying the Boundary Commission in 1990s), and at times a Conservative bias. The regular revisions over decades are aimed at the removal of bias which will develop and grow organically within the system.
"The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries"
Rubbish! If that were true we would never have a constituency like Arundel and South Downs, a "L" shaped block that is allied to no known natural or community boundary.
Well indeed - but the new system was even worse - so people could reasonably argue that the monomania in trying to create perfectly equal sized constituencies had gone too far already.
Of course, this is much easier to achieve with STV, as one can also vary the size of the constituencies within a defined range (say 3-6 MPs), so as to create more flexibility in creating boundaries that are both equal and sensible.
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
What an utterly ridiculous thread. They campaigned for a system of FPTP in equal sized and up-to-date constituencies not nearly two decades old constituencies of unequal size.
I find it bizarre that I'm having this sort of argument with a Tory, the supposed bastion of pragmatism and opponents of weak-minded utopians.
There is no such thing as a perfect set of boundaries. Any set of boundaries will be a result of a number of compromises.
The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries over a utopian definition of fairness, because the very essence of the FPTP system is about the MP representing a local community.
If you want utopian perfectly-equal sized constituencies then you would be better off assigning people to constituencies at random. Then you could ensure they were all the same size. The Tory proposal after all did not equalise the size of constituencies.
One can have a valid debate about the right balance to strike between tolerating different constituency sizes and respecting sensible boundaries. I can tolerate random quirks in a system in favour of boundaries that more accurately reflect a local community..
I've never argued for a perfect set of boundaries. Just one which is roughly right and which doesn't systematically favour one party. No-one would be too fussed if it were "random quirks in a system in favour of boundaries that more accurately reflect a local community" . That is the point, we don't have random quirks, we have a systematic bias.
So my credentials on pragmatism and opposing weak-minded utopians remain intact!
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.
"Labour aren't pretending to make FPTP in any way "fairer" though."
Of course they aren't because they are benefitting from the bias towards them.
"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."
A system is biased if you reverse the votes and it doesn't reverse the results. If any party that gets 38% gets a majority then it is unbiased. If one party gets it and the others don't that is biased.
Saying it isn't proportional and therefore any bias in the system doesn't matter is ridiculous.
Absolute garbage.
If the Tories want more seats for their vote they need to appeal to people in cities rather than just piling up vast quantities of votes in affluent rural areas.
I can't recall a campaign to change the system in 1980s, when the Tories were still capable of winning seats in population centres. Funny that.
You know, I'm glad I am not by nature a believer in conspiracies (obviously some exist, but usually things happen for simple, idiotic reasons, not malevolent forces), as otherwise the speed and suddenness of this data retention push despite it being an issue for so long, would make me think that the government came to realize that the security services were not going to stop doing these things just because of laws being struck down or not in place - they think they need them to do their jobs and they will creatively interpret the rules to permit them to do them anyway - so they felt the need to push through emergency legislative cover for what was definitely not going to stop no matter who ordered it.
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.
Not at all. The simple truth is that the Tories were desperate for the measure to be introduced because it helped them. It really is as simple as that and any denial of that simple fact is utterly risible.
So having constituencies of the roughly the same size is a bad thing? Not according to that bastion of Tory prejudice, the Right Hon Nick Clegg. He was the one who introduced the measure into the house and gave a rather good, impassioned, speech commending it.
Of course, for reasons that we can only guess at (for his own party's political needs?) he subsequently decided it was not a good idea. However, his original words remain on record I recommend you read them rather than basking in your own prejudice.
What an utterly ridiculous thread. They campaigned for a system of FPTP in equal sized and up-to-date constituencies not nearly two decades old constituencies of unequal size.
Yes and the evidence of Con "bleating" is well ....zero.
Our system is set up to allow a five year dictatorship ( with limited curbs on excesses) by a minority. Arguing about "fairness" in boundaries is inane.
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.
But wait a minute, that can't possible be true. Tories on here have been telling us it's all been legal and proper for months.
I can't believe Nick Clegg is going along with all this. Clearly the Lib Dems commitment to liberty only applies to letting criminals off the hook easy. They don't actually give a damn about innocent people being spied on with no probable cause. Can't wait until they get smashed at the next election. They deserve everything that's coming to them.
There appears to be a lack of understanding that the boundaries are reviewed and changed on a regular basis. ... The only differences in the last (aborted) review and all the previous ones was the requirement to draw up a map with 600 seats instead of 650, and a requirement for tighter limits on size variation. To suggest either of those as gerrymandering seems to stretch the definition of the word to just beyond breaking point.
Perhaps you are confused on the first point. The boundaries I am referring to are those of communities, geographical features, various other administrative boundaries - not necessarily the existing constituency boundaries. I accept those will be revised over time as the population moves around.
The point I am making is that it is perfectly valid to object to the change in the balance between reducing the tolerance to size variation (which after all is not reduced to zero under the Tory proposal) and reducing the number of daft constituency boundaries.
Both sides are accusing the other of only supporting their position for partisan advantage, and while I can see arguments in favour of either method it seems that it is likely to be true that this is simply a partisan skirmish, with neither side being better than the other.
It's not like Labour or Conservatives want to do anything about ensuring that the growing percentage of the population who vote for neither party are properly represented at Westminster. How low does their combined share need to go before they will acknowledge that FPTP is broken?
If the Tories want more seats for their vote they need to appeal to people in cities rather than just piling up vast quantities of votes in affluent rural areas.
I can't recall a campaign to change the system in 1980s, when the Tories were still capable of winning seats in population centres. Funny that.
And if people don't want to lose elections with postal vote fraud then they should just learn to play that game as well.
Or we could just have a fair system for everyone.
In the 80s I don't remember Labour and the Tories having similar amounts of votes, but the Tories loads of extra seats. Probably because it didn't happen.
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.
But wait a minute, that can't possible be true. Tories on here have been telling us it's all been legal and proper for months.
I can't believe Nick Clegg is going along with all this. Clearly the Lib Dems commitment to liberty only applies to letting criminals off the hook easy.
I imagine it extends as far as until some intelligence official arranges a briefing for Clegg saying 'Yeah, liberty and privacy and all that sounds nice when you are in opposition, but it's time to grow up now like Labour and the Conservatives, silly man.' 'Ok, can you at least include some measures I can use as a smokescreen for why this plan is not in any way against my and my party's previously stated position?' 'Sure. It's what we've done for the others each time too'.
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.
That is the corollary of my point. FPTP and the spread or 'lumpiness' of votes results in 3.5 times the number of people voting LD in order to elect an MP compared to a Tory or Labour MP, as I'm sure you know. If the LDs concentrate on seats they hold plus a few others (Watford always gets mentioned), they can afford to lose a fair percentage without losing the same percentage of seats.
The tories wanted to have bounaries of equal size which would have gone someway to regularise matters. Tory backbenchers stupidly went against the line byu voting down HoL reform and the LDs then ditched boundary reform. Stupid tory backbenchers have only themselves to blame. This still does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the way boundaries are drawn.
The tories wanted to have bounaries of equal size which would have gone someway to regularise matters. Tory backbenchers stupidly went against the line byu voting down HoL reform and the LDs then ditched boundary reform. Stupid tory backbenchers have only themselves to blame. This still does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the way boundaries are drawn.
Point of order, Mr. Path. There was no vote against HoL reform. Also Clegg categorically denied any link between the boundary review and HoL reform.
I imagine it extends as far as until some intelligence official arranges a briefing for Clegg saying 'Yeah, liberty and privacy and all that sounds nice when you are in opposition, but it's time to grow up now like Labour and the Conservatives, silly man.'
I think that is probably right. It explains why every single Western democracy, without exception, has much the same position on these questions. Exactly the same arguments which persuade the Australian, Canadian, Danish or French governments apply here.
PhilipH says... 'I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on. '
This os a fair point. maybe boundaries should be drawwn on logical geographical (or geo-political?) areas and if such an area is too large then let it be represented by two MPs - or more. On the whole I think 650 MPs is too big, and 600 better. I think nearer 500 would be better, but the main stumbling block is the idea that the executive have to be drawn from the legislature. This is not a bad thing but maybe there could be some ptovision for ministers to be appointed fromk outside the commons and lords. On the other hand the more seats then I would think the more the seat numbers would represent the %age vote.
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.
But wait a minute, that can't possible be true. Tories on here have been telling us it's all been legal and proper for months.
I can't believe Nick Clegg is going along with all this. Clearly the Lib Dems commitment to liberty only applies to letting criminals off the hook easy.
I imagine it extends as far as until some intelligence official arranges a briefing for Clegg saying 'Yeah, liberty and privacy and all that sounds nice when you are in opposition, but it's time to grow up now like Labour and the Conservatives, silly man.' 'Ok, can you at least include some measures I can use as a smokescreen for why this plan is not in any way against my and my party's previously stated position?' 'Sure. It's what we've done for the others each time too'.
I'm sure Sir Humphrey Appleby, would not put it quite that way - but that's probably the gist of it.
You know, I'm glad I am not by nature a believer in conspiracies (obviously some exist, but usually things happen for simple, idiotic reasons, not malevolent forces), as otherwise the speed and suddenness of this data retention push despite it being an issue for so long, would make me think that the government came to realize that the security services were not going to stop doing these things just because of laws being struck down or not in place - they think they need them to do their jobs and they will creatively interpret the rules to permit them to do them anyway - so they felt the need to push through emergency legislative cover for what was definitely not going to stop no matter who ordered it.
As I understand it the concern at the moment is not what our security services and their friends may or may not be doing but the threat that third party holders of information may delete that information, indeed, following the EUCJ decision, that they might have a legal duty to destroy information which the security services want access to if the need arises.
The legislation will therefore require these third parties to keep the information so that it can be accessed when a justification arises. I have not studied the EUCJ decision in sufficient detail to ascertain if this is compatible with it. I have my doubts.
@Richard_Nabavi Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
No, just the minimum and proportionate intrusions on our liberty which are necessary. It's no different in principle from any intrusive executive power, such as the powers of the police, or HMRC (the latter are absolutely draconian, and always have been). The only question is where you strike the balance.
I imagine it extends as far as until some intelligence official arranges a briefing for Clegg saying 'Yeah, liberty and privacy and all that sounds nice when you are in opposition, but it's time to grow up now like Labour and the Conservatives, silly man.'
I think that is probably right. It explains why every single Western democracy, without exception, has much the same position on these questions. Exactly the same arguments which persuade the Australian, Canadian, Danish or French governments apply here.
I see the Prime Minister justifies it by catching terrorists, "serious" criminals (whatever that means) and paedophiles. Perhaps next time it will be terrorists, serious criminals, paedophiles, tax evaders and supporters of Boris Johnson for Conservative leader.
Data to be shared with the United States and various other organisations.
PhilipH says... 'I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on. '
This os a fair point. maybe boundaries should be drawwn on logical geographical (or geo-political?) areas and if such an area is too large then let it be represented by two MPs - or more. On the whole I think 650 MPs is too big, and 600 better. I think nearer 500 would be better, but the main stumbling block is the idea that the executive have to be drawn from the legislature. This is not a bad thing but maybe there could be some ptovision for ministers to be appointed fromk outside the commons and lords. On the other hand the more seats then I would think the more the seat numbers would represent the %age vote.
I think my point is that whilst we originally thought it was important and mattered that we were separate, in the daily grind of life and difference an MP makes to life, those historic boundaries are meaningless.
Both Hitchin and Harpenden are as well served and represented together as they were individually.
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
I somehow doubt the communities in the Western Isles or the Isle of Wight want to share their MPs with huge swathes of the mainland..
Boo hoo - pass me an onion.
I don't want to share my MP with the swathes of students and handwringing vegetarians that inhabit my fair city but that's democracy.
The other problem usually cited is the sheer size of places like the Western Isles. Make them much larger and the MP would need a helicopter to get around the constituency, although I suppose these days Skype surgeries might be possible.
@Richard_Nabavi The "balance" is where the problem lies. Limiting the power of the people to protest by using ever more legislation, and having our security services deciding which groups to infiltrate and undermine might make you sleep easier, but it will disturb the slumber of those who died for a vision of freedom from oppression.
@Richard_Nabavi Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
No, just the minimum and proportionate intrusions on our liberty which are necessary. It's no different in principle from any intrusive executive power, such as the powers of the police, or HMRC (the latter are absolutely draconian, and always have been). The only question is where you strike the balance.
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
@Richard_Nabavi Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
No, just the minimum and proportionate intrusions on our liberty which are necessary. It's no different in principle from any intrusive executive power, such as the powers of the police, or HMRC (the latter are absolutely draconian, and always have been). The only question is where you strike the balance.
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
From what I read, the content is not recorded, just who the calls etc are between.
For those of a voting system / psephological bent (I'm guessing a fair few here on PB) there are some lovely youtubes by CGP Grey (just google that) explaining voting systems and their relative strengths / weaknesses.
One issue covered is the inevitable tendency over time for FPTP systems to revert to a somewhat evenly balanced two party system with safe seats. It's just the natural evolution of things mathematically that this happens. It's all but imposible for third parties to survive let alone thrive over the long term. And coalitions / FPTP don't mix (over long term).
When a new player comes along they can upset things for a while or join coalitions but the system will eventually destroy them. For those not of a centre left / centre right view this presumably sucks. So bad luck LibDEms, UKIP, Greens, Loonies, Nats, etc - you're never going to amount to anything. (Until the public vote for a different system).
I imagine it extends as far as until some intelligence official arranges a briefing for Clegg saying 'Yeah, liberty and privacy and all that sounds nice when you are in opposition, but it's time to grow up now like Labour and the Conservatives, silly man.'
I think that is probably right. It explains why every single Western democracy, without exception, has much the same position on these questions. Exactly the same arguments which persuade the Australian, Canadian, Danish or French governments apply here.
Must be why Germany and Brazil are pushing for limits on it at the UN:
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
If I remember correctly, +/- 10% was the old tolerance used (with exceptions for the island constituencies). The new system introduced by the Coalition was for a stricter tolerance of +/-5% (with exceptions still).
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
@Richard_Nabavi Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
No, just the minimum and proportionate intrusions on our liberty which are necessary. It's no different in principle from any intrusive executive power, such as the powers of the police, or HMRC (the latter are absolutely draconian, and always have been). The only question is where you strike the balance.
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
From what I read, the content is not recorded, just who the calls etc are between.
@Richard_Nabavi Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
No, just the minimum and proportionate intrusions on our liberty which are necessary. It's no different in principle from any intrusive executive power, such as the powers of the police, or HMRC (the latter are absolutely draconian, and always have been). The only question is where you strike the balance.
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
Potential terrorist monitoring Socrates.
Funny how Gov'ts always go native on issues like this.
@MarkHopkins Content is also stored and can be accessed with the proper authority. Who decides on what basis this can be done for a given individual is a moot point, If the security services ask for permission, a busy minister is not going to go into details thoroughly, but will put more emphasis on the judgement of those requesting it.
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
Leaving aside the point that the government does not have such power, that is a matter of opinion. What is more, it is one on which no sensible person would form an opinion without assessing the risk which any monitoring is intended to counter. That's hard, verging on impossible, for you or I to do, since we haven't had the security briefings.
However, as I have pointed out, it is very remarkable that, having had those briefings, democratic, liberal politicians in every single Western nation, including countries like Canada and Denmark - hardly bastions of intrusive authoritarianism - seem to come to much the same conclusion on where the balance should be struck.
There are two possible explanations for that remarkable fact. The first is a massive global conspiracy or some form of collective madness which suddenly afflicts people like Ming Campbell or Nick Clegg, across a huge range of countries and different political parties, as soon as they become closer to the actual decision. The second is the rather boring one that the threats are real and the powers of the security services are necessary and proportionate.
As I understand it the concern at the moment is not what our security services and their friends may or may not be doing but the threat that third party holders of information may delete that information, indeed, following the EUCJ decision, that they might have a legal duty to destroy information which the security services want access to if the need arises.
It works like this: 1) Make a law saying you can do A. 2) Law permitting A gets broken to do B. 3) They get found out, say, "We're already doing B", we need legislation to bring this under proper control" and pass a law to permit B. 4) Law permitting B gets broken to do C...
Leaving aside the point that the government does not have such power...
I have clearly pointed out to you several times, including on this thread, that the government does indeed interrupt our calls. I have debated in good faith by assuming you have missed these posts until now, but if you continue to claim otherwise, I'm going to have to start calling you a liar when you make this point.
...that is a matter of opinion. What is more, it is one on which no sensible person would form an opinion without assessing the risk which any monitoring is intended to counter. That's hard, verging on impossible, for you or I to do, since we haven't had the security briefings.
The right balance between the power of the state and right of individuals is always what the state tells us. You've got to love that logic. Your deference to the powerful is staggering. You would have believed Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.
However, as I have pointed out, it is very remarkable that, having had those briefings, democratic, liberal politicians in every single Western nation, including countries like Canada and Denmark - hardly bastions of intrusive authoritarianism - seem to come to much the same conclusion on where the balance should be struck.
You are simply incorrect. Germany and Brazil have very different views on this.
For those of a voting system / psephological bent (I'm guessing a fair few here on PB) there are some lovely youtubes by CGP Grey (just google that) explaining voting systems and their relative strengths / weaknesses.
One issue covered is the inevitable tendency over time for FPTP systems to revert to a somewhat evenly balanced two party system with safe seats. It's just the natural evolution of things mathematically that this happens. It's all but imposible for third parties to survive let alone thrive over the long term. And coalitions / FPTP don't mix (over long term).
When a new player comes along they can upset things for a while or join coalitions but the system will eventually destroy them. For those not of a centre left / centre right view this presumably sucks. So bad luck LibDEms, UKIP, Greens, Loonies, Nats, etc - you're never going to amount to anything. (Until the public vote for a different system).
I think that's true so long as (a) there aren't too many seats (650 seats allows for a third or fourth party, 300 seats would ensure practically no seats won by anyone except the 'big two'); (b) doesn't India use FPTP and have lots of coalitions?
PhilipH says... 'I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on. '
This os a fair point. maybe boundaries should be drawwn on logical geographical (or geo-political?) areas and if such an area is too large then let it be represented by two MPs - or more. On the whole I think 650 MPs is too big, and 600 better. I think nearer 500 would be better, but the main stumbling block is the idea that the executive have to be drawn from the legislature. This is not a bad thing but maybe there could be some ptovision for ministers to be appointed fromk outside the commons and lords. On the other hand the more seats then I would think the more the seat numbers would represent the %age vote.
I think my point is that whilst we originally thought it was important and mattered that we were separate, in the daily grind of life and difference an MP makes to life, those historic boundaries are meaningless.
Both Hitchin and Harpenden are as well served and represented together as they were individually.
Under the now defeated proposed new boundaries , Hitchen and Harpenden would no longer have been in the same seat . Indeed Harpenden was due to be hived off into a new mostly Bedfordhire plus a bit of Herts seat .
You know, I'm glad I am not by nature a believer in conspiracies (obviously some exist, but usually things happen for simple, idiotic reasons, not malevolent forces), as otherwise the speed and suddenness of this data retention push despite it being an issue for so long, would make me think that the government came to realize that the security services were not going to stop doing these things just because of laws being struck down or not in place - they think they need them to do their jobs and they will creatively interpret the rules to permit them to do them anyway - so they felt the need to push through emergency legislative cover for what was definitely not going to stop no matter who ordered it.
We don't have a huge amount of information about what GCHQ has been up to, but what we've seen with the NSA is that when insiders have the ability to work in secret, they're inevitably going to run rings around whatever rules are put in place to restrain them.
What I think we need to do here is to find some actual defensible lines, which need to be quite simple and clear, with somebody involved actually having an incentive to enforce them. A traditional example was the right to silence, where people learned that abuse of the process by police could only be partly restrained, so you had to give people a fairly broad, sweeping right not to self-incriminate, even at the cost of helping some guilty people.
One obvious place where we need a line is the sanctity of encryption keys. We can assume that anything in transit is going to be sniffed, but if somebody comes to you and tries to make you hand over your keys, you need to have a right to tell them to piss off. This kind of line is enforceable because you probably don't particularly want to hand over the keys in the first place, whereas your ISP probably doesn't particularly care whether it shares your data or not, so it's not going to stand up to abuse.
I have clearly pointed out to you several times, including on this thread, that the government does indeed interrupt our calls. I have debated in good faith by assuming you have missed these posts until now, but if you continue to claim otherwise, I'm going to have to start calling you a liar when you make this point.
Well, the law states they can't access the content of calls or emails without a warrant. I support that position. If they are breaking the law, I deplore that. Not hard to understand, surely?
It is true that you have repeatedly said they are systematically breaking the law. The government, the independent Commissioner, and the Select Committee say they are not. Who to believe?
The right balance between the power of the state and right of individuals is always what the state tells us. You've got to love that logic. Your deference to the powerful is staggering. You would have believed Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.
That's not my logic, as you well know.
However I note you invariably evade the point. Let us be blunt about this: you are talking from a position of the deepest ignorance. Those who actually know about the matter, in all Western democracies, disagree with you. Ignorance versus Knowledge: on balance, it's not hard to decide which to favour, is it?
You are simply incorrect. Germany and Brazil have very different views on this.
I don't know about Brazil, but Germany has much the same position as we do. They exchange intelligence with us and they monitor email metadata as we do.
It is true that they are a bit miffed at what appears to be the US overstepping the mark. That's fair enough. I agree with their concerns on that.
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
If I remember correctly, +/- 10% was the old tolerance used (with exceptions for the island constituencies). The new system introduced by the Coalition was for a stricter tolerance of +/-5% (with exceptions still).
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
Labour party policy but not one that they would support the govt on - riiiiight..
As I understand it the concern at the moment is not what our security services and their friends may or may not be doing but the threat that third party holders of information may delete that information, indeed, following the EUCJ decision, that they might have a legal duty to destroy information which the security services want access to if the need arises.
It works like this: 1) Make a law saying you can do A. 2) Law permitting A gets broken to do B. 3) They get found out, say, "We're already doing B", we need legislation to bring this under proper control" and pass a law to permit B. 4) Law permitting B gets broken to do C...
Is that really what is happening here?
My understanding is that according to the EU directive the providers of services such as telephony and internet were obliged to retain metadata of who had spoken to whom for 12 months.
The EUCJ has now ruled that this requirement is disproportionate and a breach of the Convention right to privacy. It would therefore be a duty on the part of these holders to destroy these records. The purpose of this legislation is, as I understand it, to require them to keep these records so that they can be accessed should a particular user come under suspicion.
Provided that there are sufficient safeguards on this access this seems both reasonable and proportionate to me. If someone is reasonably suspected of planning terrorist attack, for example, there is a legitimate public interest in ascertaining who he has been speaking to and might also be involved. Similarly, if someone is sharing kiddie porn I don't have a problem with the authorities ascertaining to whom he might have sent it.
None of this would excuse or legitimise some of the other stuff our security services have been up to with their unselective taps of internet communications. These are a concern but as long as they are not justified by this legislation I don't have a problem with the legislation itself.
Maybe I am missing something. The scope of this legislation is not entirely clear.
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!
Clearly, it is the best system by far.
I don't know what you mean "now thinks"
I was pretty clear last week that I prefered FPTP, but that if we change the Irish system is probably the best (which I believe is multi-member STV, but it's a long time since I studied electoral systems in any detail).
But, in my view, someone who's vote is for, say, the Greens, transferred to the Christian Socialist Party transferred to Labour is having more opportunity to express their views. That's why I suggested capping
Where I may be going wrong (as I said its been a long time) is that I thought you had more than 1 vote in a multimember seat.
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.
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
@Charles Overturning fundamental principles is common and not difficult, we don't have a "constitution" more a set of guidelines as it were. Ahhhhhrrr me hearty?
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.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
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?
Sorry - Americanism.
If you vote Green and they are knocked out, you can then transfer your vote to Labour (or OMRLP) without cost.
Basically it values second preferences as being as important as first preferences (you get a "do-over" in that you can get a second choice). Perhaps there should be a penalty - second choice would worth, perhaps 80% of the first choice, etc.
In multi-member constituencies in some cases you can vote more than one.
have any impact on the Scottish Referendum. From my reading of it the would appear to be less tax revenues forcast from north sea oil and gas and what there is will be more variable and less predictable.
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.
That is the corollary of my point. FPTP and the spread or 'lumpiness' of votes results in 3.5 times the number of people voting LD in order to elect an MP compared to a Tory or Labour MP, as I'm sure you know. If the LDs concentrate on seats they hold plus a few others (Watford always gets mentioned), they can afford to lose a fair percentage without losing the same percentage of seats.
No, it does not result in 3.5 times the number of people voting LD "in order to elect an MP". It results in the same number of people voting to elect a LD MP. There are also large numbers of people who do not get an MP of the party they would prefer.
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.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
have any impact on the Scottish Referendum. From my reading of it the would appear to be less tax revenues forcast from north sea oil and gas and what there is will be more variable and less predictable.
More bollocks, just last week it was said revenue would double. Unionists cannot even remember what lies they told at any point in time.
They published it before the vote? it's democracy gone mad I tell you.
I know, you'd think a summary leaked to The Sun and a notice that parliament would going to be voting for something would be enough. What if the legislation gets into the hands of terrorists?
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.
The If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
Flash , only a turnip could transpose the conversation into the Gyle closing.The jobs that require the brass plate move , are already working out of London. The Gyle will remain and most likely prosper in an independent Scotland. RBS could not afford the office space , get the staff, move the IT etc that closing the Gyle would involve. Wishful thinking in the minds of thick unionists only.
They published it before the vote? it's democracy gone mad I tell you.
I know, you'd think a summary leaked to The Sun and a notice that parliament would going to be voting for something would be enough. What if the legislation gets into the hands of terrorists?
The sneaky bit is that the Secretary of State can make an order for any of the reasons in s22(2) of RIPA. These reasons are:
"(a) in the interests of national security;
(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d)in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f)for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g)for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health;
(gA) because I don't like the colour of your hair; or . (h)for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State."
Asking for data retention just after admitting to losing files on a possible network of sexual deviants, and the data on flights that may be of interest on "special rendition"? You have to laugh really, unless of course they make that illegal as well.
They published it before the vote? it's democracy gone mad I tell you.
I know, you'd think a summary leaked to The Sun and a notice that parliament would going to be voting for something would be enough. What if the legislation gets into the hands of terrorists?
The sneaky bit is that the Secretary of State can make an order for any of the reasons in s22(2) of RIPA. These reasons are:
"(a) in the interests of national security;
(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d)in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f)for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g)for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health;
(gA) because I don't like the colour of your hair; or . (h)for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State."
I am not entirely sure about (gA).
gA = ginger Alexander - they've never got on since our Danny made a non-complimentary comment about our Teresa's shoes.
Comments
As I have said before, I think that the UKIP vote will hold up strongly in safe seats but will collapse (I don't think that is too strong a word) in marginals, especially those currently held by the Conservatives.
Overall, the UKIP effect on seats changing hands will be very small.
There is no such thing as a perfect set of boundaries. Any set of boundaries will be a result of a number of compromises.
The previous compromise was to respect natural and community boundaries over a utopian definition of fairness, because the very essence of the FPTP system is about the MP representing a local community.
If you want utopian perfectly-equal sized constituencies then you would be better off assigning people to constituencies at random. Then you could ensure they were all the same size. The Tory proposal after all did not equalise the size of constituencies.
One can have a valid debate about the right balance to strike between tolerating different constituency sizes and respecting sensible boundaries. I can tolerate random quirks in a system in favour of boundaries that more accurately reflect a local community.
It is impossible to have such a debate when both Labour and Tories only argue for the option that favours them.
Of course they aren't because they are benefitting from the bias towards them.
"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."
A system is biased if you reverse the votes and it doesn't reverse the results. If any party that gets 38% gets a majority then it is unbiased. If one party gets it and the others don't that is biased.
Saying it isn't proportional and therefore any bias in the system doesn't matter is ridiculous.
Rubbish! If that were true we would never have a constituency like Arundel and South Downs, a "L" shaped block that is allied to no known natural or community boundary.
The rumour might be completely baseless, it might be based on rumours about a post-election cabinet, with the context lost, or maybe someone was just testing the wind - start a rumour, and see what kind of reaction it gets.
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/
The result may ultimately turn on how many 2010 Labour voters will vote for Ed. The lack of enthusiasm there in the polling is palpable. If some of these think the economy is the most important issue and turn tory the tories can win. If Ed can win them over he wins. They are Labour supporters so Ed has a significant head start but he still has work to do.
This key segment will give us all a dismal campaign in my opinion. The tories will try to scare this demographic by pointing out what Labour did to the economy with more competent leadership than they have now. Labour will try to scare them into voting Labour by going on and on about the cuts they know they themselves would have to bring in if they won the election. I don't expect a lot of positive campaigning from either side.
I saw no such campaign in the 1980s when the system helped the Tories.
Do you think we came down in the last shower Richard?
I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on.
The only differences in the last (aborted) review and all the previous ones was the requirement to draw up a map with 600 seats instead of 650, and a requirement for tighter limits on size variation. To suggest either of those as gerrymandering seems to stretch the definition of the word to just beyond breaking point.
When the commission are doing the work (or maybe at a draft stage) it is traditional for the parties to have a period of consultation and lobbying.
At times the boundaries have had a left bias (Labour were good at lobbying the Boundary Commission in 1990s), and at times a Conservative bias. The regular revisions over decades are aimed at the removal of bias which will develop and grow organically within the system.
Of course, this is much easier to achieve with STV, as one can also vary the size of the constituencies within a defined range (say 3-6 MPs), so as to create more flexibility in creating boundaries that are both equal and sensible.
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
So my credentials on pragmatism and opposing weak-minded utopians remain intact!
If the Tories want more seats for their vote they need to appeal to people in cities rather than just piling up vast quantities of votes in affluent rural areas.
I can't recall a campaign to change the system in 1980s, when the Tories were still capable of winning seats in population centres. Funny that.
You might be right, I don't know. But I've never heard of that before. Do you have a link to some data on this?
Of course, for reasons that we can only guess at (for his own party's political needs?) he subsequently decided it was not a good idea. However, his original words remain on record I recommend you read them rather than basking in your own prejudice.
Arguing about "fairness" in boundaries is inane.
I can't believe Nick Clegg is going along with all this. Clearly the Lib Dems commitment to liberty only applies to letting criminals off the hook easy. They don't actually give a damn about innocent people being spied on with no probable cause. Can't wait until they get smashed at the next election. They deserve everything that's coming to them.
The point I am making is that it is perfectly valid to object to the change in the balance between reducing the tolerance to size variation (which after all is not reduced to zero under the Tory proposal) and reducing the number of daft constituency boundaries.
Both sides are accusing the other of only supporting their position for partisan advantage, and while I can see arguments in favour of either method it seems that it is likely to be true that this is simply a partisan skirmish, with neither side being better than the other.
It's not like Labour or Conservatives want to do anything about ensuring that the growing percentage of the population who vote for neither party are properly represented at Westminster. How low does their combined share need to go before they will acknowledge that FPTP is broken?
Or we could just have a fair system for everyone.
In the 80s I don't remember Labour and the Tories having similar amounts of votes, but the Tories loads of extra seats. Probably because it didn't happen.
FPTP and the spread or 'lumpiness' of votes results in 3.5 times the number of people voting LD in order to elect an MP compared to a Tory or Labour MP, as I'm sure you know.
If the LDs concentrate on seats they hold plus a few others (Watford always gets mentioned), they can afford to lose a fair percentage without losing the same percentage of seats.
One of the few genuine merits of the FPTP system is the geographical link and the Tories want to erode that for their own partisan reasons.
This still does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the way boundaries are drawn.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
I don't want to share my MP with the swathes of students and handwringing vegetarians that inhabit my fair city but that's democracy.
'I am now in the illogical Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, two towns with no more than a common county to link them, about 20 miles to separate them and a shared MP. Although the bundling of the two together wasn't well received locally it is now accepted and never commented on. '
This os a fair point.
maybe boundaries should be drawwn on logical geographical (or geo-political?) areas and if such an area is too large then let it be represented by two MPs - or more.
On the whole I think 650 MPs is too big, and 600 better. I think nearer 500 would be better, but the main stumbling block is the idea that the executive have to be drawn from the legislature. This is not a bad thing but maybe there could be some ptovision for ministers to be appointed fromk outside the commons and lords.
On the other hand the more seats then I would think the more the seat numbers would represent the %age vote.
Ultimately, we should have secret policemen and informers everywhere to keep us safe.
The legislation will therefore require these third parties to keep the information so that it can be accessed when a justification arises. I have not studied the EUCJ decision in sufficient detail to ascertain if this is compatible with it. I have my doubts.
It's the usual course of action as democracy fails, so it depends on how our democracy is working?
Data to be shared with the United States and various other organisations.
Both Hitchin and Harpenden are as well served and represented together as they were individually.
The "balance" is where the problem lies. Limiting the power of the people to protest by using ever more legislation, and having our security services deciding which groups to infiltrate and undermine might make you sleep easier, but it will disturb the slumber of those who died for a vision of freedom from oppression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Yes_Minister)
Little has changed!
One issue covered is the inevitable tendency over time for FPTP systems to revert to a somewhat evenly balanced two party system with safe seats. It's just the natural evolution of things mathematically that this happens. It's all but imposible for third parties to survive let alone thrive over the long term. And coalitions / FPTP don't mix (over long term).
When a new player comes along they can upset things for a while or join coalitions but the system will eventually destroy them. For those not of a centre left / centre right view this presumably sucks. So bad luck LibDEms, UKIP, Greens, Loonies, Nats, etc - you're never going to amount to anything. (Until the public vote for a different system).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/brazil-and-germany-propose-un-resolution-condemning-global-threat-mass
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/23/mi5-feared-gchq-went-too-far
Funny how Gov'ts always go native on issues like this.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml
Richard_Nabavi claims its a matter of balance. How I would love some balance!
Content is also stored and can be accessed with the proper authority.
Who decides on what basis this can be done for a given individual is a moot point, If the security services ask for permission, a busy minister is not going to go into details thoroughly, but will put more emphasis on the judgement of those requesting it.
However, as I have pointed out, it is very remarkable that, having had those briefings, democratic, liberal politicians in every single Western nation, including countries like Canada and Denmark - hardly bastions of intrusive authoritarianism - seem to come to much the same conclusion on where the balance should be struck.
There are two possible explanations for that remarkable fact. The first is a massive global conspiracy or some form of collective madness which suddenly afflicts people like Ming Campbell or Nick Clegg, across a huge range of countries and different political parties, as soon as they become closer to the actual decision. The second is the rather boring one that the threats are real and the powers of the security services are necessary and proportionate.
The latter is the more likely explanation.
1) Make a law saying you can do A.
2) Law permitting A gets broken to do B.
3) They get found out, say, "We're already doing B", we need legislation to bring this under proper control" and pass a law to permit B.
4) Law permitting B gets broken to do C...
It's not his deference to power, it is his his contempt for the powerless.
What I think we need to do here is to find some actual defensible lines, which need to be quite simple and clear, with somebody involved actually having an incentive to enforce them. A traditional example was the right to silence, where people learned that abuse of the process by police could only be partly restrained, so you had to give people a fairly broad, sweeping right not to self-incriminate, even at the cost of helping some guilty people.
One obvious place where we need a line is the sanctity of encryption keys. We can assume that anything in transit is going to be sniffed, but if somebody comes to you and tries to make you hand over your keys, you need to have a right to tell them to piss off. This kind of line is enforceable because you probably don't particularly want to hand over the keys in the first place, whereas your ISP probably doesn't particularly care whether it shares your data or not, so it's not going to stand up to abuse.
It is true that you have repeatedly said they are systematically breaking the law. The government, the independent Commissioner, and the Select Committee say they are not. Who to believe? That's not my logic, as you well know.
However I note you invariably evade the point. Let us be blunt about this: you are talking from a position of the deepest ignorance. Those who actually know about the matter, in all Western democracies, disagree with you. Ignorance versus Knowledge: on balance, it's not hard to decide which to favour, is it?
It is true that they are a bit miffed at what appears to be the US overstepping the mark. That's fair enough. I agree with their concerns on that.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/van-rompuy-says-door-open-two-speed-europe-303214?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4a6572e98c-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-4a6572e98c-245514803
My understanding is that according to the EU directive the providers of services such as telephony and internet were obliged to retain metadata of who had spoken to whom for 12 months.
The EUCJ has now ruled that this requirement is disproportionate and a breach of the Convention right to privacy. It would therefore be a duty on the part of these holders to destroy these records. The purpose of this legislation is, as I understand it, to require them to keep these records so that they can be accessed should a particular user come under suspicion.
Provided that there are sufficient safeguards on this access this seems both reasonable and proportionate to me. If someone is reasonably suspected of planning terrorist attack, for example, there is a legitimate public interest in ascertaining who he has been speaking to and might also be involved. Similarly, if someone is sharing kiddie porn I don't have a problem with the authorities ascertaining to whom he might have sent it.
None of this would excuse or legitimise some of the other stuff our security services have been up to with their unselective taps of internet communications. These are a concern but as long as they are not justified by this legislation I don't have a problem with the legislation itself.
Maybe I am missing something. The scope of this legislation is not entirely clear.
I was pretty clear last week that I prefered FPTP, but that if we change the Irish system is probably the best (which I believe is multi-member STV, but it's a long time since I studied electoral systems in any detail).
But, in my view, someone who's vote is for, say, the Greens, transferred to the Christian Socialist Party transferred to Labour is having more opportunity to express their views. That's why I suggested capping
Where I may be going wrong (as I said its been a long time) is that I thought you had more than 1 vote in a multimember seat.
"The scope of this legislation is not entirely clear. "
The scope is on a need too know basis, the government needs too "know", we don't.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
Overturning fundamental principles is common and not difficult, we don't have a "constitution" more a set of guidelines as it were. Ahhhhhrrr me hearty?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-data-retention-and-investigatory-powers-bill
have any impact on the Scottish Referendum. From my reading of it the would appear to be less tax revenues forcast from north sea oil and gas and what there is will be more variable and less predictable.
If we can't spy on you, you will all die and your children will be handed to pedophiles!
"(a) in the interests of national security;
(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d)in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f)for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g)for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health;
(gA) because I don't like the colour of your hair; or
.
(h)for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State."
I am not entirely sure about (gA).
You have to laugh really, unless of course they make that illegal as well.
In six months time they'll be begging us not to leave