Mr. HYUFD, I see your Merkel Government and raise you Italian governance since WWII.
FPTP does not guarantee strong government but makes it far likelier than PR, which shifts government-forming power from the people to the political class.
Coalition government is the huge problem with PR. No one knows what the hell they are voting for as our current overlords have shown
But we don't have PR, so what you wittering about?
Mr. Speedy, one might argue two parties with almost identical ideologies offer little difference to the electorate. Indeed, such limp-wristed consensus amongst the big three parties is why people outside the cosy consensus are so enthusiastic about UKIP.
Oh dear, Mr Dancer, we're agreeing again!
I can recall reading , years ago, a novel in which the chief character opined that people in England were either Roundhead or Cavalier, and that when the chips were down one knew, instinctively, on which side one was.
Me. I'm Roundhead. Or more probably Leveller!
Count me in as a Ranter!
Do you have "a general lack of moral values or restraint in worldly pleasures."
Sounds attractive, I must admit! Particularly the latter!
It is quite liberating!
Ranters are like the Cathars; what is written was written by their enemies.
Ranters were a revolutionary NonConformist sect, who believed in the direct experience of God, and believed that Priests were deceivers.
It is all phrased in religious rather than political terms (as were a lot of 17th Century discussions) but in many ways a similar disillusion with the established order to todays political disenchantment..
I'm obliged, Dr (or should it be Mr) Fox. This site can be extremely educational!
History, of course, is written by the victors!
Treason doth never prosper Here's the reason If it doth prosper. none dare call it treason!
Mr. HYUFD, I see your Merkel Government and raise you Italian governance since WWII.
FPTP does not guarantee strong government but makes it far likelier than PR, which shifts government-forming power from the people to the political class.
Coalition government is the huge problem with PR. No one knows what the hell they are voting for as our current overlords have shown
But we don't have PR, so what you wittering about?
No but we do have a coalition government. A government which governs on the back of many votes it would not have got if it had stood on the coalition agreement as a manifesto. Mine for one. All the lib dems that left for another.
It is an example of why coalition government is bad which I made when describing why I thought pr was bad because it tended to promote coalitions.
MorrisDancer Berlusconi, Renzi, even Prodi all strong Italian PMs. FPTP entrenches the political class and gives us Blair and Miliband majority governments on barely more than a third of the votes, PR ensures UKIP and the Greens and LDs and Scottish Tories and Surrey Labour voters get fairly represented. No secret PR leads to higher turnouts than nations with FPTP on average at general elections
I've just done a search on this handy little database of electoral turnouts globally
Of 339 Presidential , Parliamentary and Supra National elections between 2000 and 2014, the 2010 UK general election came 165th out of 339 with its 65.77% turnout. the 2014 UK EU election came 325th out of 339. The average turnout for all the elections seems to have been 64.8%.
So our National FPTP election does considerably better than our National PR Election at attracting voters (it actually attracts better turnout than all bar three countries EU elections). In fact the Euro elections attracted some of the worst results of all with 17 of the 28 nations turnouts featuring in the positions 301 to 339 with Slovakia and the Czech Republic bottom of all elections with 13.05% and 18.2% respectively.
Our FPTP is also seems to be above the average turnout (64.8%) for all national elections globally. So our FPTP doesn't seem to be doing too badly now does it?
Completely unrelated to anything here but may be of interest to those inclined towards internet security a nice overview of what is happening in real time on a normal day
MorrisDancer Berlusconi, Renzi, even Prodi all strong Italian PMs. FPTP entrenches the political class and gives us Blair and Miliband majority governments on barely more than a third of the votes, PR ensures UKIP and the Greens and LDs and Scottish Tories and Surrey Labour voters get fairly represented. No secret PR leads to higher turnouts than nations with FPTP on average at general elections
I've just done a search on this handy little database of electoral turnouts globally
Of 339 Presidential , Parliamentary and Supra National elections between 2000 and 2014, the 2010 UK general election came 165th out of 339 with its 65.77% turnout. the 2014 UK EU election came 325th out of 339. The average turnout for all the elections seems to have been 64.8%.
So our National FPTP election does considerably better than our National PR Election at attracting voters (it actually attracts better turnout than all bar three countries EU elections). In fact the Euro elections attracted some of the worst results of all with 17 of the 28 nations turnouts featuring in the positions 301 to 339 with Slovakia and the Czech Republic bottom of all elections with 13.05% and 18.2% respectively.
Our FPTP is also seems to be above the average turnout (64.8%) for all national elections globally. So our FPTP doesn't seem to be doing too badly now does it?
Not like with like, is it. All your survey shows is that people don't rate the Euro elections as "important"
Scotland remains the bulwark against a Labour majority in GE 2015.It will be those voting SNP in Scotland who could deny the UK a Labour majority government.It seems pretty obvious that Gordon Brown is wasted sitting on the bench.An anti-monarchist position might help,in the tradition of Willie Hamilton.Gordon to the rescue.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
Also yesterday I had a chat with a respected ophthalmologist as to why many more people need to wear glasses these days. The conclusion was that it's the average distance that children's eyes focus on, the closer the distance the greater the chance that they will need glasses, everything from living in small rooms, to too much reading, to using the smartphones and computers and watching TV at close distances. Also the greater the chances of serious eye problems that will require surgery and the need for reduced exercise to alleviate eye problems.
After this I'm spending less time on mobiles and computers. No more internet for tonight, i'm going out in the real world with no smartphone this Saturday night.
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
But the problem is deeper.
Aside from the government aspect, there is the representation aspect, and the House of Commons is intended to supply both.
In the hey-day of the two-party system, at least it could be said:-
i) the vast majority (90%+) supported one of two viable parties of government. If your party lost this time, there was always next time. You had a stake in the process... Now there appears to be 35%+ (before we even consider abstainers) who don't support the duoply, and whose votes are not reflected remotely accurately in the House of Commons.
ii) at the constituency-level, most people got an MP they voted for... At the last two general elections, most people didn't!. Any wonder only 20% can name their MP? [Hansard Society]
Combined, these two factors are responsible for falling turnouts, disengagement and the general alienation of voters from the political class.
There is a terminal malaise in the body politic, which no rational observer can deny or view with equanimity.
MorrisDancer Berlusconi, Renzi, even Prodi all strong Italian PMs. FPTP entrenches the political class and gives us Blair and Miliband majority governments on barely more than a third of the votes, PR ensures UKIP and the Greens and LDs and Scottish Tories and Surrey Labour voters get fairly represented. No secret PR leads to higher turnouts than nations with FPTP on average at general elections
I've just done a search on this handy little database of electoral turnouts globally
Of 339 Presidential , Parliamentary and Supra National elections between 2000 and 2014, the 2010 UK general election came 165th out of 339 with its 65.77% turnout. the 2014 UK EU election came 325th out of 339. The average turnout for all the elections seems to have been 64.8%.
So our National FPTP election does considerably better than our National PR Election at attracting voters (it actually attracts better turnout than all bar three countries EU elections). In fact the Euro elections attracted some of the worst results of all with 17 of the 28 nations turnouts featuring in the positions 301 to 339 with Slovakia and the Czech Republic bottom of all elections with 13.05% and 18.2% respectively.
Our FPTP is also seems to be above the average turnout (64.8%) for all national elections globally. So our FPTP doesn't seem to be doing too badly now does it?
Not like with like, is it. All your survey shows is that people don't rate the Euro elections as "important"
Exactly I am glad we agree that the voting system has sod all influence on turnout!
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
MorrisDancer As in the strong government which led us into the Iraq War? PR means there has to be some compromise, but if voters do not like what parties do they can stop voting for them next time.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
But the problem is deeper.
Aside from the government aspect, there is the representation aspect, and the House of Commons is intended to supply both.
In the hey-day of the two-party system, at least it could be said:-
i) the vast majority (90%+) supported one of two viable parties of government. If your party lost this time, there was always next time. You had a stake in the process... Now there appears to be 35%+ (before we even consider abstainers) who don't support the duoply, and whose votes are not reflected remotely accurately in the House of Commons.
ii) at the constituency-level, most people got an MP they voted for... At the last two general elections, most people didn't!. Any wonder only 20% can name their MP? [Hansard Society]
Combined, these two factors are responsible for falling turnouts, disengagement and the general alienation of voters from the political class.
There is a terminal malaise in the body politic, which no rational observer can deny or view with equanimity.
All of which is an indictment of our political parties and their policies and nothing to do with the voting system (hence when the electorate had the opportunity to change the voting system they voted it down by 2 to 1) and when they have the opportunity to vote for a credible alternative party offering counter proposals to the post war liberal consensus some quarter or so of the electorate start dabbling with them.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
It's Opinium.
Online polling, Sunday Guardian.
Adjust to their inaccuracy in the Euros and you end up with 35-31 - fairly standard.
ManofKent I was talking general elections. The German election turnout in 2013 was 71.5%, the Swedish turnout in 2014 was 85.8%, the Spanish turnout in 2011 was 68.9%, the New Zealand turnout in 2014 was 77.9%. All those nations have PR. In France it was 80.35% in 2012 under second ballot. In Australia over 90% with AV in 2013 (albeit compulsory voting)
The UK turnout was 65% in 2010, the US 58% in 2012, Canada 61% in 2011. All 3 nations have FPTP
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
Indeed. Reasonable people will of course continue to disagree about which electoral method will be the least unfair and/or problematic, but 1-4 of your little list strike me as particularly relevant, at least when it comes to the criticisms of other systems which include them as though FPTP does not, but with less self awareness and openness about the need for it, because of the need to keep up more a pretense of never backsliding or giving anything to another side (even if that 'side' is within one's own party). Or rather, FPTP can be very grubby about its own grubbiness, where it could be argued that a certain amount of practical grubbiness is factored in to some other systems and so open and prepared for.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
Yes, and they should be worried about that. But it won't cost them more than it is costing the Tories, so they have more time to work on combating it. The Tories are out of time, and so many are in effect giving up. Now that UKIP are in no mood for a pact, which would probably harm their targeting of Labour votes now, seeing some comment about the need to still go for one as it is in the interests of UKIP and the Tories to defeat Labour, even though they don't both accept that, makes me think of the Earl of Manchester and his comments about how even if they defeated Charles 99 times he would still be the king, but if they lost but once they would be done for, as a signal that one of the sides in the fight is not up for it. The Tories left it too late and are still not able to take UKIP on when so many of them still want to be UKIP even as UKIP says they are going after everynody.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Of the four pollsters who have polled since Cameron's speech, only YouGov has shown any sort of boost. Yet it is accepted that it happened.
Based upon the real voting on this week, it has to be said the polls are not worth running or looking at.
Labour in the lead nationally - utter bullrocks
An odd post indeed given that the both major parties defended a safe seat.
Labour hung on.
The Tories lost.
By 12,000 votes.
I think Labour will win too, but the two by-elections were not completely comparable, given one was being defended by a popular incumbent who was bound to bring along some of previous vote with him, even if the extent to which it happened was still terrible for the Tories.
The Opinium survey was from Tuesday till 9am on Friday so will indeed have been mainly pre-by-election - I know because I was in the sample and have just checked the invitation.
The Wisdom survey is of course methodological bollocks regardless of when it was taken.
I was in the sample as well.
How many politicos take part in these opinion polls? If political party membership is less than 1% of the public, it might be an idea to exclude them altogether from those surveyed. I'd certain give greater credence to such a poll being representative than ones where perhaps a disproportionate % of politicos have secreted themselves.
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
But the problem is deeper.
Aside from the government aspect, there is the representation aspect, and the House of Commons is intended to supply both.
In the hey-day of the two-party system, at least it could be said:-
i) the vast majority (90%+) supported one of two viable parties of government. If your party lost this time, there was always next time. You had a stake in the process... Now there appears to be 35%+ (before we even consider abstainers) who don't support the duoply, and whose votes are not reflected remotely accurately in the House of Commons.
ii) at the constituency-level, most people got an MP they voted for... At the last two general elections, most people didn't!. Any wonder only 20% can name their MP? [Hansard Society]
Combined, these two factors are responsible for falling turnouts, disengagement and the general alienation of voters from the political class.
There is a terminal malaise in the body politic, which no rational observer can deny or view with equanimity.
All of which is an indictment of our political parties and their policies and nothing to do with the voting system (hence when the electorate had the opportunity to change the voting system they voted it down by 2 to 1) and when they have the opportunity to vote for a credible alternative party offering counter proposals to the post war liberal consensus some quarter or so of the electorate start dabbling with them.
The voters rejected another majoritarian system over the present one. Nothing more...
Tories must be getting worried by polls nearer to 30%, when they need 36% + to have a chance of staying in government. I would think that any negativity for Miliband is built into Labours polling, so unless he has a really bad election campaign, that he can lead a united Labour team to a small majority. The Tories defecting to UKIP is probably the reason behind the polling dip, as the public hate a divided party. If further Tories defect to UKIP, we could see Labour winning a landslide.
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
Indeed. Reasonable people will of course continue to disagree about which electoral method will be the least unfair and/or problematic, but 1-4 of your little list strike me as particularly relevant, at least when it comes to the criticisms of other systems which include them as though FPTP does not, but with less self awareness and openness about the need for it, because of the need to keep up more a pretense of never backsliding or giving anything to another side (even if that 'side' is within one's own party). Or rather, FPTP can be very grubby about its own grubbiness, where it could be argued that a certain amount of practical grubbiness is factored in to some other systems and so open and prepared for.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
Yes, and they should be worried about that. But it won't cost them more than it is costing the Tories, so they have more time to work on combating it. The Tories are out of time, and so many are in effect giving up. Now that UKIP are in no mood for a pact, which would probably harm their targeting of Labour votes now, seeing some comment about the need to still go for one as it is in the interests of UKIP and the Tories to defeat Labour, even though they don't both accept that, makes me think of the Earl of Manchester and his comments about how even if they defeated Charles 99 times he would still be the king, but if they lost but once they would be done for, as a signal that one of the sides in the fight is not up for it. The Tories left it too late and are still not able to take UKIP on when so many of them still want to be UKIP even as UKIP says they are going after everynody.
How are Labour going to combat UKIP, I would dearly love to know.
Tell the WWC they are way too stupid to have a vote on the EU so immigration will continue as before? Tell them that Labour are opposed to EV4EL?
Put Weird Ed Miliband in front of the cameras and tell them what?
I keep saying the WWC has been lost forever, it is never going back to Labour.
I'm wondering which Lord Ashcroft LibDem Marrginal Seats polling OGH etc were referring to earlier when they implied it was poor for the Tories and good for the LibDems.
From Lord A's recent poll which looked at the second tier of LibDem marginals I quote:
"The results in the Tory target seats are fascinating, and bear no relation to the size of the Lib Dem majorities. If these figures were repeated at the election the Conservatives would be looking at a recount in Torbay, the most ambitious seat on the list, and would gain Berwick Upon Tweed and Taunton Deane, the second and third. They would win Chippenham and Somerton & Frome with swings of 10% and 8.5% respectively, and do enough to bag Solihull, Wells, Mid Dorset & North Poole and – just, with two points separating three parties – St Austell & Newquay. The modest 3% swing in North Cornwall would mean another recount.
That's 8 of the 2nd tier falling with 2 more too close to call and I seem to recall around 10 in the first range would also fall so that is around 20 seats falling to the Tories with the LibDem hopes based on Watford.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
ZenPagan My preferred system would be AV + a PR top up, but I would accept two ballot votes as in France
My preferred system is the two ballot system as in France but I accept the difficulties in attaining such a voting system for this country.
I should note that my objection to PR is not that I don't think our current system needs changing because it surely does. I just do not want it to change to a system that in my view moves the power even more to political parties.
This is our democracy it does not belong to politicians and it should be we that decide who is the government not them and how it is chosen. PR to my mind allows politicians to grab our votes then decide who is in power and what the manifesto is after the fact, a coalition formed under first past the post is in the same ballpark.
Given a choice I would rather the country had a discussion on how our government should run and be chosen and start from a blank sheet of paper. I suspect however none of our politicians would much like that idea.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
ide' is within one's own party). Or rather, FPTP can be very grubby about its own grubbiness, where it could be argued that a certain amount of practical grubbiness is factored in to some other systems and so open and prepared for.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
How are Labour going to combat UKIP, I would dearly love to know.
I've no idea, though fortunately it's not my problem to solve, but the Labour brand is stronger than the Tories so they've got the time. I suppose, though I do not expect it to happen, if Labour were to lose out to a Tory government that required support from the Tories that would do it - the collapse of the LD vote in many areas shows the toxicity of those voters to anyone who works with the Tories, so UKIP could immediately shed a whole bunch of voters if they showed that despite being an whole new type of politics, supposedly, they would work with the Tories. Sure, some might accept that UKIP should work with anyone to get something they want in theory, but in practicality if the anti-Toryness is strong enough in those Labour strongholds UKIP is trying to threaten in, then it could work.
I don't fully understand the depths of Tory hatred, but until tested I'll assume vast numbers in some of those areas would flock back to Labour if UKIP directly backed the Tories (not the 'oh no, my vote let in Cameron thing' sort of impact - if it were ever likely to happen - that they could accept)
Looking at the other internals in the Opinium poll shows what utter bollocks it is as usual. It's headline is Labour has a 7% lead but the same respondents were asked who they think will win the #GE2015
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Care to list a few of Eds policies? My favourite attempt at a policy is the one where he freezes energy prices which mean that he would ensure that prices would remain artificially high
I can't see the public liking it much either. They seem pretty happy with letting our representatives get on with things, but just wanting to introduce some ones with different rosettes but who are not different in any practical way.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
ZenPagan My preferred system would be AV + a PR top up, but I would accept two ballot votes as in France
My preferred system is the two ballot system as in France but I accept the difficulties in attaining such a voting system for this country.
PR^2 has everything any-one could want, and more.
i) constituencies, not unlike the pre-1950 scenario in some places, and like the pre-1885 almost everywhere. Constituencies that represent proper communities too. ii) room for some local independents iii) both quasi-Majoritarian and quasi-PR. Single-party government still a possibility iv) no landslides v) choice of candidate within party, safe seats effectively abolished vi) voters' coalition preferences recorded, in the event of a hung-parliament vii) far more people get a party/MP they voted for viii) no electoral bias, no wrong-winner elections ix) every vote counts equally towards the result, a Tory in Glasgow as much as a Labourite in Surrey. Not just the marginals. x) regional polarization reduced. Tory MPs in Scotland, Labour MPs in the South.
ZenPagan My preferred system would be AV + a PR top up, but I would accept two ballot votes as in France
My preferred system is the two ballot system as in France but I accept the difficulties in attaining such a voting system for this country.
PR^2 has everything any-one could want, and more.
i) constituencies, not unlike the pre-1950 scenario in some places, and like the pre-1885 almost everywhere. Constituencies that represent proper communities too. ii) room for some local independents iii) both quasi-Majoritarian and quasi-PR. Single-party government still a possibility iv) no landslides v) choice of candidate within party, safe seats effectively abolished vi) voters' coalition preferences recorded, in the event of a hung-parliament vii) far more people get a party/MP they voted for viii) no electoral bias, no wrong-winner elections ix) every vote counts equally towards the result, a Tory in Glasgow as much as a Labourite in Surrey. Not just the marginals. x) regional polarization reduced. Tory MPs in Scotland, Labour MPs in the South.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I do love the Labour posters' complacency when it comes to UKIP.
Reminds me of the arrogance of Varro and Paullus thought Hannibal was a bit shit.
Even inept people get a victory due to the mistakes of others.
Typical UKIP bigotry in the Daily Mail. I can sympathise with those Labour posters whewn I see this kind of thing:
"I’ve spoken to teachers who have had Bangladeshi children sent to their area from London and do not have the resources to look after non-English speakers in an already crowded classroom. Rightly or wrongly, they claim it’s holding the rest of the class back and their sense of frustration is palpable."
...
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the fact is there are too many voters who feel we are no longer able to get rid of those people in Britain who should not be here – and who think we do not control our borders any more.
To say some of the immigration issues I’m presented with are challenging is a massive understatement. I’ve recently spoken to a nurse who told me of illegal Afghan immigrants getting girls with learning difficulties pregnant so they could stay in the country by insisting on their ‘human rights’ to have a family. "
...
"The political classes may benefit from immigration with cheap au pairs and cleaners, but people in my part of the world cannot afford au pairs or cleaners. Ed Miliband may feel uncomfortable at talking about immigration because he’s the son of immigrants. Well, I’m sorry, but he has no choice but to grasp the nettle."
I'm wondering which Lord Ashcroft LibDem Marrginal Seats polling OGH etc were referring to earlier when they implied it was poor for the Tories and good for the LibDems.
From Lord A's recent poll which looked at the second tier of LibDem marginals I quote:
"The results in the Tory target seats are fascinating, and bear no relation to the size of the Lib Dem majorities. If these figures were repeated at the election the Conservatives would be looking at a recount in Torbay, the most ambitious seat on the list, and would gain Berwick Upon Tweed and Taunton Deane, the second and third. They would win Chippenham and Somerton & Frome with swings of 10% and 8.5% respectively, and do enough to bag Solihull, Wells, Mid Dorset & North Poole and – just, with two points separating three parties – St Austell & Newquay. The modest 3% swing in North Cornwall would mean another recount.
That's 8 of the 2nd tier falling with 2 more too close to call and I seem to recall around 10 in the first range would also fall so that is around 20 seats falling to the Tories with the LibDem hopes based on Watford.
And do those opinion polls fully factor in the beardie sandal types defecting to the greens?
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
Only seven months to wait before your nightmares become a reality and it couldn't happen to a more arrogant bunch.
Tories and Labourites on here make me smile. Shouting the odds about how you'll be in power on around a third of the vote of the population who can be arsed to turn out. I know, I know, it's how FPTP works, so we can't argue with it, but for feckssake, please stop deluding yourselves that the country are actually choosing Cameron or Miliband to be in charge. It's not a choice, it's a bloody lack of options.
I can't see the public liking it much either. They seem pretty happy with letting our representatives get on with things, but just wanting to introduce some ones with different rosettes but who are not different in any practical way.
What makes you think they are happy with it?
How many times have you heard things such as "whats the point voting they are all the same" or "No matter who you vote for the government always gets in".
I think if people felt they had a way to hold politicians to account properly rather than the 5 yearly ritual where politicians promise the moon then happily consign all those pledges to the dustbin when they got into power.
People are ready to take a stand, witness the marches against the iraq war as an example...wasnt it 1 to 2 million people? The politicians however could not be held to account and just dismissed it. Is it any wonder then that people just give up?
I would like someway to vote for example on individual policy. I might vote for labours education policy, conservative school policy, and lib dems civil liberties policies for example.
We have technologies now that should allow the people to have a voice, to have choice over more than red, blue or yellow. Wouldn't it be better to work out something from scratch and build a political system for the 21st century rather than tinker round the edges of one that was designed for an era where it took 3 days to get to london from far flung constituencies?
Of the four pollsters who have polled since Cameron's speech, only YouGov has shown any sort of boost. Yet it is accepted that it happened.
The Tories have only reached the same levels they were at a few weeks ago. Ashcroft and Populus have both replicated that.
The big issue isn't a Tory rise because they're just bobbing around within the same margins. it's the latest Ed effect.
Labour have registered worst polls since June 2010.
If they run true to form they'll recover a little when no one is actually taking any notice of politics, before slipping again the next time the heat is on.
Looking at the other internals in the Opinium poll shows what utter bollocks it is as usual. It's headline is Labour has a 7% lead but the same respondents were asked who they think will win the #GE2015
in Sept
LAB 42% CON 37%
in October
CON 40% LAB 38%
so as I said utter bollocks.
Why does that mean it's utter bollocks?
The first is voting intention.
The second is what people think the result will be.
ManofKent I was talking general elections. The German election turnout in 2013 was 71.5%, the Swedish turnout in 2014 was 85.8%, the Spanish turnout in 2011 was 68.9%, the New Zealand turnout in 2014 was 77.9%. All those nations have PR. In France it was 80.35% in 2012 under second ballot. In Australia over 90% with AV in 2013 (albeit compulsory voting)
The UK turnout was 65% in 2010, the US 58% in 2012, Canada 61% in 2011. All 3 nations have FPTP
As I said in my last post I prefer France's runoff system. That is by far the best potential localist system because you can use it in the constituency scenario and it will give you a majority outcome (although I suspect turnout could still be an issue). However I acknowledge how difficult it would be to get it implemented here.
As for the others you do not consider any other factors Germany and Spain are not that much better than the UK and if you are talking of just a 5 or 6 point improvement I would suggest it has little to do with the voting system but more to do with the political circumstances under which the election occurred.
In Sweden and New Zealand and indeed in Australia you are talking about vastly smaller populations so the whole issue of politicians connecting with the electorate is on a much smaller scale and as you say Australia has compulsory attendance as well.
As for the US that was a two horse race for a single job. Obama won a majority of the votes cast. How are you supposed to make that proportional? Turnout there I suggest was based on the reputation of the candidates and the predictability of the vote.
Finally Canada seems to have suffered from the machinations of a rather messy Coalition/ Minority government situation for several years culminating in a scandal which forced the election. That in itself may have dragged down turnout.
I don't accept that the voting system has any real impact on turnout
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Care to list a few of Eds policies? My favourite attempt at a policy is the one where he freezes energy prices which mean that he would ensure that prices would remain artificially high
I think that he was going to tax £1000 pound handbags and £200 shoes, but possibly I ve him confused with some other leftie party.
Tories and Labourites on here make me smile. Shouting the odds about how you'll be in power on around a third of the vote of the population who can be arsed to turn out. I know, I know, it's how FPTP works, so we can't argue with it, but for feckssake, please stop deluding yourselves that the country are actually choosing Cameron or Miliband to be in charge. It's not a choice, it's a bloody lack of options.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Care to list a few of Eds policies? My favourite attempt at a policy is the one where he freezes energy prices which mean that he would ensure that prices would remain artificially high
How about the repeal of the vicious Tory bedroom tax and repeal of Lansley's top-down marketisation of the NHS which no-one voted for.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
No answer to the policy question? So you've decided to stick to trolling. Fair enough.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
It was net everywhere zero UKIP MPs until last week.
I was derided a few weeks back for saying that they would win 10 seats in GE 2015, now thats almost a given.
Where UKIP will hurt you lot isn't in the northern inner cities, its in more marginal northern constituencies like Bury North where tories have a 3000 maj in 2010 and Bury South where Lab had a 3000 majority in 2010.
Miliband needs to win both those seats and many seats like them to have any chance of winning the election. Thanks to Labour losing the WWC to UKIP the tories will hold Bury north and may well win them both.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Care to list a few of Eds policies? My favourite attempt at a policy is the one where he freezes energy prices which mean that he would ensure that prices would remain artificially high
How about the repeal of the vicious Tory bedroom tax and repeal of Lansley's top-down marketisation of the NHS which no-one voted for.
There's 2 for starters
Both of which where originated under a Labour government. Care to try again?
Here is McTernan before and after the by elections:
before - "There is nothing wrong with UKIP voting parts of England that a solid dose of migration wouldn't fix. Nothing. "
after - "For voters, visitors and the casual observer it was a by-election about immigration. We are in deep, deep trouble. We are lost and our voters want us back. They keep sending us messages. When will we listen?"
Who in the right mind would trust a Labour politician? Perhaps BenM does?
A little piece of news from North Britain those of you in Englandshire will not hear about.
As you may have seen on Twitter the SNP membership has risen from 25,000 to over 80,000 since 18th September. Apparently the Scottish Greens membership has tripled to over 6,000 and today former SNP MSP for Highlands John Finnie was unveiled at the Greens conference as their newest recruit. He will remain an Independent MSP until 2016 and then plans to stand for the Greens. A former leader of Highland Council, he was a police dog handler when I knew him 30 years ago.
As the increased SNP support threatens SLAB, so the increased Green support threatens what will be left of the Scottish LibDems in seats like Edinburgh West and Fife NE where there are reasonable numbers of students.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
It was net everywhere zero UKIP MPs until last week.
I was derided a few weeks back for saying that they would win 10 seats in GE 2015, now thats almost a given.
Where UKIP will hurt you lot isn't in the northern inner cities, its in more marginal northern constituencies like Bury North where tories have a 3000 maj in 2010 and Bury South where Lab had a 3000 majority in 2010.
Miliband needs to win both those seats and many seats like them to have any chance of winning the election. Thanks to Labour losing the WWC to UKIP the tories will hold Bury north and may well win them both.
"Given", is it? £50 evens that UKIP do not get 10 seats?
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
Only seven months to wait before your nightmares become a reality and it couldn't happen to a more arrogant bunch.
You're damaging the Tories more than you're damaging Labour and that suits me fine.
I've understood for years that Labour won't gain a majority next year. My prime concern is ensuring the Tories are out of office on 8th May 2015 and UKIP doing well ensures that.
You'll steal more Tory seats and perhaps shorten the majority in some Labour ones. All fine by me.
ManofKent I was talking general elections. The German election turnout in 2013 was 71.5%, the Swedish turnout in 2014 was 85.8%, the Spanish turnout in 2011 was 68.9%, the New Zealand turnout in 2014 was 77.9%. All those nations have PR. In France it was 80.35% in 2012 under second ballot. In Australia over 90% with AV in 2013 (albeit compulsory voting)
The UK turnout was 65% in 2010, the US 58% in 2012, Canada 61% in 2011. All 3 nations have FPTP
I don't accept that the voting system has any real impact on turnout
Most academic studies contradict you. The more responsive the system is, the more people use it.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
I know this is point scoring central, but why would you even pretend to be so blasé about this? What does it achieve? You're not going to change things by pretending its all ok on here, or lose anything by admitting Labour are in a bit of bother. Its a discussion site, no one is going to be influenced to vote for someone else by you admitting Labour are on the verge of losing northern seats to Ukip are they?
A little piece of news from North Britain those of you in Englandshire will not hear about.
As you may have seen on Twitter the SNP membership has risen from 25,000 to over 80,000 since 18th September. Apparently the Scottish Greens membership has tripled to over 6,000 and today former SNP MSP for Highlands John Finnie was unveiled at the Greens conference as their newest recruit. He will remain an Independent MSP until 2016 and then plans to stand for the Greens. A former leader of Highland Council, he was a police dog handler when I knew him 30 years ago.
As the increased SNP support threatens SLAB, so the increased Green support threatens what will be left of the Scottish LibDems in seats like Edinburgh West and Fife NE where there are reasonable numbers of students.
You will have to explain to me why the students won't vote LD. Didn't tuition fees remain the same in Scotland?
Labour – which has been living on some distant planet where the realities of earthlings do not impinge – has been blown to smithereens. Bizarrely, they seem not to have seen this catastrophe at Heywood and Middleton coming, which is a testimony to just how out of touch they were. And it is so much more than the near-loss of a safe seat, so much worse than a defection of what would once have been a constituency of “Our People”. It is nothing less than a collision with a truth that makes them utterly irrelevant. The real national argument now – the only political debate that matters to ordinary voters – is being conducted on the Right. The Tories may have an electoral problem with Ukip, but at least they are still in the conversation.
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
It was net everywhere zero UKIP MPs until last week.
I was derided a few weeks back for saying that they would win 10 seats in GE 2015, now thats almost a given.
Where UKIP will hurt you lot isn't in the northern inner cities, its in more marginal northern constituencies like Bury North where tories have a 3000 maj in 2010 and Bury South where Lab had a 3000 majority in 2010.
Miliband needs to win both those seats and many seats like them to have any chance of winning the election. Thanks to Labour losing the WWC to UKIP the tories will hold Bury north and may well win them both.
"Given", is it? £50 evens that UKIP do not get 10 seats?
You're no mug are you, given that 5 or more is available at 10/11!
Offer sensible odds and you might have some takers
UKIP is the frankenstein's monster of the Tory press and it is hilarious watching the sheer unadulterated panic in these organs now their creation is out of their control!
And running amok in the Labour heartlands.
And losing. No prizes for 2nd place under FPTP.
Impressed with the Labour performance were you?
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
It's a Labour MP and not a hapless UKIP one.
Yes, I'm pleased.
Talking of hapless did you see the Pilgrim's victory speech?
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
I've learned UKIP are very good at coming 2nd to Labour in northern seats. Especially in low turnout elections.
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
I know this is point scoring central, but why would you even pretend to be so blasé about this? What does it achieve? You're not going to change things by pretending its all ok on here, or lose anything by admitting Labour are in a bit of bother. Its a discussion site, no one is going to be influenced to vote for someone else by you admitting Labour are on the verge of losing northern seats to Ukip are they?
Not as many as the southern seats the Tories stand to lose.
How many times have you heard things such as "whats the point voting they are all the same" or "No matter who you vote for the government always gets in".
I hear those things a lot...and then people vote in the same old lot as always, and although not as high as it could be, turnout has experienced a bit of an upturn as well, so for all those who say 'what is the point in voting?', we are not experiencing a terminal decline.
The Iraq war example just confused me, because if people were angry at being dismissed over such an issue - and while I was against it, what about the silent majority who could not give a damn apparently? Is it fair to do things on the basis of who shouts the loudest? - they could have voted for someone else, for parties that didn't vote for the war or who advocated for a whole new political system, and they didn't, they voted in Blair again. Sure it's tough under FPTP, but if people are as angry at the system as much as you seem to think they are, a candidate advocating a sweeping redesign of our politics would win handily whatever their partisan politics. And they don't.
People may not like our politicians or our system. But nor do they seem discontented to the point of action over it.
Ask people if they want more of a say in things, of course they'll say yes, but although models exist over that, to have more of say over individual policy, we are not yet at the stage where people care enough apparently. If there was an appetite for it, we'd see more of our current MPs advocate for such things than is currently the case, we're always told they have no backbone or real ideas and just react to things, if people were clamouring for that sort of thing, more of them would back it out of self preservation I suspect.
Maybe we'll get to such a pass one day, to totally redesigning how we do politics, but it does not look on the horizon from where I'm standing. UKIP may or may not break through in a significant way, but despite some different ideas, they'll operate in our system the same as anyone else, and that's all people seem to want right now. People do want a choice over more than red, blue or yellow...but unfortunately all they seem to want to do is add purple, green and maybe a few others to the list of options. People still seem very happy with tribal party politics as far as I can see, we're just seeing some changes in tribes.
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto! iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case. v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
But the problem is deeper.
Aside from the government aspect, there is the representation aspect, and the House of Commons is intended to supply both.
In the hey-day of the two-party system, at least it could be said:-
i) the vast majority (90%+) supported one of two viable parties of government. If your party lost this time, there was always next time. You had a stake in the process... Now there appears to be 35%+ (before we even consider abstainers) who don't support the duoply, and whose votes are not reflected remotely accurately in the House of Commons.
ii) at the constituency-level, most people got an MP they voted for... At the last two general elections, most people didn't!. Any wonder only 20% can name their MP? [Hansard Society]
Combined, these two factors are responsible for falling turnouts, disengagement and the general alienation of voters from the political class.
There is a terminal malaise in the body politic, which no rational observer can deny or view with equanimity.
All of which is an indictment of our political parties and their policies and nothing to do with the voting system (hence when the electorate had the opportunity to change the voting system they voted it down by 2 to 1) and when they have the opportunity to vote for a credible alternative party offering counter proposals to the post war liberal consensus some quarter or so of the electorate start dabbling with them.
The voters rejected another majoritarian system over the present one. Nothing more...
Well I'm glad you've had opportunity to survey everybody. Pity you missed me because personally I resented the fact that the Libdems wasted thousands on a referendum just to shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. The voting system will not fix our broken politics only a considerable improvement in the quality and behaviour of our politicians will.
Comments
The tories' best hope is that Farage's liver gives out before May.
What do they mean by "win". Get a majority, most votes, or most seats?
History, of course, is written by the victors!
Treason doth never prosper
Here's the reason
If it doth prosper. none dare call it treason!
Number 10. Who's walking through the door?
David Cameron....on his way out. ;-)
Labour in the lead nationally - utter bullrocks
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2h2 hours ago
BREAKING NEWS: Disgraced Tory Brooks Newmark to quit as an MP after sex scandal
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disgraced-tory-brooks-newmark-quit-4421549 …
Can this damaged Tory carry on 'til May 2015?
It is an example of why coalition government is bad which I made when describing why I thought pr was bad because it tended to promote coalitions.
http://www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm#
Of 339 Presidential , Parliamentary and Supra National elections between 2000 and 2014, the 2010 UK general election came 165th out of 339 with its 65.77% turnout. the 2014 UK EU election came 325th out of 339. The average turnout for all the elections seems to have been 64.8%.
So our National FPTP election does considerably better than our National PR Election at attracting voters (it actually attracts better turnout than all bar three countries EU elections). In fact the Euro elections attracted some of the worst results of all with 17 of the 28 nations turnouts featuring in the positions 301 to 339 with Slovakia and the Czech Republic bottom of all elections with 13.05% and 18.2% respectively.
Our FPTP is also seems to be above the average turnout (64.8%) for all national elections globally. So our FPTP doesn't seem to be doing too badly now does it?
The public are telling everyone the answer - week in, week out.
They may not like Cameron, but compared to the alternative.
My other half is lifelong Labour. If you asked her who she votes for, she will say Labour. She will not vote for Ed though. She thinks he's an idiot.
http://map.ipviking.com/?_ga=1.106938115.1477390587.1388686673#
What a worm you are.
You are John Bercow, and I claim my five pounds!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-11/why-do-new-york-restaurants-suck-surprising-answer
Also yesterday I had a chat with a respected ophthalmologist as to why many more people need to wear glasses these days.
The conclusion was that it's the average distance that children's eyes focus on, the closer the distance the greater the chance that they will need glasses, everything from living in small rooms, to too much reading, to using the smartphones and computers and watching TV at close distances.
Also the greater the chances of serious eye problems that will require surgery and the need for reduced exercise to alleviate eye problems.
After this I'm spending less time on mobiles and computers.
No more internet for tonight, i'm going out in the real world with no smartphone this Saturday night.
Nigel Farage has one testicle and married a German woman.
Hitler had only one ball and married Eva Braun.
Therefore, Farage is Hitler.
Is this the most epic typo in history? via @StephenDixonTV
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzsHY0vIAAEDNYy.jpg
Except it's not. Its a fantasy. It's just destroying what existed of the Tories in the north.
Under FPTP
i) parties abandon manifesto commitments
ii) parties introduce things that weren't in the manifesto
iii) some voters vote for parties despite what's in their manifesto!
iv) parties often have to cut grubby deals with their own rebellious members and/or minor parties, once they're in office, in any case.
v) the system can't even guarantee the correct plurality winner gains a majority/plurality.
So much for the "purity" of single-party government under FPTP...
But the problem is deeper.
Aside from the government aspect, there is the representation aspect, and the House of Commons is intended to supply both.
In the hey-day of the two-party system, at least it could be said:-
i) the vast majority (90%+) supported one of two viable parties of government. If your party lost this time, there was always next time. You had a stake in the process... Now there appears to be 35%+ (before we even consider abstainers) who don't support the duoply, and whose votes are not reflected remotely accurately in the House of Commons.
ii) at the constituency-level, most people got an MP they voted for... At the last two general elections, most people didn't!. Any wonder only 20% can name their MP? [Hansard Society]
Combined, these two factors are responsible for falling turnouts, disengagement and the general alienation of voters from the political class.
There is a terminal malaise in the body politic, which no rational observer can deny or view with equanimity.
Labour hung on.
The Tories lost.
By 12,000 votes.
These two caught my eye:
Bolton West: LAB 40; Tory 27; UKIP 21
Southampton Itchen: LAB 34: Tory 34: UKIP 19
There's a pact to be had there.
Given that Cameron's speech was the Hail Mary pass of rightwing fantasy policymaking, we can conclude that rightwing policies aren't that popular after all.
Reminds me of the arrogance of Varro and Paullus thought Hannibal was a bit shit.
Even inept people get a victory due to the mistakes of others.
Online polling, Sunday Guardian.
Adjust to their inaccuracy in the Euros and you end up with 35-31 - fairly standard.
The UK turnout was 65% in 2010, the US 58% in 2012, Canada 61% in 2011. All 3 nations have FPTP
Tell the WWC they are way too stupid to have a vote on the EU so immigration will continue as before? Tell them that Labour are opposed to EV4EL?
Put Weird Ed Miliband in front of the cameras and tell them what?
I keep saying the WWC has been lost forever, it is never going back to Labour.
From Lord A's recent poll which looked at the second tier of LibDem marginals I quote:
"The results in the Tory target seats are fascinating, and bear no relation to the size of the Lib Dem majorities. If these figures were repeated at the election the Conservatives would be looking at a recount in Torbay, the most ambitious seat on the list, and would gain Berwick Upon Tweed and Taunton Deane, the second and third. They would win Chippenham and Somerton & Frome with swings of 10% and 8.5% respectively, and do enough to bag Solihull, Wells, Mid Dorset & North Poole and – just, with two points separating three parties – St Austell & Newquay. The modest 3% swing in North Cornwall would mean another recount.
That's 8 of the 2nd tier falling with 2 more too close to call and I seem to recall around 10 in the first range would also fall so that is around 20 seats falling to the Tories with the LibDem hopes based on Watford.
A 600 majority in a safe seat and run out of town in Clacton, though of course we should point out that Labour have given up in the South.
One Nation rules eh?
This is our democracy it does not belong to politicians and it should be we that decide who is the government not them and how it is chosen. PR to my mind allows politicians to grab our votes then decide who is in power and what the manifesto is after the fact, a coalition formed under first past the post is in the same ballpark.
Given a choice I would rather the country had a discussion on how our government should run and be chosen and start from a blank sheet of paper. I suspect however none of our politicians would much like that idea.
In 2010 Labour recorded one of their worst share of the votes, on Thursday, they went up by 1%.
And that is taking account of all those 2010 Lib Dem switchers.
in Sept
LAB 42%
CON 37%
in October
CON 40%
LAB 38%
so as I said utter bollocks.
prices which mean that he would ensure that prices would remain artificially high
Miliband 20pts behind Cameron
Cameron -6%
Miliband -26%
I can't see the public liking it much either. They seem pretty happy with letting our representatives get on with things, but just wanting to introduce some ones with different rosettes but who are not different in any practical way.
Yes, I'm pleased.
i) constituencies, not unlike the pre-1950 scenario in some places, and like the pre-1885 almost everywhere. Constituencies that represent proper communities too.
ii) room for some local independents
iii) both quasi-Majoritarian and quasi-PR. Single-party government still a possibility
iv) no landslides
v) choice of candidate within party, safe seats effectively abolished
vi) voters' coalition preferences recorded, in the event of a hung-parliament
vii) far more people get a party/MP they voted for
viii) no electoral bias, no wrong-winner elections
ix) every vote counts equally towards the result, a Tory in Glasgow as much as a Labourite in Surrey. Not just the marginals.
x) regional polarization reduced. Tory MPs in Scotland, Labour MPs in the South.
Paul Goggins had a large personal vote. And for what its worth. I will happily take a majority on 30% of the vote.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
No hope of it ever being implemented then.
And I am pleased that you are pleased because it shows that you and Labour supporters like you have learnt the square root of fuck all.
"I’ve spoken to teachers who have had Bangladeshi children sent to their area from London and do not have the resources to look after non-English speakers in an already crowded classroom. Rightly or wrongly, they claim it’s holding the rest of the class back and their sense of frustration is palpable."
...
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the fact is there are too many voters who feel we are no longer able to get rid of those people in Britain who should not be here – and who think we do not control our borders any more.
To say some of the immigration issues I’m presented with are challenging is a massive understatement. I’ve recently spoken to a nurse who told me of illegal Afghan immigrants getting girls with learning difficulties pregnant so they could stay in the country by insisting on their ‘human rights’ to have a family. "
...
"The political classes may benefit from immigration with cheap au pairs and cleaners, but people in my part of the world cannot afford au pairs or cleaners.
Ed Miliband may feel uncomfortable at talking about immigration because he’s the son of immigrants.
Well, I’m sorry, but he has no choice but to grasp the nettle."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788837/
Net result there so far: Zero UKIP MPs.
Labour knows a lot more than the hapless Tories who have managed to split the right wing.
I know, I know, it's how FPTP works, so we can't argue with it, but for feckssake, please stop deluding yourselves that the country are actually choosing Cameron or Miliband to be in charge. It's not a choice, it's a bloody lack of options.
How many times have you heard things such as "whats the point voting they are all the same" or "No matter who you vote for the government always gets in".
I think if people felt they had a way to hold politicians to account properly rather than the 5 yearly ritual where politicians promise the moon then happily consign all those pledges to the dustbin when they got into power.
People are ready to take a stand, witness the marches against the iraq war as an example...wasnt it 1 to 2 million people? The politicians however could not be held to account and just dismissed it. Is it any wonder then that people just give up?
I would like someway to vote for example on individual policy. I might vote for labours education policy, conservative school policy, and lib dems civil liberties policies for example.
We have technologies now that should allow the people to have a voice, to have choice over more than red, blue or yellow. Wouldn't it be better to work out something from scratch and build a political system for the 21st century rather than tinker round the edges of one that was designed for an era where it took 3 days to get to london from far flung constituencies?
The big issue isn't a Tory rise because they're just bobbing around within the same margins. it's the latest Ed effect.
Labour have registered worst polls since June 2010.
If they run true to form they'll recover a little when no one is actually taking any notice of politics, before slipping again the next time the heat is on.
The first is voting intention.
The second is what people think the result will be.
Two different things.
He lost nearly a third of his vote share between 2001 and 2010
As for the others you do not consider any other factors Germany and Spain are not that much better than the UK and if you are talking of just a 5 or 6 point improvement I would suggest it has little to do with the voting system but more to do with the political circumstances under which the election occurred.
In Sweden and New Zealand and indeed in Australia you are talking about vastly smaller populations so the whole issue of politicians connecting with the electorate is on a much smaller scale and as you say Australia has compulsory attendance as well.
As for the US that was a two horse race for a single job. Obama won a majority of the votes cast. How are you supposed to make that proportional? Turnout there I suggest was based on the reputation of the candidates and the predictability of the vote.
Finally Canada seems to have suffered from the machinations of a rather messy Coalition/ Minority government situation for several years culminating in a scandal which forced the election. That in itself may have dragged down turnout.
I don't accept that the voting system has any real impact on turnout
Ukip is tapping into a seam of despair that Labour cannot and will not ignore
The opposition leader pledges to tackle immigration, invest in the NHS and pay a fair wage for hard work
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/11/ed-miliband-labour-hope-for-britains-future?CMP=twt_gu
There's 2 for starters
Why would we want Labour MP's in the South? They are no fecking good anyway!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/09/ebola-highly-contagious-virus-myths-outbreak-epidemic
Sorry but it's bollocks.
I was derided a few weeks back for saying that they would win 10 seats in GE 2015, now thats almost a given.
Where UKIP will hurt you lot isn't in the northern inner cities, its in more marginal northern constituencies like Bury North where tories have a 3000 maj in 2010 and Bury South where Lab had a 3000 majority in 2010.
Miliband needs to win both those seats and many seats like them to have any chance of winning the election. Thanks to Labour losing the WWC to UKIP the tories will hold Bury north and may well win them both.
before - "There is nothing wrong with UKIP voting parts of England that a solid dose of migration wouldn't fix. Nothing. "
after - "For voters, visitors and the casual observer it was a by-election about immigration. We are in deep, deep trouble. We are lost and our voters want us back. They keep sending us messages. When will we listen?"
Who in the right mind would trust a Labour politician? Perhaps BenM does?
As you may have seen on Twitter the SNP membership has risen from 25,000 to over 80,000 since 18th September. Apparently the Scottish Greens membership has tripled to over 6,000 and today former SNP MSP for Highlands John Finnie was unveiled at the Greens conference as their newest recruit. He will remain an Independent MSP until 2016 and then plans to stand for the Greens. A former leader of Highland Council, he was a police dog handler when I knew him 30 years ago.
As the increased SNP support threatens SLAB, so the increased Green support threatens what will be left of the Scottish LibDems in seats like Edinburgh West and Fife NE where there are reasonable numbers of students.
I've understood for years that Labour won't gain a majority next year. My prime concern is ensuring the Tories are out of office on 8th May 2015 and UKIP doing well ensures that.
You'll steal more Tory seats and perhaps shorten the majority in some Labour ones. All fine by me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11156102/Now-Ed-Miliband-has-the-women-problem-as-a-PM.html
LOL almost makes me wish tim was back.
My guess is that Labour will lose as many seats to nationalists of one rosette or another as the Tories.
Imagine the SNP,UKIP and Plaid as one entity - the nationalists.
Who loses most to them?
Offer sensible odds and you might have some takers
The Iraq war example just confused me, because if people were angry at being dismissed over such an issue - and while I was against it, what about the silent majority who could not give a damn apparently? Is it fair to do things on the basis of who shouts the loudest? - they could have voted for someone else, for parties that didn't vote for the war or who advocated for a whole new political system, and they didn't, they voted in Blair again. Sure it's tough under FPTP, but if people are as angry at the system as much as you seem to think they are, a candidate advocating a sweeping redesign of our politics would win handily whatever their partisan politics. And they don't.
People may not like our politicians or our system. But nor do they seem discontented to the point of action over it.
Ask people if they want more of a say in things, of course they'll say yes, but although models exist over that, to have more of say over individual policy, we are not yet at the stage where people care enough apparently. If there was an appetite for it, we'd see more of our current MPs advocate for such things than is currently the case, we're always told they have no backbone or real ideas and just react to things, if people were clamouring for that sort of thing, more of them would back it out of self preservation I suspect.
Maybe we'll get to such a pass one day, to totally redesigning how we do politics, but it does not look on the horizon from where I'm standing. UKIP may or may not break through in a significant way, but despite some different ideas, they'll operate in our system the same as anyone else, and that's all people seem to want right now. People do want a choice over more than red, blue or yellow...but unfortunately all they seem to want to do is add purple, green and maybe a few others to the list of options. People still seem very happy with tribal party politics as far as I can see, we're just seeing some changes in tribes.