Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why LAB wins more seats with fewer votes : The way First Pa

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited August 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why LAB wins more seats with fewer votes : The way First Past the Post works in its favour

We’ve talked a lot on PB about Labour’s “electoral crutch” – the big shift to it since 2010 of Lib Dem voters which has so far remained. Well Labour has another crutch – the electoral system which could be equally or even more important.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Third-past-the-post!

    Someone else will come along in 5 minutes' time and say "First!". But under the rules, it will count.
  • Options
    Morning all,
    O/T For Morris Dancer.
    Happy 123rd birthday Erwin Schrodinger!
    Anyway off to do the early shift.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    Morning all,
    O/T For Morris Dancer.
    Happy 123rd birthday Erwin Schrodinger!
    Anyway off to do the early shift.

    Raises interesting questions about when and if you could celebrate his cat's birthday....

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,637
    So Conservative supporters in safe Labour seats don't bother to vote?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,008
    edited August 2014
    TBH I don’t remember any Press complaints on the subject in either 1951 (although I was young and only just starting to develop an interest) or Feb 1974, when the main issue was whether or not the Liberals would prop up the Tories.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    JohnLoony said:

    Third-past-the-post!

    Someone else will come along in 5 minutes' time and say "First!". But under the rules, it will count.

    First

    EICIPM
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    FPTP is a flawed, perverse system that can produce flawed and perverse results.

    It's still better than AV though.

    (Runs for cover).
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    FPTP is a flawed, perverse system that can produce flawed and perverse results.

    It's still better than AV though.

    (Runs for cover).

    I made some suggestions on your London trip on the last thread btw
  • Options
    Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    edited August 2014

    So Conservative supporters in safe Labour seats don't bother to vote?

    Nope, and the same for Labour supporters in safe Tory seats, unless there is a chance of tacticle voting to remove the Tory.

    Edited due to stupid spelchucker.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,044
    Charles said:

    FPTP is a flawed, perverse system that can produce flawed and perverse results.

    It's still better than AV though.

    (Runs for cover).

    I made some suggestions on your London trip on the last thread btw
    Thanks - they were all good, and I sent a quick response on that thread.

    The range and depth of knowledge on PB is rather good at times. ;-)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    This is GREAT news for Yes.

    Salmond's crushing defeat in the debate is great news for Yes.

    Every single poll showing Yes losing is great news for Yes.

    Obviously
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited August 2014
    @UK_Together: BREAKING NEWS 3rd poll in a week to show our lead increasing. More & more of us are saying #nothanks to separation. http://t.co/K0UYve8lB6

    @YesScotland: Yes support at new high in TNS poll among those certain to vote on 18 Sept #indyref #TNS twitter.com/YesScotland/status/499330805341356033/photo/1

    take your pick...
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,898
    "I believe it will be, then we could be heading for what could appear a perverse and unfair result."

    It will only be perverse and unfair because the system is perverse and unfair, which the British electorate voted overwhelmingly to keep it, only 3 years ago, and which the Tories fought hard to keep.
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning all and according to one paper today (Telegraph?) we are likely to see tactical voting against Labour because floating voters cant support a Labour party led by wonky Milibland.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    Not only is there the prospect of Labour winning a majority despite polling fewer votes, but we could also see UKIP outpoll the LibDems but get zero seats. Results like that might suddenly give the likes of the Mail an appetite for electoral reform...
  • Options

    Morning all and according to one paper today (Telegraph?) we are likely to see tactical voting against Labour because floating voters cant support a Labour party led by wonky Milibland.

    And I understand that the Mail is planning to run a story saying that Labour canvassers have contracted the Ebola virus...

  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    . And I understand that the Mail is planning to run a story saying that Labour canvassers have contracted the Ebola virus...



    Are you sure, IA? The version I heard is that Labour are planning to round up all the people in Africa who are suffering from Ebola, and move them to Conservative-held safe seats in southern England.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312
    Scott_P said:

    @UK_Together: BREAKING NEWS 3rd poll in a week to show our lead increasing. More & more of us are saying #nothanks to separation. http://t.co/K0UYve8lB6

    @YesScotland: Yes support at new high in TNS poll among those certain to vote on 18 Sept #indyref #TNS twitter.com/YesScotland/status/499330805341356033/photo/1

    take your pick...

    The TNS survey is reported in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-voters-rise-yes-upbeat-1-3507546

    Apparently most of the polling was done during the Commonwealth Games (!) Not exactly a new poll. I really don't understand why some companies find getting their results out so hard.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Not only is there the prospect of Labour winning a majority despite polling fewer votes, but we could also see UKIP outpoll the LibDems but get zero seats. Results like that might suddenly give the likes of the Mail an appetite for electoral reform...

    If UKIP gain one seat and it is this one, it would be very amusing:

    http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/skegness-bracing-neil-hamilton/4272

    UKIP- the new broom that sweeps clean? You got to laugh, or else you cry!

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pubgoer, quantum politics does seem to be ever more popular with the political class.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312
    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    What FPTP is supposed to deliver is a winners bonus by which the winner picks up a disproportionate number of seats and thus creates a stable government. This is really only working for Labour at the moment. So Cameron won 36.1% of the vote and won by a much greater margin than Blair won by in 2005 when he got 35.2% of the vote but Blair got 355 MPs and Cameron got 306.

    In fact Labour got something of a "winners bonus" for getting thrashed in 2010 as can be seen by the fact that they got more seats per vote than the tories did. I think this was a result of the voting in their safe seats being particularly poor in 2010 as Brown generated no enthusiasm. I would expect turnout to be at least marginally up in these seats in 2015 which will be one of the factors that I think will reduce the extent of the distortion. It will still exist though and will be a major factor in Labour's favour.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Centre-left think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says that a full-blown economic recovery will not resolve the UK's youth unemployment problem.

    Its latest report says despite steady falls in unemployment, there are still 868,000 out-of-work 16 to 24-year-olds.

    Later on Wednesday, the latest official UK unemployment figures will be revealed.They have been falling steadily for the last year.

    The IPPR highlights a striking mismatch between what young people are training for and the types of jobs available.

    For example, it says, 94,000 people were trained in beauty and hair for just 18,000 jobs, while only 123,000 were trained in the construction and engineering sectors for an advertised 275,000 jobs.

    The IPPR says youth unemployment is lower in countries where the vocational route into employment through formal education and training is as clear as the academic route.

    It says this helps, as it puts the two on a higher perceived footing.

    Although the youth unemployment rate has fallen sharply from 20.9% a year ago to 17.8%, the IPPR says there are still 868,000 unemployed young people aged 16 to 24 and 247,000 of them have been looking for work for more than a year.

    About 700,000 young people have never had a job.

    A Work and Pensions Department spokesperson said the IPPR's report was "misleading", arguing that the number of unemployed young people who are not working full time had dropped to about 530,000.

    "Youth employment is up, youth unemployment has been dropping for 10 months in a row and the number of young people claiming the main unemployment benefit has dropped for 31 months in a row to around 250,000," a spokesperson said.

    Tony Dolphin, IPPR chief economist, said: "We can learn lots from countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

    "A strong workplace-based vocational education and training system, with high employer involvement, contributes more to a smoother transition from education to work and a low rate of youth unemployment than anything else."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28765465
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
  • Options
    Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2014
    DavidL said:

    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    What FPTP is supposed to deliver is a winners bonus by which the winner picks up a disproportionate number of seats and thus creates a stable government. This is really only working for Labour at the moment. So Cameron won 36.1% of the vote and won by a much greater margin than Blair won by in 2005 when he got 35.2% of the vote but Blair got 355 MPs and Cameron got 306.

    In fact Labour got something of a "winners bonus" for getting thrashed in 2010 as can be seen by the fact that they got more seats per vote than the tories did. I think this was a result of the voting in their safe seats being particularly poor in 2010 as Brown generated no enthusiasm. I would expect turnout to be at least marginally up in these seats in 2015 which will be one of the factors that I think will reduce the extent of the distortion. It will still exist though and will be a major factor in Labour's favour.

    I don't think "abysmal" is a reasonable description of the turn-out in safe Labour seats. I prefer to think of a "luxury" turn-out in safe Tory ones!

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Andrew Neil's tweeted his Scottish independence documentary was his last ever for the BBC. A shame, he's an intelligent and impartial political journalist.

    At the same time, Sky's excellent Tim Marshall (foreign affairs, I think) has taken a sabbatical.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Financier said:

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
    The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.

    It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Financier said:

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
    I bought diesel in Canterbury for less than £1.30 yesterday. Haven't managed to do that for several years.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @UK_Together: BREAKING NEWS 3rd poll in a week to show our lead increasing. More & more of us are saying #nothanks to separation. http://t.co/K0UYve8lB6

    @YesScotland: Yes support at new high in TNS poll among those certain to vote on 18 Sept #indyref #TNS twitter.com/YesScotland/status/499330805341356033/photo/1

    take your pick...

    The TNS survey is reported in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-voters-rise-yes-upbeat-1-3507546

    Apparently most of the polling was done during the Commonwealth Games (!) Not exactly a new poll. I really don't understand why some companies find getting their results out so hard.

    The sharp change in momentum towards No seems to have occurred during the Commonwealth Games, Darling has certainly boosted that shift with his gutting of Salmond on live television.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    As a UKIP voter I am biased in this, but the fact that turnout is so poor in some Labour seats means that Labour could be vulnerable to UKIP. We know that quite a lot of UKIP votes come from people who didn't vote last time, and there are more of these people in Labour areas.

    As an aside there are different types of people who don't vote. Some don't care, some think that the system means their vote doesn't count and some don't vote because they think all the parties are the same. I believe that UKIP is picking up the last of these three.

    So while I understand why a polling company would place more emphasis on people that voted in 2010, I think that a good proportion of those saying that they'll vote UKIP in 2015, will do so.

    But that's what's making this election so interesting. FPTP leads to elections being fought in 100 constituencies. But the rise of UKIP and the collapse of the Lib Dem vote share will, I think, make it a bit harder for the parties to target their resources. And I believe we may get a surprise or two.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Dr Fox,

    I think the chance of Ukip taking Boston may have dropped from almost certain to only likely with the stepping down of Mark Simmonds. He was a very divisive figure - it's not often you get the local football website having regular moans about their MP. He was also seen as being the farmers' cheerleader, being accused of engineering the town's bypass so that it went through the centre of the town.

    With the Lithuanian influx, hard-working though many are, the pressure on schools and health services is massive.

    But Neil Hamilton? I suppose it will depend on whether it's immigration or sleaze that is the biggest issue.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Why should tories worry about wasted votes in 3rd place seats when the LDs are polling so low and are so useless and duplicitous?
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    tlg86 said:

    As a UKIP voter I am biased in this, but the fact that turnout is so poor in some Labour seats means that Labour could be vulnerable to UKIP. We know that quite a lot of UKIP votes come from people who didn't vote last time, and there are more of these people in Labour areas.

    As an aside there are different types of people who don't vote. Some don't care, some think that the system means their vote doesn't count and some don't vote because they think all the parties are the same. I believe that UKIP is picking up the last of these three.

    So while I understand why a polling company would place more emphasis on people that voted in 2010, I think that a good proportion of those saying that they'll vote UKIP in 2015, will do so.

    But that's what's making this election so interesting. FPTP leads to elections being fought in 100 constituencies. But the rise of UKIP and the collapse of the Lib Dem vote share will, I think, make it a bit harder for the parties to target their resources. And I believe we may get a surprise or two.

    As a UKIP voter you are one of those splitting the right wing vote - for no valid reason - and thereby gifting the rule of our country to a europhile labour party led by the odious Miliband with Balls (!!!) as his chancellor.
    Good luck with your analysis - you need it. Its the rest of us I worry about.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    The chances of any change in to the FPTP system in general elections have been scuppered for the time being but local government could lead the way,as usual,by adopting the STV system adopted in Scotland, where there is enough evidence now to suggest less uncontested seats and one-party states(one party states more than not end in tears for the party in charge).Should this system be seen to work in local government,it may open the way again for proposed change in national elections.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312

    DavidL said:

    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    What FPTP is supposed to deliver is a winners bonus by which the winner picks up a disproportionate number of seats and thus creates a stable government. This is really only working for Labour at the moment. So Cameron won 36.1% of the vote and won by a much greater margin than Blair won by in 2005 when he got 35.2% of the vote but Blair got 355 MPs and Cameron got 306.

    In fact Labour got something of a "winners bonus" for getting thrashed in 2010 as can be seen by the fact that they got more seats per vote than the tories did. I think this was a result of the voting in their safe seats being particularly poor in 2010 as Brown generated no enthusiasm. I would expect turnout to be at least marginally up in these seats in 2015 which will be one of the factors that I think will reduce the extent of the distortion. It will still exist though and will be a major factor in Labour's favour.

    I don't think "abysmal" is a reasonable description of the turn-out in safe Labour seats. I prefer to think of a "luxury" turn-out in safe Tory ones!

    I think abysmal is fair because it is driving down voter participation in the system as a whole which undermines the legitimacy of the entire process. Basically, if Labour supporters in safe seats were as civically minded as tories turnout would be in the high 60s rather than the low 60s.

    One of the most compelling arguments for me for a change in our voting system is that it could encourage the 80%+ of us who live in safe seats to actually take part and to make it worth while for politicians to chase our votes. If Labour was not able to take its safe seats for granted and had to pay attention to its traditional supporters it would be a better party. Not entirely sure the same logic applies to the tories but it should.

    I mentioned the other night that I had been to see William McIlvanney at the Edinburgh Book Festival. He lamented that the Labour party was like politics with Alzheimer's. Every few years they went to the electorate and asked if they could remember where they had come from because they had forgotten.

  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Gadfly said:

    Financier said:

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
    I bought diesel in Canterbury for less than £1.30 yesterday. Haven't managed to do that for several years.


    Brent crude? Alex Salmond is not looking at the price of Brent crude.
    The stronger pound will be helping. It will be helping other raw material prices too which should make it cheaper to turn them into manufactured goods for export, if our exporters are interested. Of course if we had real austerity and lack of spending they would really have to try.
  • Options
    Whenever I think I might vote Lib Dem, Mike does these threads, which reminds me of the Lib Dem perfidy over boundary changes.

    So vote Tory, for a fairer electoral system.

    That's what I'm going to do.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    O Flynn to stand in Cambridge !

    Huppert hold.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,489
    edited August 2014
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @UK_Together: BREAKING NEWS 3rd poll in a week to show our lead increasing. More & more of us are saying #nothanks to separation. http://t.co/K0UYve8lB6

    @YesScotland: Yes support at new high in TNS poll among those certain to vote on 18 Sept #indyref #TNS twitter.com/YesScotland/status/499330805341356033/photo/1

    take your pick...

    The TNS survey is reported in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-voters-rise-yes-upbeat-1-3507546

    Apparently most of the polling was done during the Commonwealth Games (!) Not exactly a new poll. I really don't understand why some companies find getting their results out so hard.

    TNS historically have always published their polls long after the fieldwork date, because of their methodology.

    They conduct face to face interviews, so it takes a while for them.

    That said

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 11h

    It is an absolute nonsense that #IndyRef polls mostly carried out before TV debate are now being published as though they were new.


    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10h

    @NatBuster At this critical period before Sept 18 polls should be published within 24 hours of the fieldwork ending.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Exclusive: UKIP set to name economics spokesman Patrick O'Flynn as parliamentary candidate for Cambridge http://t.co/aBH42npwkt
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @UK_Together: BREAKING NEWS 3rd poll in a week to show our lead increasing. More & more of us are saying #nothanks to separation. http://t.co/K0UYve8lB6

    @YesScotland: Yes support at new high in TNS poll among those certain to vote on 18 Sept #indyref #TNS twitter.com/YesScotland/status/499330805341356033/photo/1

    take your pick...

    The TNS survey is reported in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-voters-rise-yes-upbeat-1-3507546

    Apparently most of the polling was done during the Commonwealth Games (!) Not exactly a new poll. I really don't understand why some companies find getting their results out so hard.

    TNS historically have always published their polls long after the fieldwork date, because of their methodology.

    They conduct face to face interviews.

    That said

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 11h

    It is an absolute nonsense that #IndyRef polls mostly carried out before TV debate are now being published as though they were new.


    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10h

    @NatBuster At this critical period before Sept 18 polls should be published within 24 hours of the fieldwork ending.
    I'm 100% with Mike on this one. Describing this as a new poll in the current febrile atmosphere is positively misleading.

  • Options
    Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2014
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    Labour's favour.

    I don't think "abysmal" is a reasonable description of the turn-out in safe Labour seats. I prefer to think of a "luxury" turn-out in safe Tory ones!

    I think abysmal is fair because it is driving down voter participation in the system as a whole which undermines the legitimacy of the entire process. Basically, if Labour supporters in safe seats were as civically minded as tories turnout would be in the high 60s rather than the low 60s.

    One of the most compelling arguments for me for a change in our voting system is that it could encourage the 80%+ of us who live in safe seats to actually take part and to make it worth while for politicians to chase our votes. If Labour was not able to take its safe seats for granted and had to pay attention to its traditional supporters it would be a better party. Not entirely sure the same logic applies to the tories but it should.

    I mentioned the other night that I had been to see William McIlvanney at the Edinburgh Book Festival. He lamented that the Labour party was like politics with Alzheimer's. Every few years they went to the electorate and asked if they could remember where they had come from because they had forgotten.

    I think instrumental voting is perfectly reasonable behaviour - the alternative is not to change the voting system but to follow the Australian example and make voting compulsory. However, we are not going to agree.

    I do like your last paragraph, though. If only because it gives me an opportunity to repeat my King Charles's Head: Labour was formed to promote class politics (although until at least the 1950s it also reflected religious divisions, achieving the not inconsiderable feat of keeping Catholics and Nonconformists in the same big tent). Those forms of political cleavage, whilst still with us (at least class is) are now being buffeted by the politics of race. And I can change my class, I can change my faith, but I can't change the colour of my skin or the cultural and ethical values I learnt as a child. I'm stuck with them.

    I don't think any of our Parties have really got to grips with this - they're all led by nice liberal chaps and chapesses who don't really want to get to grips with it - but sooner or later it will get to grips with them. And Labour will be first in the firing line.
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Financier said:

    So now the price of oil starts to drop just in time for the Indyref.

    How will Salmond spin this one ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11029810/Russia-vulnerable-as-oil-prices-hit-nine-month-low-on-IEA-glut-warnings.html

    Brent Crude at $102.50 is the lowest for12 months, but has anyone seen a drop in pump prices recently?
    The drop seems down to increased production in USA and Gulf, combined with low demand particularly the Eurozone.

    It may also be deliberate. Leveraging the price of oil down by the US and its allies does put pressure on the Russian economy in particular.
    Or just an unwinding of a very large hedge fund net long speculative position, now unwound.

    Big commodity correction this summer, especially in ags. With the stronger pound a real boon to the UK consumer.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    tlg86 said:

    As a UKIP voter I am biased in this, but the fact that turnout is so poor in some Labour seats means that Labour could be vulnerable to UKIP. We know that quite a lot of UKIP votes come from people who didn't vote last time, and there are more of these people in Labour areas.

    As an aside there are different types of people who don't vote. Some don't care, some think that the system means their vote doesn't count and some don't vote because they think all the parties are the same. I believe that UKIP is picking up the last of these three.

    So while I understand why a polling company would place more emphasis on people that voted in 2010, I think that a good proportion of those saying that they'll vote UKIP in 2015, will do so.

    But that's what's making this election so interesting. FPTP leads to elections being fought in 100 constituencies. But the rise of UKIP and the collapse of the Lib Dem vote share will, I think, make it a bit harder for the parties to target their resources. And I believe we may get a surprise or two.

    As a UKIP voter you are one of those splitting the right wing vote - for no valid reason - and thereby gifting the rule of our country to a europhile labour party led by the odious Miliband with Balls (!!!) as his chancellor.
    Good luck with your analysis - you need it. Its the rest of us I worry about.
    If the Conservatives can't persuade enough right-wing voters to support them to win, the fault lies with the Conservatives and no-one else.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2014
    A Boredom, Ingrained Habit or Productivity Problem?

    A new YouGov research has found that there’s a widespread use of technology in the work place –but for non-work related communication.

    The “Switching off- Technology and the Work-Life Balance” report focuses on technology re-shaping the relationship between work and leisure among workers. The study found that six in ten workers (60%) regularly or occasionally read/send personal texts. Half (50%) send/receive personal emails and almost half (46%) engage in personal phone calls during working hours.

    Personal texting and emailing is higher among the under-40s than older workers. Employees in the 25-39 age group have the highest usage of personal texting (73%), personal emailing (60%) and personal phoning (50%) at work compared to the other age groups.


    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/12/technology-causes-change-workplace/

    So how many of you are working at your desk right now - and how many are on a break?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    What FPTP is supposed to deliver is a winners bonus by which the winner picks up a disproportionate number of seats and thus creates a stable government. This is really only working for Labour at the moment. So Cameron won 36.1% of the vote and won by a much greater margin than Blair won by in 2005 when he got 35.2% of the vote but Blair got 355 MPs and Cameron got 306.

    In fact Labour got something of a "winners bonus" for getting thrashed in 2010 as can be seen by the fact that they got more seats per vote than the tories did. I think this was a result of the voting in their safe seats being particularly poor in 2010 as Brown generated no enthusiasm. I would expect turnout to be at least marginally up in these seats in 2015 which will be one of the factors that I think will reduce the extent of the distortion. It will still exist though and will be a major factor in Labour's favour.

    I think that's fair. Clearly there is a systemic bias in the size of the seats (you'd imagine that, on average, they would be similar sizes, and a 5% differential is statistically meaningful). But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons.

    More fundamentally, there is a problem with safe seats not getting the attention - this is part of the reason why voters can feel alienated. I'd be keen to create an incentive for parties to spend time in these seats - personally, I like the idea of reflecting this in the size of seats, but you could also look at creaming off an "surplus" votes above a majority of 1 in any given constituency to be counted towards "national" seats, or something of this nature. It is deeply worrying, though, that the current incentive is for parties to ignore safe seats because I don't think that's healthy for our democracy
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    The chances of any change in to the FPTP system in general elections have been scuppered for the time being but local government could lead the way,as usual,by adopting the STV system adopted in Scotland, where there is enough evidence now to suggest less uncontested seats and one-party states(one party states more than not end in tears for the party in charge).Should this system be seen to work in local government,it may open the way again for proposed change in national elections.

    If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form another coalition, then PR in local government in return for an EU referendum seems the obvious deal.
  • Options
    @InnocentAbroad - Race will go the way of class eventually. It's a matter of the young getting old. They have grown up in the society we have now so do not feel it is strange, wrong and/or imposed in the way that many older people do.

    After watching Andrew Neil's documentary last night, though, it is pretty clear that whatever happens on 18th September we are heading for a major constitutional shake-up that is inevitably going to have an impact on our political parties, the way they organise and how they present themselves.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. F, you can't alter the voting system without the electorate's consent, even if it's 'only' local.
  • Options
    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tlg86 said:

    As a UKIP voter I am biased in this, but the fact that turnout is so poor in some Labour seats means that Labour could be vulnerable to UKIP. We know that quite a lot of UKIP votes come from people who didn't vote last time, and there are more of these people in Labour areas.

    As an aside there are different types of people who don't vote. Some don't care, some think that the system means their vote doesn't count and some don't vote because they think all the parties are the same. I believe that UKIP is picking up the last of these three.

    So while I understand why a polling company would place more emphasis on people that voted in 2010, I think that a good proportion of those saying that they'll vote UKIP in 2015, will do so.

    But that's what's making this election so interesting. FPTP leads to elections being fought in 100 constituencies. But the rise of UKIP and the collapse of the Lib Dem vote share will, I think, make it a bit harder for the parties to target their resources. And I believe we may get a surprise or two.

    The maths doesn't really work for you though.

    Say average turnout is 60% in Labour seats, so UKIP is targeting 40% of the electorate. Not sure what the average Labour vote as a percentage of this turnout is in each of these seats, so let's assume they win 40% of the votes cast. Effectively this means that they are winning seats on the basis of 24% of the electorate (40% * 60*).

    From UKIP's perspective, this means they need to win 60% of the non-voters (40% * 70% = 24% of the electorate) - not only to get them to turnout but also to get them to vote UKIP.

    This strikes me as a real challenge. There may be some seats where it will be easier, but I suspect we will see UKIP getting a bunch of decent 3rd/2nd places in Labour seats, but not many MPs
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    The turnout in a referendum on the voting system for local government would be so pitiful, it would make the police commissioner elections look like a beacon of democracry
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic the real driver of the bias is the turnout in safe tory seats which is as high as that in the marginal seats. In contrast the turnout in safe Labour seats is pretty abysmal meaning that Labour get their seats "cheaply". I agree that boundaries are not going to change that but we should at least start off with seats that are roughly the same size.

    What FPTP is supposed to deliver is a winners bonus by which the winner picks up a disproportionate number of seats and thus creates a stable government. This is really only working for Labour at the moment. So Cameron won 36.1% of the vote and won by a much greater margin than Blair won by in 2005 when he got 35.2% of the vote but Blair got 355 MPs and Cameron got 306.

    In fact Labour got something of a "winners bonus" for getting thrashed in 2010 as can be seen by the fact that they got more seats per vote than the tories did. I think this was a result of the voting in their safe seats being particularly poor in 2010 as Brown generated no enthusiasm. I would expect turnout to be at least marginally up in these seats in 2015 which will be one of the factors that I think will reduce the extent of the distortion. It will still exist though and will be a major factor in Labour's favour.


    More fundamentally, there is a problem with safe seats not getting the attention - this is part of the reason why voters can feel alienated. I'd be keen to create an incentive for parties to spend time in these seats - personally, I like the idea of reflecting this in the size of seats, but you could also look at creaming off an "surplus" votes above a majority of 1 in any given constituency to be counted towards "national" seats, or something of this nature. It is deeply worrying, though, that the current incentive is for parties to ignore safe seats because I don't think that's healthy for our democracy
    This is really the problem I was raising with IA. I am not suggesting anything like compulsory voting but it does need to be recognised that not voting in safe seats is rational behaviour. How do we re-engage our politicians with the majority of the population? Unless we do we simply encourage this bubble mentality that we all dislike.

    I think we may also encourage the race issues IA has mentioned as well. When relatively small sections of the electorate are given disproportionate significance politicians will focus on them. Again, it is rational behaviour.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    SeanF,

    I expect Fllightpath is used to telling children off, and he regards Ukip supporters as stupid children who won't be told. It must be a problem for some Tories ... if only voters would see the light or listen to their wiser elders. Clearly they should be disenfranchised.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

    The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?

  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    [Clearly they should be disenfranchised].-

    Yeah, they're going the other way though aren't they?

    I wonder what the TCBs think?

  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    TGOHF said:

    Exclusive: UKIP set to name economics spokesman Patrick O'Flynn as parliamentary candidate for Cambridge http://t.co/aBH42npwkt

    Strange place for UKIP to put one of their most high profile members.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933
    I think this Labour candidate would do well to stop calling herself "Ms" if she wants to win back .lost kippers

    http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11404728.We_can_t_dismiss_the_Ukip_threat___Labour_s_Thurrock_candidate/?ref=rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    @InnocentAbroad - Race will go the way of class eventually. It's a matter of the young getting old. They have grown up in the society we have now so do not feel it is strange, wrong and/or imposed in the way that many older people do.

    After watching Andrew Neil's documentary last night, though, it is pretty clear that whatever happens on 18th September we are heading for a major constitutional shake-up that is inevitably going to have an impact on our political parties, the way they organise and how they present themselves.

    I'm not sure. My impression is that voting along racial lines is an increasing feature of Western democracies.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312
    Got to go but in about 15 minutes we will have the release of yet more excellent unemployment figures. I think we have demonstrated fairly conclusively that these have no measurable impact on voting intention but still.

    As the EZ teeters on the brink of yet another technical recession the attractiveness to Europe's youth of working in the UK is only going to increase. This is going to be a challenge and a problem for all politicians except UKIP I suppose.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

    The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?

    The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.

  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    @InnocentAbroad - Race will go the way of class eventually. It's a matter of the young getting old. They have grown up in the society we have now so do not feel it is strange, wrong and/or imposed in the way that many older people do.

    After watching Andrew Neil's documentary last night, though, it is pretty clear that whatever happens on 18th September we are heading for a major constitutional shake-up that is inevitably going to have an impact on our political parties, the way they organise and how they present themselves.

    I'm not sure. My impression is that voting along racial lines is an increasing feature of Western democracies.

    It is. But that will not be permanent. Older voters are reacting to a change that they have experienced. Younger voters have not experienced it as they have grown up in it.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Observer, if removing an advantage from Labour = favouring the Conservatives, then yes.

    Also, both parties of coalition (unsure of Labour) had a reduction of seat numbers in their manifestos.
  • Options
    isam said:

    I think this Labour candidate would do well to stop calling herself "Ms" if she wants to win back .lost kippers

    http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11404728.We_can_t_dismiss_the_Ukip_threat___Labour_s_Thurrock_candidate/?ref=rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    It's the paper calling her that, isn't it?
  • Options
    Rollo57Rollo57 Posts: 6
    "If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form another coalition, then PR in local government in return for an EU referendum seems the obvious deal."

    How? Libs don't want a referendum, Cons don't want PR and have already promised a referendum?
    The biggest frightener for both Tories and Labour, is a small turnout, letting UKIP in.
  • Options

    Mr. Observer, if removing an advantage from Labour = favouring the Conservatives, then yes.

    Also, both parties of coalition (unsure of Labour) had a reduction of seat numbers in their manifestos.

    Specifically setting up the redrawing of constituencies in a way that is most likely to favour you is favouring your interests.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    isam said:

    I think this Labour candidate would do well to stop calling herself "Ms" if she wants to win back .lost kippers

    http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11404728.We_can_t_dismiss_the_Ukip_threat___Labour_s_Thurrock_candidate/?ref=rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    It's the paper calling her that, isn't it?
    Yeah I thought they would only do that because that's what she prefers to be called? Or is Ms standard now?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

    The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?

    The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.

    Did the Tories change those rules though? Or just maintain the status quo?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Observer, removing a bias is levelling the playing field, not gerrymandering the rules.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Sean_F said:

    The chances of any change in to the FPTP system in general elections have been scuppered for the time being but local government could lead the way,as usual,by adopting the STV system adopted in Scotland, where there is enough evidence now to suggest less uncontested seats and one-party states(one party states more than not end in tears for the party in charge).Should this system be seen to work in local government,it may open the way again for proposed change in national elections.

    If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form another coalition, then PR in local government in return for an EU referendum seems the obvious deal.
    Equally it would be one of a few bargaining chips for the L/Ds in a Lib-Lab coalition too.


  • Options

    Mr. Observer, removing a bias is levelling the playing field, not gerrymandering the rules.

    Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.

  • Options
    Rollo57Rollo57 Posts: 6
    Charles said
    "How do we re-engage our politicians with the majority of the population?"

    By telling them the truth? Listening to their needs!
    Why do you think UKIP have picked up so much support from people who haven't voted in years?
    With the advance of the internet, the truth is more accessible, making politicians lies easier to see through! People are learning and listening to other media, as ours only tells, what government want us to know!

    People now see how big business and banks, are corrupting our elected politicians, they want change and they'll get it!
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351

    I wonder if some of you could help me out here.

    In the 19th century, the UK expanded its empire and imposed what we called "civilisation" on the natives of those countries. This was bad according to "progressives" because it's imperialism. We shouldn't have imposed our Victorian attitudes on others.

    Nowadays, the progressive view is to spread our values like democracy, diversity, apple pie and motherhood to the developing world. And this is good. We will boycott Russia if they are homophobic, we will intervene in Iraq if they democratically elect the wrong PM.

    My argument about what is "good", it's an argument about consistency.

    Unless Imperialism is spreading "bad views" and progressives only want to spread "good" views, so that's alright.

    Or, as As Oscar said, I'm not young enough to know everything.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,312
    Still here. From the ONS:

    •For April to June 2014, there were 30.60 million people in work, 167,000 more than for January to March 2014 and 820,000 more than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 2.08 million unemployed people, 132,000 fewer than for January to March 2014 and 437,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 8.86 million economically inactive people (those out of work but not seeking or available to work) aged from 16 to 64. This was 15,000 more than for January to March 2014 but 130,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, pay including bonuses for employees in Great Britain was 0.2% lower than a year earlier, but pay excluding bonuses was 0.6% higher.

    Just incredible. It is very hard to understand how we are doing this.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930

    Morning all and according to one paper today (Telegraph?) we are likely to see tactical voting against Labour because floating voters cant support a Labour party led by wonky Milibland.

    If anti-Labour tactical voting existed to anything like anti-Conservative tactical voting, Sheffield Central would have gone Lib Dem last time round.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @paulwaugh: ONS: Unemployment down again by 132k to 2.08m (biggest drop for 25 yrs and lowest since 2008).
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    By the way, how do you edit typos?

    Bloody modern technology; I've come over all Ukip this morning.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

    The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?

    The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.

    Did the Tories change those rules though? Or just maintain the status quo?

    They changed the rules by mandating constituencies of equal size according to the electoral register above all other considerations.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,933

    isam said:

    I think this Labour candidate would do well to stop calling herself "Ms" if she wants to win back .lost kippers

    http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11404728.We_can_t_dismiss_the_Ukip_threat___Labour_s_Thurrock_candidate/?ref=rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    It's the paper calling her that, isn't it?
    To be fair it looks as as though the Thurrock gazette call most women "Ms" so I take it back
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    RIP Lauren Bacall - the biggest Hollywood star I've ever met. Wife of Bogart, lover of Sinatra, friend of Hemingway - a life fully lived!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    edited August 2014
    Artist said:

    TGOHF said:

    Exclusive: UKIP set to name economics spokesman Patrick O'Flynn as parliamentary candidate for Cambridge http://t.co/aBH42npwkt

    Strange place for UKIP to put one of their most high profile members.
    Could help Huppert I reckon as perhaps about a thousand "old Labour" types head to UKIP. Flynn will do well to save his deposit here, a terrible choice for a high profile UKIPper.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Still here. From the ONS:

    •For April to June 2014, there were 30.60 million people in work, 167,000 more than for January to March 2014 and 820,000 more than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 2.08 million unemployed people, 132,000 fewer than for January to March 2014 and 437,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 8.86 million economically inactive people (those out of work but not seeking or available to work) aged from 16 to 64. This was 15,000 more than for January to March 2014 but 130,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, pay including bonuses for employees in Great Britain was 0.2% lower than a year earlier, but pay excluding bonuses was 0.6% higher.

    Just incredible. It is very hard to understand how we are doing this.

    " It is very hard to understand how we are doing this. "
    Labour aren't in power?
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited August 2014
    Scott_P said:

    @paulwaugh: ONS: Unemployment down again by 132k to 2.08m (biggest drop for 25 yrs and lowest since 2008).

    Ah, that would explain this article on why youth unemployment is so terrible. Getting a 'spoiler' in beforehand.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28765465
  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    edited August 2014
    CD13 said:


    I wonder if some of you could help me out here.

    In the 19th century, the UK expanded its empire and imposed what we called "civilisation" on the natives of those countries. This was bad according to "progressives" because it's imperialism. We shouldn't have imposed our Victorian attitudes on others.

    Nowadays, the progressive view is to spread our values like democracy, diversity, apple pie and motherhood to the developing world. And this is good. We will boycott Russia if they are homophobic, we will intervene in Iraq if they democratically elect the wrong PM.

    My argument about what is "good", it's an argument about consistency.

    Unless Imperialism is spreading "bad views" and progressives only want to spread "good" views, so that's alright.

    Or, as As Oscar said, I'm not young enough to know everything.

    I'm not sure of the Exact point you're making - but, yes. Somebody, somewhere must be learning lessons from the 3 (?) y/o , so called, Arab Spring.

    In regards to democracy spreading.
  • Options
    Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited August 2014

    Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.

    It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    Charles said:




    The maths doesn't really work for you though.

    Say average turnout is 60% in Labour seats, so UKIP is targeting 40% of the electorate. Not sure what the average Labour vote as a percentage of this turnout is in each of these seats, so let's assume they win 40% of the votes cast. Effectively this means that they are winning seats on the basis of 24% of the electorate (40% * 60*).

    From UKIP's perspective, this means they need to win 60% of the non-voters (40% * 70% = 24% of the electorate) - not only to get them to turnout but also to get them to vote UKIP.

    This strikes me as a real challenge. There may be some seats where it will be easier, but I suspect we will see UKIP getting a bunch of decent 3rd/2nd places in Labour seats, but not many MPs

    UKIP will finish second in Bootle, they will probably be able to double their vote there mind and still finish a country mile behind Labour though.
  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    [By the way, how do you edit typos?]

    Top right corner of your own post.
  • Options
    currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    Scott_P said:

    @paulwaugh: ONS: Unemployment down again by 132k to 2.08m (biggest drop for 25 yrs and lowest since 2008).

    So we now have very low inflaton, a booming economy and collapsing unemployment, yet we have the worst government, PM & Chnacellor in history and the country wants labour back in power. Its surreal.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Briskin,

    I'm not really making a point, it's my Ukip day.

    Telling people what they must think is rarely productive, especially when you are convinced that you are the font of all wisdom. But you only learn that when you get older.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.

    It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.
    I think SO knows that, he was just engaging in a little light trolling to brighten up his morning. And who hasn't done that, eh?
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Mr Briskin,

    "Top right corner of your own post."

    Thanks.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215

    Charles said:

    @Charles - "But Labour and the Lib Dems chose to vote against reintroducing fairness into the electoral system for grubby partisan reasons."

    Not sure about the LDs, but Labour voted against the grubby, partisan way in which the Tories constructed their equal-sized constituencies.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

    The way in which the independent Boundary Commission did, you mean?

    The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.

    I stand to be corrected but I thought that all boundary reviews since the system was established decades ago were based on registered electors rather than population. If that is the case then your argument about Tory 'gerrymandering' has no merit whatever.
  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    CD13 said:

    Mr Briskin,

    I'm not really making a point, it's my Ukip day.

    Telling people what they must think is rarely productive, especially when you are convinced that you are the font of all wisdom. But you only learn that when you get older.

    I disagree - I think must young people are well aware of this tactic and, therefore, being aware - utilise it. Not sure how much gumption (sorry, never said I don't like my Hollywood films) is involved.

  • Options

    Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.

    It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.

    No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,047

    DavidL said:

    Still here. From the ONS:

    •For April to June 2014, there were 30.60 million people in work, 167,000 more than for January to March 2014 and 820,000 more than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 2.08 million unemployed people, 132,000 fewer than for January to March 2014 and 437,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, there were 8.86 million economically inactive people (those out of work but not seeking or available to work) aged from 16 to 64. This was 15,000 more than for January to March 2014 but 130,000 fewer than a year earlier.


    •For April to June 2014, pay including bonuses for employees in Great Britain was 0.2% lower than a year earlier, but pay excluding bonuses was 0.6% higher.

    Just incredible. It is very hard to understand how we are doing this.

    " It is very hard to understand how we are doing this. "
    Labour aren't in power?
    Take a look what is going on with the benefits system and the move to self-employment. Don't forget the Tories redefined unemployment about 30 times in the 80s.

  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    Seems certain that unemployment will crash below the 2 million barrier just a couple of weeks before the conference season. George, he of near perfection, couldn't have timed it better, could he?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820


    The Boundary Commission followed its government brief as to how the constituencies should be drawn up and looked at electoral registers rather than overall populations. Funnily enough, that favoured the Tories.

    Utter garbage. It has always been done like that in the UK, most recently in the big revamp of constituencies in Scotland under the last government (and quite rightly so - what on earth has the number of non-voters got to do with the equalisation of representation of voters?)
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    BBC – “UK unemployment drops to 2.08m

    UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08 million in the three months to June, official figures show.

    The Office for National Statistics said the unemployment rate also fell to 6.4% in the quarter, down from 6.5% in May.- It means the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for six years.”

    Excellent news - forget, who was the economist predicting 5m unemployed?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28768552
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215

    Only if you do not create another bias. The Tories had a range of options and chose the one that most favoured them.

    It was a facially neutral measure, which was perfectly justifiable. If population rather than those registered to vote should be the measure of constituency sizes, does that mean that those disqualified by law from voting should determine the size of a constituency? The only gerrymandering contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was the provisions relating to the Isle of Wight, and the Highlands and Islands.

    No, it wasn't neutral. It favoured the Tories, who accumulate votes in areas where the population tends to be less transient. MPs represent all their constituents, even the ones not allowed to vote.

    But, as I remarked earlier, if the Boundary Commission has always based its recommendations on registered electorates and not population, how have the Tories gerrymandered the process?
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Morning all :)

    On-topic, it;s strange that the Tories always start bleating on about this but the largest constituency of all is the one I live in, East Ham, which is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Indeed, there's a strong argument for the creation of at least one new constituency given the increasing population in East London and it's almost inevitable that would be another for the Labour column so it does work both ways.

    As far as UKIP here is concerned, their candidate finished third in the Mayoral election with 6% of the vote and their few Council candidates were well stuffed (as indeed were everyone's except Labour). I could envisage UKIP finishing third in East Ham and possibly keeping their deposit but that's it.
This discussion has been closed.