In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
2005 vs 2010:
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62 Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%) Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.
Voters tend to predict that the Liberal Democrats will fade from relevance by 2025 – but that UKIP will remain an important political force
Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.
On that logic, Mr. Booth, the Labour party must be being run for the benefit of the trade unions in general and a couple in particular because they are the ones who will be funding its election campaign. Do you believe that? I don't, but that is the logical conclusion of your belief in the idea that parties are run for the organisations that pay for them.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe?
Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.
He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
Indeed, and I have seen it written more than once, that Farage is a great deal more thoughtful about politics than his public demeanour allows.
He has a natural charm and banter, and people automatically assume that means he can't be intelligent as well.. you don't have to be a nerd to be intelligent
Having Carswell and Farage as the two big players in UKIP, with their contrasting styles is a major plus. I cant think of a better first elected MP than Carswell in terms of yin and yang with Farage... and I successfully persuaded an attractive housewife to vote UKIP by explaining this on Friday in Frinton!
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
Oh dear.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
To be technical, AV was rejected.
Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe? Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat. He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
What we do know about Farage is that he has a track record of falling out with most UKIP people when they get to work with him. Carswell clearly does not mind falling out with people so there is a very high chance of a massive bust up if not break at the top of UKIP within a year or 2. The referendum may delay this as they will be forced to work together.
As I once mentioned ages ago - I was quietly grateful that the BBC were biased towards my preference when I voted Labour. It suited my agenda. When I changed my vote, it really irked me = but it was karma for having had the advantage the other way.
We're all more likely to prefer the status quo when it suits us. Pretending otherwise just looks like self delusion. I don't want to see Labourites dancing about because of their advantage in electoral terms, but it'd be refreshing if they were just honest about it, rather than indulging in Whataboutery.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
It's amazing how Labour supporters never seemed to mind this system when it was benefiting them. Not that it has anything whatsoever to do with the WLQ, so bringing it up in that context is completely pointless. They'll be bringing up the House of Lords next too no doubt.
I think we all know full well that if the situation was reversed then Labour would be shouting from the rooftops about how unfair the current situation is and demanding EV4EL. It's so obviously utterly tribal and pathetic.
Logic must be bent completely out of shape in order to justify absolutely anything that lends advantage to Labour over the Tories. Stopping the Tories is the moral thing to do and everything else follows on from that no matter how ridiculous.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
Oh dear.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?
Ask them after the next election... FPTP might just save their bacon after working against them for so long.
I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up a market for next year.
Over/Under market on Labour's share of the vote (UK wide) being 36.1%
Which is what the Tories got in 2010.
What would the price PBers reckon would be a fair prices on that market.
2/5 Under 7/4 Over?
Labour aren't polling that now. Where are they getting more votes from? The Greens, perhaps. 1/6 Under 7/2 Over looks closer to the mark. They are 3.2 for a majority on betfair and that will include lots of sub 36% scenarios (qv. 2005).
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe? Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat. He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
What we do know about Farage is that he has a track record of falling out with most UKIP people when they get to work with him. Carswell clearly does not mind falling out with people so there is a very high chance of a massive bust up if not break at the top of UKIP within a year or 2. The referendum may delay this as they will be forced to work together.
The referendum that the Farage Party don't seem too keen on?
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe? Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat. He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
What we do know about Farage is that he has a track record of falling out with most UKIP people when they get to work with him. Carswell clearly does not mind falling out with people so there is a very high chance of a massive bust up if not break at the top of UKIP within a year or 2. The referendum may delay this as they will be forced to work together.
The referendum that the Farage Party don't seem too keen on?
They may change their policy tomorrow. Policy is whatever Farage decides when he wakes up.
Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.
On that logic, Mr. Booth, the Labour party must be being run for the benefit of the trade unions in general and a couple in particular because they are the ones who will be funding its election campaign. Do you believe that? I don't, but that is the logical conclusion of your belief in the idea that parties are run for the organisations that pay for them.
The trade unions have millions of members paying a small amount to the Labour party. There are problems with that, I think Miliband's reforms about opting in are right, but ultimately the interests of most unite members are not very different from most of the public. They want good living standards, publlic services, protection from crime. It's hard to suggest the Tories' millionaire (billionaire?) funders aren't out of touch with what most people need.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Poppycock.
But even if that were true, it's better than Labour, who don't support fairness at all.
How can you possibly claim to be a democrat and support a party which:
1. Wants an unfair advantage in constituency sizes 2. Wants Scots to be able to impose a block of 40 Labour MPs on English affairs, without the English having any say in the equivalent Scottish affairs
Arguing that FPTP is unfair is irrelevant to the argument, because it is the system we have, and in any case Labour don't want to change it. Even if they did want to change it, items 1 and 2 would still be a disgrace, which no reasonable person could possibly defend.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Hold the phone, AV was roundly rejected - that says nothing about other voting reform options or indeed about how much love people have towards FPTP.
I know of plenty of people who voted against AV because they wanted PR.
Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.
So it was tories was it who fawned over bankers between 1997 and 2010? It was tories was it who were happy to see the 40% top rate preserved all through that time? It was the tories who got millions of funding from Lord Sainsbury (and other millionaires), the same Sainsbury who then got a government job? No of course not. Some of us remember Brown fawning over bankers; some of us remember Brown cosying up to the Lloyds chariman over cocktails and persuading him to shred shareholder value. And some of us ask ourselves this... who is funding the Labour election campaign? If you can say that all the millions donated by the unions do not buy influence then you and your divisive arguments do not have a leg to stand on.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
Oh dear.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?
Ask them after the next election... FPTP might just save their bacon after working against them for so long.
You can't say that FPTP was endorsed in the referendum, just that AV was rejected. Many were arguing that AV was even less proportional than FPTP. I think that the LDs may benefit this time from FPTP, unless their poll percentage recovers they are likely to get a better ratio of seats to votes than last time. Also, unless UKIP collapse, the Tories may discover that they would have done better under AV than FPTP. Now that's funny.
EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.
Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".
.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.
Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
Oh dear.
FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.
Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.
Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?
Ask them after the next election... FPTP might just save their bacon after working against them for so long.
Eh, don't see it. Probably the best FPTP result likely for the Lib Dems would be one that was close to proportional.
Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Poppycock.
But even if that were true, it's better than Labour, who don't support fairness at all.
How can you possibly claim to be a democrat and support a party which:
1. Wants an unfair advantage in constituency sizes 2. Wants Scots to have be able to impose a block of 40 Labour MPs on English affairs, without the English having any say in the equivalent Scottish affairs
Arguing that FPTP is unfair is irrelevant to the argument, because it is the system we have, and in any case Labour don't want to change it. Even if they did want to change it, items 1 and 2 would still be a disgrace, which no reasonable person could possibly defend.
That's correct. On this issue, Labour want no fairness, the Lib Dems want a partial fairness but with an add-on so it's favoured to them, the Conservatives want partial fairness and UKIP want total fairness.
Interesting that the only defence offered by Tory supporters for their highly selective constitutional reforms is the playground, "Labour did this" or "Labour said that".
Personally, I think Labour and the Tories have shown similar form on this, motivated by short term tactical gain and little else.
Tory talk of fairness is pretty much complete guff.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe?
Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.
He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up a market for next year.
Over/Under market on Labour's share of the vote (UK wide) being 36.1%
Which is what the Tories got in 2010.
What would the price PBers reckon would be a fair prices on that market.
2/5 Under 7/4 Over?
Labour aren't polling that now. Where are they getting more votes from? The Greens, perhaps. 1/6 Under 7/2 Over looks closer to the mark. They are 3.2 for a majority on betfair and that will include lots of sub 36% scenarios (qv. 2005).
In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.
Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.
So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
2005 vs 2010:
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62 Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%) Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
That's correct. On this issue, Labour want no fairness, the Lib Dems want a partial fairness but with an add-on so it's favoured to them, the Conservatives want partial fairness and UKIP want total fairness.
No, UKIP want PR, which is a different question altogether. The question of fairness - not favouring one particular party or one particular region of the UK - is orthogonal to the question of what the best system for choosing a government is.
Someone on here posted that Nick Palmer could be ,despite ed being crap, secure in the knowledge that he would beat Anna Soubry in the GE. That is complacency of the highest order. I feel sure NPEXMP is not thinking that way at all.....
Not with all those lovely expenses waiting for the winner.
As I've wryly observed before, I shall be a bit better off if I lose (mainly because otherwise 5 years of Parliamentary pension go in the bin - the pension doesn't increase in real terms if you take it later, even though you've giving up 5 years of life expectancy). But I'm genuinely not bothered about that - life is about satisfaction and fun.
Square Root is of course right (though I think he meant it satirically) - I don't spend every weekend pounding doorsteps for fun. It seems reasonably hopeful - I need an 0.4% swing, there was a LibDem vote of 17% last time, the LibDems don't even have a candidate yet and we are in coalition with them locally, UKIP is actively targetting the Tory vote, and the Conservatives appear to have near-zero active local members apart from the MP and a few councillors (though they have zillions of direct mails and emails and some public meetings).
But can it be taken for granted? Of course not. I assume I maximised my personal vote last time (people die, move, forget) and there ought to be at least some incumbency bonus even though we're not really encountering it. My best guess is that I'll win if Labour leads nationally or Tories lead by < 5%, and the Tories will win if they have a national lead >10%, anything else is a toss-up.
.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.
If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.
Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.
Interesting that the only defence offered by Tory supporters for their highly selective constitutional reforms is the playground, "Labour did this" or "Labour said that".
Personally, I think Labour and the Tories have shown similar form on this, motivated by short term tactical gain and little else.
Tory talk of fairness is pretty much complete guff.
So no reason at all why EV4EL is a bad idea other than trying to point out other unrelated stuff is also unfair.
Interesting that the only defence offered by Tory supporters for their highly selective constitutional reforms is the playground, "Labour did this" or "Labour said that".
Personally, I think Labour and the Tories have shown similar form on this, motivated by short term tactical gain and little else.
Tory talk of fairness is pretty much complete guff.
Ian Dale predicts Danny will hold his seat, I simply don't see that myself - it looks like an SNP gain to me.
It's an interesting test for Labour voters in this seat. Do they vote tactically for the SNP to oust the hated ginger rodent or for the Lib Dems against the wild-eyed nationalists? Danny Alexander looks sunk to me if he can't enlist support from erstwhile Conservatives and some Labour supporters.
Hmm, bearing in mind that Nottingham City has a hyperactive poIicy re forcing students to Iive in haIIs and a pretty savage poIicy on imposing costs on shared houses, and that a Iarge uni and a Iarge teaching hospitaI are on your side of the City, do you see students and yuppies forced into BassetIaw affecting your demograhics significantIy?
Interesting that the only defence offered by Tory supporters for their highly selective constitutional reforms is the playground, "Labour did this" or "Labour said that".
Personally, I think Labour and the Tories have shown similar form on this, motivated by short term tactical gain and little else.
Tory talk of fairness is pretty much complete guff.
Hardly Plato. I just got half a dozen posts from the usual suspects saying "Labour did this" and an ad hom from you. Nothing changes on PB.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Poppycock.
But even if that were true, it's better than Labour, who don't support fairness at all.
How can you possibly claim to be a democrat and support a party which:
1. Wants an unfair advantage in constituency sizes 2. Wants Scots to have be able to impose a block of 40 Labour MPs on English affairs, without the English having any say in the equivalent Scottish affairs
Arguing that FPTP is unfair is irrelevant to the argument, because it is the system we have, and in any case Labour don't want to change it. Even if they did want to change it, items 1 and 2 would still be a disgrace, which no reasonable person could possibly defend.
That's correct. On this issue, Labour want no fairness, the Lib Dems want a partial fairness but with an add-on so it's favoured to them, the Conservatives want partial fairness and UKIP want total fairness.
I though both the LibDems and latterly UKIP want proportional representation.
Someone on here posted that Nick Palmer could be ,despite ed being crap, secure in the knowledge that he would beat Anna Soubry in the GE. That is complacency of the highest order. I feel sure NPEXMP is not thinking that way at all.....
Not with all those lovely expenses waiting for the winner.
As I've wryly observed before, I shall be a bit better off if I lose (mainly because otherwise 5 years of Parliamentary pension go in the bin - the pension doesn't increase in real terms if you take it later, even though you've giving up 5 years of life expectancy). But I'm genuinely not bothered about that - life is about satisfaction and fun.
Square Root is of course right (though I think he meant it satirically) - I don't spend every weekend pounding doorsteps for fun. It seems reasonably hopeful - I need an 0.4% swing, there was a LibDem vote of 17% last time, the LibDems don't even have a candidate yet and we are in coalition with them locally, UKIP is actively targetting the Tory vote, and the Conservatives appear to have near-zero active local members apart from the MP and a few councillors (though they have zillions of direct mails and emails and some public meetings).
But can it be taken for granted? Of course not. I assume I maximised my personal vote last time (people die, move, forget) and there ought to be at least some incumbency bonus even though we're not really encountering it. My best guess is that I'll win if Labour leads nationally or Tories lead by < 5%, and the Tories will win if they have a national lead >10%, anything else is a toss-up.
How did your fringe go earlier, I saw you about but had to dash off.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
2005 vs 2010:
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62 Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%) Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
Using electorate is pointless at best and misleading at worst. Turnout was higher in 2010 than 2005, but all elections are decided by those who actually vote. Labour won about 24% of the electorate in 2001 but because turnout was so low that was a strong result.
Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.
I've decided it's not worthwhile making preconditions about Scotland at the GE until the New Year when everything will have calmed down a bit (or, perhaps, not calmed down). Everything is too febrile and in flux at the moment to make long term predictions.
.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.
It's actually a much bigger margin of error than that both before and after the proposed changes, because they equalize on voter registration not actual voting. That means that if your neighbour registers but doesn't show up on the day, you get to allocate part of their share of power.
No, the crux of it is that I like the UK the way it is, and don't want to endanger it over an issue no-one gave a damn about until a couple of weeks ago. If rcs is around, perhaps he can tell us how many times evel or ev4el has been used on pb per month over the past decade. My guess is there'd be a lot of zeros followed by a massive spike last month.
"no-one gave a damn about until a couple of weeks ago. "
No-one in Labour, perhaps. Which is hardly surprising, as Labour seem even more incompetent, self-serving and nasty than usual when it comes to constitutional matters.
Fortunately the Conservatives are not so blind, and in fact have cared a great deal about it, even assembling the MacKay commission to look into the issue:
as far as I remember, the issue was even mentioned in their 2010 manifesto.
So perhaps no-one in Labour gave (or gives) a damn about it. But perhaps that's a sign of why Labour are heading towards losing the 2015 GE ...
I think it is one reason why their poll ratings have slipped. Its one thing to talk about more devolution but to pretend that this cannot have an effect on England is totally disingenuous.
Ian Dale predicts Danny will hold his seat, I simply don't see that myself - it looks like an SNP gain to me.
It's an interesting test for Labour voters in this seat. Do they vote tactically for the SNP to oust the hated ginger rodent or for the Lib Dems against the wild-eyed nationalists? Danny Alexander looks sunk to me if he can't enlist support from erstwhile Conservatives and some Labour supporters.
Labour sympathisers will probably vote Labour there - I can't really see them voting tactically Lib Dem and they might think they have a chance themselves. I don't think they do, but Labour certainly won't tell anyone there to vote tactically/soft pedal it.
It is increasingly becoming aware that the opponents of constitutional reform (or rather, equality of representation for the four UK regions) follow this pattern:
1) Deny it is a problem 2) When experts disagree, claim that the reality is that people do not understand or care about the inequality 3) Claim that proposed changes are partisan (I lost any respect I had for an academic who taught me at Oxford after reading the tosh about the Scottish indyref in this week's LRB)
But the problem is this formula misses the point - ignoring unequal applications of power within a democracy will result in electoral demolition, EVENTUALLY. This may not be net month, or next year, but the levels of dissatisfaction with services, and distribution of the costs, will eventually be connected to the constitutional settlement.
Incidentally, didn't tim of this Parish have a 4 step process, reported as infinitum, for something to do with political communications?
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Carswell's politics turn out to be surprisingly agile, because he does libertarianism but he also does localism. That means he can make a principled stand for pretty much any position: If he doesn't want the government to do something it's libertarian, and if he does it's localism. For example, this "libertarian" is currently attacking the Tories for wanting the government to allow to people build houses in Clacton.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
2005 vs 2010:
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62 Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%) Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
Using electorate is pointless at best and misleading at worst. Turnout was higher in 2010 than 2005, but all elections are decided by those who actually vote. Labour won about 24% of the electorate in 2001 but because turnout was so low that was a strong result.
Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.
It hurts the other parties.
I was only using it to respond to this idiotic idea that somehow the Tories have "enough" power with just 24% of the electorate voting for them. They have a significantly less power than Labour who received votes from just 21.6% of the electorate in 2005.
How did your fringe go earlier, I saw you about but had to dash off.
Not bad - it helps to have a friendly Minister (Norman Baker is excellent from the viewpoint of animal welfare people) and had genuinely interesting things to say. Turnout was modest (about 15) but better than at the Tories' conference, where we made the mistake of having a breakfast fringe in mid-conference (people go to late-night parties and don't fancy an 8am event). There was another PBer there who may want to contribute his impressions but I'll leave to him whether he wants to.
Hmm, bearing in mind that Nottingham City has a hyperactive poIicy re forcing students to Iive in haIIs and a pretty savage poIicy on imposing costs on shared houses, and that a Iarge uni and a Iarge teaching hospitaI are on your side of the City, do you see students and yuppies forced into BassetIaw affecting your demograhics significantIy?
How wouId that pIay?
Are there many Greenies around there?
We're not much affected demographically by City policies - we have a few halls of residence and some private rentals, but I've not heard of them heading off to Bassetlaw.
The Greens got 0.8% last time and should do similarly this time- they do at least have a candidate selected.
Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.
Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).
2005 vs 2010:
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62 Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%) Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
Using electorate is pointless at best and misleading at worst. Turnout was higher in 2010 than 2005, but all elections are decided by those who actually vote. Labour won about 24% of the electorate in 2001 but because turnout was so low that was a strong result.
Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.
It hurts the other parties.
I was only using it to respond to this idiotic idea that somehow the Tories have "enough" power with just 24% of the electorate voting for them. They have a significantly less power than Labour who received votes from just 21.6% of the electorate in 2005.
.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.
If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.
Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.
I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.
I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe?
Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.
He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
Calling Ed an intellectual microbe is being a little unfair to microbes ...
Farage is a showman. And like many showmen, he often pushes the show too far. As we saw with his crazy plane stunt at GE 2010, and his recent ramping of another defector during the Conservative party conference only to rather farcically back down.
In the first case, he was standing against the speaker and get oodles of lovely publicity. There was no reason to get in a plane. In the second case, he had had significant tactical wins, but lost a little ground by pushing too far.
I agree about his oratorical skills, but that's the least we expect from a ringmaster.
It'll be interesting to see how well Farage and Carswell get on in the long term, especially if Farage fails to win a seat. And I've no doubt that someone like Carswell would be a better leader of UKIP.
When Carol Vorderman of all people is openly mocking you, you really have hit rock bottom.
If the "you" being mocked were a Conservative, I would agree, but as Vorderman is a dyedinthewool Tory, her mocking the Labour leader is barely worth a comment
.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.
If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.
Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.
I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.
I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.
Indeed - there is a potential argument to be made (I am not sure that I am there yet but...) that given the lack of community representation - that people should be allowed to align in non-geographic communities to elect MP's. Particularly somewhere like London with graduates moving house every 12months or so, but keeping the same set of friends and communities, a geographic basis for electing MP's seems... well... old-fashioned.
I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Carswell's politics turn out to be surprisingly agile, because he does libertarianism but he also does localism. That means he can make a principled stand for pretty much any position: If he doesn't want the government to do something it's libertarian, and if he does it's localism. For example, this "libertarian" is currently attacking the Tories for wanting the government to allow to people build houses in Clacton.
Is that any different to believing in any political philosophy plus democracy? I can support unionism while still getting angry if Scotland voted to secede and the UK didn't let it.
I was only using it to respond to this idiotic idea that somehow the Tories have "enough" power with just 24% of the electorate voting for them. They have a significantly less power than Labour who received votes from just 21.6% of the electorate in 2005.
Eh, that point carries across to the Tories having a higher % of seats than % of votes.
It is increasingly becoming aware that the opponents of constitutional reform (or rather, equality of representation for the four UK regions) follow this pattern:
1) Deny it is a problem 2) When experts disagree, claim that the reality is that people do not understand or care about the inequality 3) Claim that proposed changes are partisan (I lost any respect I had for an academic who taught me at Oxford after reading the tosh about the Scottish indyref in this week's LRB)
But the problem is this formula misses the point - ignoring unequal applications of power within a democracy will result in electoral demolition, EVENTUALLY. This may not be net month, or next year, but the levels of dissatisfaction with services, and distribution of the costs, will eventually be connected to the constitutional settlement.
Incidentally, didn't tim of this Parish have a 4 step process, reported as infinitum, for something to do with political communications?
I remember Yes Minister had a thing but I forget what exactly it was. Episode where Hacker gets advice from former minister, and writes it down in his notebook.
Is it the right time, is it really necessary, have we thought about it enough, etc.
"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.
I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.
It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".
Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.
Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.
Carswell's politics turn out to be surprisingly agile, because he does libertarianism but he also does localism. That means he can make a principled stand for pretty much any position: If he doesn't want the government to do something it's libertarian, and if he does it's localism. For example, this "libertarian" is currently attacking the Tories for wanting the government to allow to people build houses in Clacton.
Is that any different to believing in any political philosophy plus democracy? I can support unionism while still getting angry if Scotland voted to secede and the UK didn't let it.
The whole point of libertarianism is supposed to be that people don't have the right use the government to deprive each other of the freedom to do things without some actual, direct harm, so yes, I think it's different to your example.
''... who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg'' --- In the one election where his USP was to the fore (ie EU membership and not in the least about running the country) we saw 78% of the country that could be bothered to vote, vote against him. If the UKIP party win in Clacton it will be a ready made victory by an already sitting MP. For many of not all then in Carswell they are still voting for an 'independent' Tory.
''... who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg'' --- In the one election where his USP was to the fore (ie EU membership and not in the least about running the country) we saw 78% of the country that could be bothered to vote, vote against him. If the UKIP party win in Clacton it will be a ready made victory by an already sitting MP. For many of not all then in Carswell they are still voting for an 'independent' Tory.
We can all spin statistics, you just accept that UKIP beat the rest on offer
What % of the Country didn't back the Conservatives in 2010? Cameron is probably the PM with one of the weakest mandates of all time, but it would be pathetic to use that as a criticism as he was the most popular on offer
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.
If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.
Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.
I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.
I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.
Indeed - there is a potential argument to be made (I am not sure that I am there yet but...) that given the lack of community representation - that people should be allowed to align in non-geographic communities to elect MP's. Particularly somewhere like London with graduates moving house every 12months or so, but keeping the same set of friends and communities, a geographic basis for electing MP's seems... well... old-fashioned.
Yup, the obvious way to do it is just to make a big, national list and let the voters vote for whoever they like. Some candidates will focus on geographic areas, others on organic mutual interest groups. Voters who are exercised about their local areas will vote for the former which will work out the same as the current system, but I reckon most voters will choose the latter...
Interesting that you say the Tories had the best conference *coverage*
Let's think about absolutes.
Do you think the Labour conference (ignore the coverage) was fizzing with the ideas that one would want from a party ready to enter government in less than 7 months?
Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, ALL the party conferences (and I've now been to Lab/UKIP/Con/LD) are impressive in that way - it's the great charm of party conferences that you meet so many people from shadow Ministers downwards who are bursting to get their ideas listened to and adopted as government policy. The media in Britain is totally crap at reporting policy beyond a few headlines and mood stuff ("I talked to three delegates who said off the record...") and you just don't get a sense of it at all.
I've got a hectic week - going to Stuttgart tomorrow to talk about a monkey testing scandal with regulators there, then to Brussels to discuss animal testing labelling with the Commission, then a seminar on Friday for a Chinese delegation on enterprise architecture, and need to prepare for all three today - so won't be on PB as much as usual. It's a varied life but good fun.
Nice yesterday to discuss chewable tablets for dogs
London this morning to chair a board meeting and get an update on our Winter Exhibition
Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, is to be appointed the Liberal Democrats’ chief economics spokesman in the next UK general election rather than the business secretary, Vince Cable, according to Liberal Democrat sources.
The announcement is due to be included as part of a small Liberal Democrat reshuffle that may see Jo Swinson elevated to the cabinet as Scottish secretary, replacing Alistair Carmichael, who was a leading figure in the campaign to retain Scotland as part of the UK
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
Yond Balls has a lean and hungry look? Hungry, maybe...
''... who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg'' --- In the one election where his USP was to the fore (ie EU membership and not in the least about running the country) we saw 78% of the country that could be bothered to vote, vote against him. If the UKIP party win in Clacton it will be a ready made victory by an already sitting MP. For many of not all then in Carswell they are still voting for an 'independent' Tory.
Surely it is unarguable that UKIP have very well and that Farage has played the key role in that success.
Doesn't mean we agree with him, but his political achievement is obvious.
Farage is an "intellectual pygmy"??? What does that make Ed Miliband then? An intellectual microbe?
Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.
He is smarter and subtler than 95% of "mainstream" politicians.
Calling Ed an intellectual microbe is being a little unfair to microbes ...
Farage is a showman. And like many showmen, he often pushes the show too far. As we saw with his crazy plane stunt at GE 2010, and his recent ramping of another defector during the Conservative party conference only to rather farcically back down.
In the first case, he was standing against the speaker and get oodles of lovely publicity. There was no reason to get in a plane. In the second case, he had had significant tactical wins, but lost a little ground by pushing too far.
I agree about his oratorical skills, but that's the least we expect from a ringmaster.
It'll be interesting to see how well Farage and Carswell get on in the long term, especially if Farage fails to win a seat. And I've no doubt that someone like Carswell would be a better leader of UKIP.
To understand Farage, one needs to travel back in time to his school days, and talk to fellow Old Alleynians.
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
do what ? - Is that some odd reference to Labour Grandee John Prescott?
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
do what ? - Is that some odd reference to Labour Grandee John Prescott?
Julius Caesar, scene ii:
CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
If Ladbrokes were to do a Labour vote share line, I'd probably put it at 34.5% (why would it be at 36.1% which is higher than what Labour got in 2005 under Tony Blair?) and price it at 5/6 under and 5/6 over.
I'd also 'sell' that line as well - for as much as I could.
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
do what ? - Is that some odd reference to Labour Grandee John Prescott?
Julius Caesar, scene ii:
CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
do what ? - Is that some odd reference to Labour Grandee John Prescott?
Julius Caesar, scene ii:
CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Caesar did not need men about him to do his thinking. Fat men who sleep at nights were comfortable and satisfied. The last thing Caesar needed were plotters thinking and hungry for power. As ever it was a good line from Shakespeare.
But what does McBride mean? It cannot be that Miliband should surround himself with comfortable yes men. Does he mean that Miliband has surrounded himself with plotters? If he means that he should have more experienced 'pragmatic' people then his analogy is not particularly Shakespearian.
Comments
Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62
Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)
Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%)
Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority
In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.
Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.
EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.
Oh, I forgot, Labourites have a monopoly on virtue and only Tories have impure thoughts of power, avarice and ambition.
I know this is all good knockabout on here - but I sincerely hope you don't talk like this otherwise, it sounds very odd.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/voters-think-lib-dems-will-fade-away/
He has a natural charm and banter, and people automatically assume that means he can't be intelligent as well.. you don't have to be a nerd to be intelligent
Having Carswell and Farage as the two big players in UKIP, with their contrasting styles is a major plus. I cant think of a better first elected MP than Carswell in terms of yin and yang with Farage... and I successfully persuaded an attractive housewife to vote UKIP by explaining this on Friday in Frinton!
Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?
As I once mentioned ages ago - I was quietly grateful that the BBC were biased towards my preference when I voted Labour. It suited my agenda. When I changed my vote, it really irked me = but it was karma for having had the advantage the other way.
We're all more likely to prefer the status quo when it suits us. Pretending otherwise just looks like self delusion. I don't want to see Labourites dancing about because of their advantage in electoral terms, but it'd be refreshing if they were just honest about it, rather than indulging in Whataboutery.
It isn't kidding most of us.
Will fade away by 2025 (net)
OA: +23
Scot: +46
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/full-results-future-liberal-democrats/
But even if that were true, it's better than Labour, who don't support fairness at all.
How can you possibly claim to be a democrat and support a party which:
1. Wants an unfair advantage in constituency sizes
2. Wants Scots to be able to impose a block of 40 Labour MPs on English affairs, without the English having any say in the equivalent Scottish affairs
Arguing that FPTP is unfair is irrelevant to the argument, because it is the system we have, and in any case Labour don't want to change it. Even if they did want to change it, items 1 and 2 would still be a disgrace, which no reasonable person could possibly defend.
Madness - not exactly enthusing Con voters with that stance !
I know of plenty of people who voted against AV because they wanted PR.
No of course not. Some of us remember Brown fawning over bankers; some of us remember Brown cosying up to the Lloyds chariman over cocktails and persuading him to shred shareholder value.
And some of us ask ourselves this... who is funding the Labour election campaign? If you can say that all the millions donated by the unions do not buy influence then you and your divisive arguments do not have a leg to stand on.
I think that the LDs may benefit this time from FPTP, unless their poll percentage recovers they are likely to get a better ratio of seats to votes than last time.
Also, unless UKIP collapse, the Tories may discover that they would have done better under AV than FPTP. Now that's funny.
http://news.sky.com/story/1348776/heywood-by-election-miliband-on-shaky-ground
Really, that smacks of victimhood and the politics of lizard people.
We all know who funds every party - Tony and Lord Levy did a grand job - almost as good as Gladstone...
Oh no! That can't be true - all Labour donors are nick-named Snowy White [but not in an ethnic sense of course!]
alternatively, it is a sort of invitation to labour voters. Want ed gone? vote for us.
Personally, I think Labour and the Tories have shown similar form on this, motivated by short term tactical gain and little else.
Tory talk of fairness is pretty much complete guff.
1-6 maybe.
I want to laugh at him and Watford.
Two different types of beast.
At least the tories are posing at being fair. Labour have dropped all pretence of fairness.
You're probably nearer the mark though, agreed
Great stats there, Mr Max
Square Root is of course right (though I think he meant it satirically) - I don't spend every weekend pounding doorsteps for fun. It seems reasonably hopeful - I need an 0.4% swing, there was a LibDem vote of 17% last time, the LibDems don't even have a candidate yet and we are in coalition with them locally, UKIP is actively targetting the Tory vote, and the Conservatives appear to have near-zero active local members apart from the MP and a few councillors (though they have zillions of direct mails and emails and some public meetings).
But can it be taken for granted? Of course not. I assume I maximised my personal vote last time (people die, move, forget) and there ought to be at least some incumbency bonus even though we're not really encountering it. My best guess is that I'll win if Labour leads nationally or Tories lead by < 5%, and the Tories will win if they have a national lead >10%, anything else is a toss-up.
If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.
Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.
Your position was shot down in flames.
Hmm, bearing in mind that Nottingham City has a hyperactive poIicy re forcing students to Iive in haIIs and a pretty savage poIicy on imposing costs on shared houses, and that a Iarge uni and a Iarge teaching hospitaI are on your side of the City, do you see students and yuppies forced into BassetIaw affecting your demograhics significantIy?
How wouId that pIay?
Are there many Greenies around there?
Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.
It hurts the other parties.
Miliband at PrideOfBritain awards last night. Carol Vorderman: 'Good job I had an autocue for that bit. Lesson for you there, Ed?' #awkward
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh
Now Q is whether ITV will screen Vorderman's jibe at Miliband tonite? Source tells me lots of non-political guests got joke
This has got traction all the way to May.
Nick Clegg is getting ready to quit > Telegraph > http://tinyurl.com/mpyj5vj
I thought this from about 2010-2013, but had changed my mind... will have to dig out some antepost slips I think...
1) Deny it is a problem
2) When experts disagree, claim that the reality is that people do not understand or care about the inequality
3) Claim that proposed changes are partisan (I lost any respect I had for an academic who taught me at Oxford after reading the tosh about the Scottish indyref in this week's LRB)
But the problem is this formula misses the point - ignoring unequal applications of power within a democracy will result in electoral demolition, EVENTUALLY. This may not be net month, or next year, but the levels of dissatisfaction with services, and distribution of the costs, will eventually be connected to the constitutional settlement.
Incidentally, didn't tim of this Parish have a 4 step process, reported as infinitum, for something to do with political communications?
The Greens got 0.8% last time and should do similarly this time- they do at least have a candidate selected.
I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.
Farage is a showman. And like many showmen, he often pushes the show too far. As we saw with his crazy plane stunt at GE 2010, and his recent ramping of another defector during the Conservative party conference only to rather farcically back down.
In the first case, he was standing against the speaker and get oodles of lovely publicity. There was no reason to get in a plane. In the second case, he had had significant tactical wins, but lost a little ground by pushing too far.
I agree about his oratorical skills, but that's the least we expect from a ringmaster.
It'll be interesting to see how well Farage and Carswell get on in the long term, especially if Farage fails to win a seat. And I've no doubt that someone like Carswell would be a better leader of UKIP.
He seemed to be acting really strangely to me
Is it the right time, is it really necessary, have we thought about it enough, etc.
If the UKIP party win in Clacton it will be a ready made victory by an already sitting MP. For many of not all then in Carswell they are still voting for an 'independent' Tory.
What % of the Country didn't back the Conservatives in 2010? Cameron is probably the PM with one of the weakest mandates of all time, but it would be pathetic to use that as a criticism as he was the most popular on offer
There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.
London this morning to chair a board meeting and get an update on our Winter Exhibition
Oxford this afternoon for babysitting
Lunch and dinner tomorrow in London.
Thursday in Kent for a family thing.
Friday in Norway talking about fish.
The announcement is due to be included as part of a small Liberal Democrat reshuffle that may see Jo Swinson elevated to the cabinet as Scottish secretary, replacing Alistair Carmichael, who was a leading figure in the campaign to retain Scotland as part of the UK
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/07/lib-dems-danny-alexander-chief-economics-spokesman
The right had their chance to make things a little more fairer with AV, but they shot it down....
Doesn't mean we agree with him, but his political achievement is obvious.
"The handful of Scottish Labour MPs who went down to London to vote against Same Sex Marriage in England and Wales was an astoundingly shameful act."
Anyone got a list of these miscreants?
If Ladbrokes were to do a Labour vote share line, I'd probably put it at 34.5% (why would it be at 36.1% which is higher than what Labour got in 2005 under Tony Blair?) and price it at 5/6 under and 5/6 over.
I'd also 'sell' that line as well - for as much as I could.
EdM's in need of canned sunshine to improve his political life expectancy? ;^ )
Caesar did not need men about him to do his thinking. Fat men who sleep at nights were comfortable and satisfied. The last thing Caesar needed were plotters thinking and hungry for power. As ever it was a good line from Shakespeare.
But what does McBride mean? It cannot be that Miliband should surround himself with comfortable yes men. Does he mean that Miliband has surrounded himself with plotters? If he means that he should have more experienced 'pragmatic' people then his analogy is not particularly Shakespearian.