politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The joys of first past the post

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The joys of first past the post

If @LordAshcroft polling right LDs could get 6 times the MPs as UKIP & 30 times the Greens on = or lower national vote share

Read the full story here


Comments

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    First past the posters.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I hadn't realised that Lord Ashcroft was predicting 612 Lib Dem MPs.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    Oh the irony of LDs relying on FPTP.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    edited January 2015
    The Greens know the system. The Lib Dems know the system. If one team plays the game better, of course they'll win.

    At Cannae, the Romans had more men. And chose to attack. And got annihilated. Do we blame anything other than the arrogance/complacency/stupidity of Varro and the brilliance of Hannibal?

    If the Lib Dems are being more intelligent in their preparations for the election, they deserve the (relative) win over the Greens. If the Greens rack up a useless broad but shallow pool of voters, whose fault is that?

    Edited extra bit: however, it will get portrayed, probably, as an injustice by the media, and I imagine that will have a substantial amount of public sympathy.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    FPT:
    OblitusSumMe said:

    (a) Something - be it tax or regulation - on added sugar in food.

    (b) A stricter drink-driving limit. My memory is hazy on the details but I think a limit of 50 (in whatever units) compared to the current 80 has been campaigned for.

    You wont get any argument from me about drink-driving, personally I would make it as close to zero as you can get with-in the accuracy of the measure and the natural variation in sober people. There is no excuse for dulling your reflexes and potentially getting other people killed. If someone wants to get tanked up and drive around a track with no one else around, I am rather less fussed ;)

    The sugar thing will be a complete can of worms, how long before manufacturers move to adding honey or glucose syrup of other sweetening agent of your choice, and if you start clamping down on those, its going to start really annoying people. Even so I am fundamentally against the sort of nanny policy, what people want to do to their own bodies is largely their business.

    I don't notice attempts to outlaw tattoo parlors, or body piercing, or ways people deliberately damage their bodies, hell we cant even enforce the laws we have about people doing harm to other peoples children's bodies, considering the total number of arrests (1) and prosecutions (0) for FGM, despite being the capital of Europe for that disgusting behavior.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    edited January 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    The Greens know the system. The Lib Dems know the system. If one team plays the game better, of course they'll win.

    At Cannae, the Romans had more men. And chose to attack. And got annihilated. Do we blame anything other than the arrogance/complacency/stupidity of Varro and the brilliance of Hannibal?

    If the Lib Dems are being more intelligent in their preparations for the election, they deserve the (relative) win over the Greens. If the Greens rack up a useless broad but shallow pool of voters, whose fault is that?

    Edited extra bit: however, it will get portrayed, probably, as an injustice by the media, and I imagine that will have a substantial amount of public sympathy.

    And if it is portrayed as an injustice ...... and there will quite probably also be squeals about Labour having the largest number of seats on a lower overall vote than the Tories .... if it opens the debate about electoral systems again, isn't that a good thing?

    Although I fear the Mail especially will concentrate on castigating the LD's for failing to agree to "equal" constituencies.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    (a) Something - be it tax or regulation - on added sugar in food.

    (b) A stricter drink-driving limit. My memory is hazy on the details but I think a limit of 50 (in whatever units) compared to the current 80 has been campaigned for.

    I don't notice attempts to outlaw tattoo parlors, or body piercing, or ways people deliberately damage their bodies, hell we cant even enforce the laws we have about people doing harm to other peoples children's bodies, considering the total number of arrests (1) and prosecutions (0) for FGM, despite being the capital of Europe for that disgusting behavior.
    You can always find a rationale for stopping people from doing things, in order to improve the health of the nation. It certainly doesn't stop at restricting smoking.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    King Cole, I suspect you're right about the size of constituencies being raised.

    The potential England point also has a devolution aspect, which the Green/Lib Dem result does not.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    OldKingCole said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    The Greens know the system. The Lib Dems know the system. If one team plays the game better, of course they'll win.

    At Cannae, the Romans had more men. And chose to attack. And got annihilated. Do we blame anything other than the arrogance/complacency/stupidity of Varro and the brilliance of Hannibal?

    If the Lib Dems are being more intelligent in their preparations for the election, they deserve the (relative) win over the Greens. If the Greens rack up a useless broad but shallow pool of voters, whose fault is that?

    Edited extra bit: however, it will get portrayed, probably, as an injustice by the media, and I imagine that will have a substantial amount of public sympathy.

    And if it is portrayed as an injustice ...... and there will quite probably also be squeals about Labour having the largest number of seats on a lower overall vote than the Tories .... if it opens the debate about electoral systems again, isn't that a good thing?

    Although I fear the Mail especially will concentrate on castigating the LD's for failing to agree to "equal" constituencies.
    The Conservatives do very well out of First Past the Post. Last time, they won 47% of seats on 36% of the vote. (In the recent County Council elections they won 50% of seats on 32% of votes). Their complaint is that they don't do as well as Labour.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Sean_F said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    The Greens know the system. The Lib Dems know the system. If one team plays the game better, of course they'll win.

    At Cannae, the Romans had more men. And chose to attack. And got annihilated. Do we blame anything other than the arrogance/complacency/stupidity of Varro and the brilliance of Hannibal?

    If the Lib Dems are being more intelligent in their preparations for the election, they deserve the (relative) win over the Greens. If the Greens rack up a useless broad but shallow pool of voters, whose fault is that?

    Edited extra bit: however, it will get portrayed, probably, as an injustice by the media, and I imagine that will have a substantial amount of public sympathy.

    And if it is portrayed as an injustice ...... and there will quite probably also be squeals about Labour having the largest number of seats on a lower overall vote than the Tories .... if it opens the debate about electoral systems again, isn't that a good thing?

    Although I fear the Mail especially will concentrate on castigating the LD's for failing to agree to "equal" constituencies.
    The Conservatives do very well out of First Past the Post. Last time, they won 47% of seats on 36% of the vote. (In the recent County Council elections they won 50% of seats on 32% of votes). Their complaint is that they don't do as well as Labour.

    Unquestionably true; won't stop the howls of rage off-stage as Cameron takes his place on the Opposition benches though!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    4x UKIP +1 will do me fine. Just saying.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Forecast is for persistent whining accompanied by intermittent grumbling and indignant huffing and puffing proceeding in a southerly direction from northern Britain later today:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/cameron-insists-new-powers-for-scotland-will-secure-the-states-united-fut.116697888
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Yes and no.

    It all depends on your ability to receive tactical votes. Historically, the LibDems (and the SNP) have been excellent at saying "OK, so we're not your number one choice, but if you vote for us at least it'll stop [the Conservatives/Labour] winning this seat."

    If UKIP can benefit from tactical voting, then they will - over a couple of election series - get a decent number of seats. If, on the other hand, they suffer from anti-UKIP tactical voting, then they may struggle to get a decent number of seats, even if they are on 20% of the national vote. Right now, it's too early to tell: however, the AV poll that was released about 3-4 months ago should be of some concern to UKIP, as only a minority of current Conservatives and Labour supporters would have UKIP as their second choice.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    I agree, and getting a good percentage of the vote does validate the party even if most of the votes are ineffective.

    When looking at 2010 LDs the voting intentions are quite low for the LDs this time round, with the remainder not too unequally spread between Con Lab UKIP and Green. Even if LD vote retention is twice as good in LD incumbent seats it looks pretty grim. I would expect the LDs to lose the seat when the majority is less than half of the total LD vote.

    The national % is likely to not be helped by the lack of LD candidates still in many seats on AndyJS's chart. We may be back to the days where not all seats are fought. None of the 3 Leicester seats or Loughborough yet has a candidate, including the recently held Leicester South.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Morris_Dancer said:

    If the Lib Dems are being more intelligent in their preparations for the election, they deserve the (relative) win over the Greens. If the Greens rack up a useless broad but shallow pool of voters, whose fault is that?

    If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Lib Dems and the Greens get broadly the same number of votes, but the Lib Dems many more seats, why would that have happened? Voters are not like army battalions to be ordered about and deployed to marginal seats at the whim of party election strategists.

    I also think that, rather than obsess about the fairness or unfairness of the system in terms of the results at the national level for the political parties, advocates of reform would be better to concentrate on how FPTP narrows the choices for the electorate.

    Because of FPTP the most used campaign argument at the local level will be "party X can't win here so vote for us to stop the horrid party Y". Regardless of which political party benefits from the present system, it is that effect on political debate which is most objectionable to me.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    edited January 2015
    Sean_F,

    "You can always find a rationale for stopping people from doing things, in order to improve the health of the nation. It certainly doesn't stop at restricting smoking."

    This measure isn't stopping anyone from smoking. If it discourages anyone from taking it up, because the colourful packaging was the attraction, who loses? For those who feel they've missed out, we can sell pretty but empty packets too.

    The principle is a different matter. People knowingly make bad choices all the time.

    Hardly anyone believes smoking is good for you but they choose to do it. Hardly anyone believes that mainlining heroin is a health benefit. But they choose to do it. Hardly anyone believes that voting Green is good for you but ... Sorry, got carried away there.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    DavidL said:

    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?

    To be fair, David, the Labour Party has been around for almost 100 years, so they're not exactly a flash in the pan.

    Right... back to work...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    Yes and means that if a party is popular nationwide without any concentration of support, those people are still represented, albeit grossly under represented
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2015
    DavidL said:

    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?

    Because it's not for the electoral system to use your entirely subjective and one-sided interpretation of poll numbers as the basis for democracy?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Yes and no.

    It all depends on your ability to receive tactical votes. Historically, the LibDems (and the SNP) have been excellent at saying "OK, so we're not your number one choice, but if you vote for us at least it'll stop [the Conservatives/Labour] winning this seat."

    If UKIP can benefit from tactical voting, then they will - over a couple of election series - get a decent number of seats. If, on the other hand, they suffer from anti-UKIP tactical voting, then they may struggle to get a decent number of seats, even if they are on 20% of the national vote. Right now, it's too early to tell: however, the AV poll that was released about 3-4 months ago should be of some concern to UKIP, as only a minority of current Conservatives and Labour supporters would have UKIP as their second choice.
    OTOH, we're a very long way from Conservatives being willing to vote Labour to keep out another party, or vice versa. Look at Scotland. They have a common, existential, enemy, in the shape of the SNP, and still they loathe each other more than they do the SNP.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,152
    Jim Murphy confirmed to stand again as the East Ren SLab candidate (ht to Oldnat). I wonder if the SNP will chuck the kitchen sink at the constituency?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?

    To be fair, David, the Labour Party has been around for almost 100 years, so they're not exactly a flash in the pan.

    Right... back to work...
    Yes and the FPTP system works better for them than anyone else. It also works well for the tories who have been around longest of all.

    It works less well for new parties who have not got the roots into our communities that these established parties have. Over time this will change, UKIP in particular now have a lot more councillors, but I do not think it is a defect of FPTP that it tends to take the steam out of febrile waves built on shallow foundations.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,152
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Yes and no.

    It all depends on your ability to receive tactical votes. Historically, the LibDems (and the SNP) have been excellent at saying "OK, so we're not your number one choice, but if you vote for us at least it'll stop [the Conservatives/Labour] winning this seat."

    If UKIP can benefit from tactical voting, then they will - over a couple of election series - get a decent number of seats. If, on the other hand, they suffer from anti-UKIP tactical voting, then they may struggle to get a decent number of seats, even if they are on 20% of the national vote. Right now, it's too early to tell: however, the AV poll that was released about 3-4 months ago should be of some concern to UKIP, as only a minority of current Conservatives and Labour supporters would have UKIP as their second choice.
    OTOH, we're a very long way from Conservatives being willing to vote Labour to keep out another party, or vice versa. Look at Scotland. They have a common, existential, enemy, in the shape of the SNP, and still they loathe each other more than they do the SNP.
    The rUK sections of those parties may save their strongest vitriol for each other, but SLab (and the rump of their voters) definitely, definitely hate the SNP more than the SCons.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Brave:

    On Wednesday night attended a networking event in the Titanic visitor centre in Belfast.......

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/miliband-pledges-engagement-in-north-if-labour-wins-uk-vote-1.2074599#.VMDFtQua_OM.twitter
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    audreyanne said:

    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).

    I sense trolling, but I'll play along

    It's 4xUKIP seats not 5

    and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Jim Murphy confirmed to stand again as the East Ren SLab candidate (ht to Oldnat). I wonder if the SNP will chuck the kitchen sink at the constituency?

    If they wish to, they would be wise to do so discreetly - publicly announced ones (in the past May & some other Tories by the Lib Dems) usually fail - its the sneaky 'no one saw that coming' (Patten, Portillo) that work.....
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited January 2015
    The Greens don't care too much about how many MPs they have or don't have. They pursue their agenda mainly by infiltrating councils, quangoes, NGOs, the media, and third-rate universities.

    From this substantially anonymous position of influence, they insert their agenda into everything they can, without there ever being a public debate or a publicly-endorsed political choice between their preferred decision versus the alternatives (two hallmarks of ecofascist propagandising are that there is no alternative to their choice and that no voice disagreeing with them should be allowed to be heard).

    There is a reason you have never seen a TV program questioning the motives or integrity of the green movement: they've made sure you couldn't get it made, and that it you did, you'd never work again.

    As an example of how deeply this thoroughly unpleasant cult has penetrated government, there was recently a BoE consultation paper on the regulation of financial benchmarks. It was accompanied by an impact assessment that required the form-filler to estimate the greehouse gas impact of any change in financial benchmark regulation, but did not require the elucidation of any risks. So nobody's required to ask himself whether more regulation is ever a bad thing, but everyone in government is required to consider the greenhouse gas implications of literally everything.

    Getting this out of public decision making is going to be as hard as getting corruption out of Nigeria, and for many of the same reasons.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?

    To be fair, David, the Labour Party has been around for almost 100 years, so they're not exactly a flash in the pan.

    Right... back to work...
    Yes and the FPTP system works better for them than anyone else. It also works well for the tories who have been around longest of all.

    It works less well for new parties who have not got the roots into our communities that these established parties have. Over time this will change, UKIP in particular now have a lot more councillors, but I do not think it is a defect of FPTP that it tends to take the steam out of febrile waves built on shallow foundations.
    But the converse is that props up MPs and parties that have lost touch with the voters long after they should have been voted out. And, then that party (eg SLAB) finds itself facing an electoral hurricane that it can't cope with.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    CarlottaVance said:

    Brave:

    On Wednesday night attended a networking event in the Titanic visitor centre in Belfast.......

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/miliband-pledges-engagement-in-north-if-labour-wins-uk-vote-1.2074599#.VMDFtQua_OM.twitter

    Anti-English Ed backing another home nation with powers he won't give us. What a surprise.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Brave:

    On Wednesday night attended a networking event in the Titanic visitor centre in Belfast.......

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/miliband-pledges-engagement-in-north-if-labour-wins-uk-vote-1.2074599#.VMDFtQua_OM.twitter

    Anti-English Ed backing another home nation with powers he won't give us. What a surprise.
    What struck me as oddest was the Belfast Telegraph's take:

    Ed Miliband says private sector can drive Northern Ireland prosperity

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/ed-miliband-says-private-sector-can-drive-northern-ireland-prosperity-30927807.html
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    Theuniondivvie said:



    The rUK sections of those parties may save their strongest vitriol for each other, but SLab (and the rump of their voters) definitely, definitely hate the SNP more than the SCons.

    I think the same is true of at least some Scons.
    SCons and SLabs should join forces as SUnis against the SNats.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Yes and no.

    It all depends on your ability to receive tactical votes. Historically, the LibDems (and the SNP) have been excellent at saying "OK, so we're not your number one choice, but if you vote for us at least it'll stop [the Conservatives/Labour] winning this seat."

    If UKIP can benefit from tactical voting, then they will - over a couple of election series - get a decent number of seats. If, on the other hand, they suffer from anti-UKIP tactical voting, then they may struggle to get a decent number of seats, even if they are on 20% of the national vote. Right now, it's too early to tell: however, the AV poll that was released about 3-4 months ago should be of some concern to UKIP, as only a minority of current Conservatives and Labour supporters would have UKIP as their second choice.
    OTOH, we're a very long way from Conservatives being willing to vote Labour to keep out another party, or vice versa. Look at Scotland. They have a common, existential, enemy, in the shape of the SNP, and still they loathe each other more than they do the SNP.
    Can you explain these two Holyrood and Westminster constituencies to me :) ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumfries_and_Galloway_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway_and_West_Dumfries_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    isam said:

    audreyanne said:

    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).

    I sense trolling, but I'll play along

    It's 4xUKIP seats not 5

    and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
    Oh wow even better.

    Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.

    So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?

    p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015
    audreyanne said:

    isam said:

    audreyanne said:

    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).

    I sense trolling, but I'll play along

    It's 4xUKIP seats not 5

    and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
    Oh wow even better.

    Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.

    So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?
    Nah we'll leave it as it is then I'm not having you set the agenda x

    But if you stop talking rubbish/making strange claims, you wont get challenged to bet.. easy!

    3/1 Tories the value in Rochester tsk tsk
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,152
    edited January 2015
    geoffw said:


    Theuniondivvie said:



    The rUK sections of those parties may save their strongest vitriol for each other, but SLab (and the rump of their voters) definitely, definitely hate the SNP more than the SCons.

    I think the same is true of at least some Scons.
    SCons and SLabs should join forces as SUnis against the SNats.
    To do that overtly would mean SLab had given up on the departed 25%-40% of their voters that have gone SNP/Green/SSP. The (occasionally confused) noises Murphy is making currently suggest they still think they can get them back.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Watermelons?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    On smoking, I don't care one way or the other. Once you're adult you're free to make whatever choices you want.

    And whether we make good or bad choices we all end up dead.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited January 2015
    audreyanne said:

    isam said:

    audreyanne said:

    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).

    I sense trolling, but I'll play along

    It's 4xUKIP seats not 5

    and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
    Oh wow even better.

    Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.

    So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?

    p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
    AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.

    AND A POLITICS SITE.

    AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    More seriously, the Lib Dem success is built on a huge amount of hard work over a very long period of time with all that door step politics, focus leaflets, local campaigning, local representation, increasing influence over the local authority and salience in the local media resulting in an MP who probably works harder than most coming from that work ethic.

    Why should parties which are largely a media creation and temporary repositories for NOTA votes get equal billing?

    To be fair, David, the Labour Party has been around for almost 100 years, so they're not exactly a flash in the pan.

    Right... back to work...
    Yes and the FPTP system works better for them than anyone else. It also works well for the tories who have been around longest of all.

    It works less well for new parties who have not got the roots into our communities that these established parties have. Over time this will change, UKIP in particular now have a lot more councillors, but I do not think it is a defect of FPTP that it tends to take the steam out of febrile waves built on shallow foundations.
    But the converse is that props up MPs and parties that have lost touch with the voters long after they should have been voted out. And, then that party (eg SLAB) finds itself facing an electoral hurricane that it can't cope with.
    Yes, certainly. It is not an insuperable barrier to change, it simply makes change a little more difficult and increases the stability of the status quo. As someone who is small c conservative I would have thought you would have liked that aspect of it.

    As I said in my original post each of the Lib Dem seats tends to come from this evolutionary process which is why they are so hard to shift and they can still hope to get 30 MPs even when polling in single figures. They have earned that protection and where they have failed to continue to earn it they will lose.

    Another major attraction of FPTP for me is that it forces the larger parties to be big tents (as Blair used to say). This should mean that their policies are the consequence of internal debate across a range of views resulting in sensible compromises.

    This is above all where the major parties have gone wrong. Internal democracy has collapsed and policy is decided by an elite and remote group at the top who don't listen to that range of views they are supposed to represent. This has been a problem for the tories for a long time but Labour are now far down the same path. Eventually, and you are probably a good example of this, people get fed up of not being listened to and move on.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics · 5m5 minutes ago
    Violent crime surges 16pc in new figures http://tgr.ph/1JkrnbQ

    "An ONS spokesman said: "The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording is likely to have prompted improved compliance with national standards, leading to more crimes being recorded than previously. "
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Well, from my perspective, they don't seem very "green" at all. They never seem to speak at all about plants, trees, birds, bees, the reintroduction of otters, the joys of a good walk, fresh air, repairing stuff, the use of washing lines etc.

    TBH they seem indistinguishable from the SWP.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    geoffw said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Watermelons?
    While jolly [and food-related], it's more of a taxonomic description than an insult.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Pulpstar said:

    audreyanne said:

    isam said:

    audreyanne said:

    Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).

    I sense trolling, but I'll play along

    It's 4xUKIP seats not 5

    and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
    Oh wow even better.

    Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.

    So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?

    p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
    AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.

    AND A POLITICS SITE.

    AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
    Indeed. It's absurd to complain when people offer bets. I think it's a good way to keep people honest, considering the amount of spinning on the site. Forces people to put their money where their mouth is or to back down.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    Stephen Timms, Nick Herbert and Danny Alexander enjoy very safe seats that are virtually impregnable at the moment though. As Stodge remarks, it doesn't make a fig of difference who he votes for.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Off topic, I've had another round of backing the SNP in constituencies in Scotland this morning. They better bloody not flatter to deceive this time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    completely off topic, but I was following old links on LabourList and came across this Ed M statement from 2013:

    "We would tax houses worth over £2 million.
    And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people.
    We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government.
    We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised.
    This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers."
    (http://labourlist.org/2013/02/a-mansion-tax-to-fund-a-10p-tax-rate-ed-milibands-speech-in-full/)

    Now then, I have a nice, glossy Labour leaflet in my hand which was delivered yesterday. It all about the NHS and says Labour will give us more GPs, nurses etc etc. And all paid for by the Mansion Tax.

    So, what's happened to our promised 10p rate?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @OblitusSumMe

    'Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?'

    The far left on a vegan diet?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    That is not the way it works in Scotland Socrates, possibly because the list members are still allocated to regions. I am told by some list MSPs that I come across that they are quite busy on behalf of their constituents. Apparently some people prefer to go to a list MSP of "their" party rather than their constituency MSP who isn't.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Brilliant how the soppy feminists fell for this

    "The greatest trick the Sun ever pulled was convincing the world Page 3 didn’t exist…"

    http://order-order.com/2015/01/22/gotcha-corrections-and-clarifications-time/
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    http://labourlist.org/2015/01/former-lib-dem-peers-donates-300k-to-30-labour-candidates-in-bid-to-stop-tories/

    All about Lord Oakeshott
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    isam said:

    Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics · 5m5 minutes ago
    Violent crime surges 16pc in new figures http://tgr.ph/1JkrnbQ

    "An ONS spokesman said: "The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording is likely to have prompted improved compliance with national standards, leading to more crimes being recorded than previously. "

    Reminds me of an excellent Matt cartoon from last year. With a poster showing "fiction prize" the judge is saying: "And the nominees are Police Crime Statistics and Hospital Waiting times..."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited January 2015
    OblitusSumMe said:

    geoffw said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Watermelons?
    While jolly [and food-related], it's more of a taxonomic description than an insult.
    Ecotard? or Catastrofarian?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eco-fascist

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Cyclefree said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Well, from my perspective, they don't seem very "green" at all. They never seem to speak at all about plants, trees, birds, bees, the reintroduction of otters, the joys of a good walk, fresh air, repairing stuff, the use of washing lines etc.

    TBH they seem indistinguishable from the SWP.
    I don't think anyone [in the media] listens when the Greens talk about Green things. It's not exactly news, is it?

    There are very few politicians in the country who will get media time for giving a speech, regardless of the content of that speech - for everyone else what you hear is mediated by what the media chooses to report on.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    rottenborough said:

    completely off topic, but I was following old links on LabourList and came across this Ed M statement from 2013:

    "We would tax houses worth over £2 million.
    And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people.
    We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government.
    We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised.
    This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers."
    (http://labourlist.org/2013/02/a-mansion-tax-to-fund-a-10p-tax-rate-ed-milibands-speech-in-full/)

    Now then, I have a nice, glossy Labour leaflet in my hand which was delivered yesterday. It all about the NHS and says Labour will give us more GPs, nurses etc etc. And all paid for by the Mansion Tax.

    So, what's happened to our promised 10p rate?

    It will pay for that as well, and 4-5 other things I dare say.

    #LabourAccounting
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    DavidL said:

    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    That is not the way it works in Scotland Socrates, possibly because the list members are still allocated to regions. I am told by some list MSPs that I come across that they are quite busy on behalf of their constituents. Apparently some people prefer to go to a list MSP of "their" party rather than their constituency MSP who isn't.
    If you have multi-member constituencies, you'd still have this issue. Even on a regional basis, people at the top of the list are going to be very, very hard to displace. The critical test for an electoral system to me is how difficult it is to "kick the bums out".
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    isam said:

    Brilliant how the soppy feminists fell for this

    "The greatest trick the Sun ever pulled was convincing the world Page 3 didn’t exist…"

    http://order-order.com/2015/01/22/gotcha-corrections-and-clarifications-time/

    I'm sure this is entirely predictable but no doubt on Election Day the Sun will have a giant pair of tits on pp3 with two leading politicians faces in them.

    The two Ed's?

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Poor Winston McKenzie has been sacked by Ukip.How could they shoot themselves in the foot yet again?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    Well you could just allocate the MP's by closest 2nd place finish, so if UKIP got 14% and only 2 MPs then the 7 best 2nd place finshers would also become MPs and would represent the constituency they finished 2nd in, in the HofC, with the winner still having the mandate to make decisions /impose a budget etc
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    OblitusSumMe said:

    Cyclefree said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Well, from my perspective, they don't seem very "green" at all. They never seem to speak at all about plants, trees, birds, bees, the reintroduction of otters, the joys of a good walk, fresh air, repairing stuff, the use of washing lines etc.

    TBH they seem indistinguishable from the SWP.
    I don't think anyone [in the media] listens when the Greens talk about Green things. It's not exactly news, is it?

    There are very few politicians in the country who will get media time for giving a speech, regardless of the content of that speech - for everyone else what you hear is mediated by what the media chooses to report on.
    I wasn't referring to their speeches but to their policies - at least as reported.

    Our Green candidate at the last election was handing out packets of sunflower seeds at the tube station a few days before the vote. I'm a keen gardener so thought it a nice touch though she was a little surprised when I pointed out that there were rules about trying to bribe voters.....

    Mind you, free seeds and a bit of guerilla gardening is something I could vote for!

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Interesting analysis in The Economist of what constitutes a 'mansion' - the £2million is clearly arbitrary - if the top 2.5% of houses that represents in London was applied nation wide, a mansion in the North East would be £344,000

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21640222-how-proposed-mansion-tax-would-take-effect-outside-london-mansions-or-houses

    I really don't think they should be giving Ed ideas.......
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited January 2015
    30 LD MPs?
    FPTP is fine if you also have a reasonable level of support which I would suggest has to be above 10% and probably 12%+. The current LD polling is at catastrophically low levels of 7% to 8% (except ICM). The last GE where the LDs/Liberal/SDP got under 10% of the vote was 1970's 7.5%. They also only stood in 322 seats. If Liberals in the missing seats could reasonably be expected to average 4%, then that 7.5% equates to about a 9.5% overall vote. From the 1970 election the Liberals had just 6 seats. Now to get to 20 requires an even larger disproportionate vote allocation than in 1970. Getting to a "30 seat" level on under 10% of the votes requires a miracle.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Rachel Halliburton ‏@Hallibee1 · 3h3 hours ago
    My piece on how Marine Le Pen is winning France’s gay vote http://specc.ie/1BICo7G via @spectator

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    OblitusSumMe said:

    geoffw said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Watermelons?
    While jolly [and food-related], it's more of a taxonomic description than an insult.
    "watermelon" is commonly applied, often pejoratively, to Greens who seem to put "social justice" goals above ecological ones, implying they are "green on the outside but red on the inside"
    -- Wikipedia
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    I think this is true but I would say that over a longer period of several elections national vote share and seat count order will tend to converge.

    If you imagine that the Lib Dems national polling does not improve for several general elections, then I would imagine that their tally of seats held would be gradually chipped away. Similarly, if UKIP were to maintain a national vote share in excess of the Lib Dems, I would expect them to progressively add MPs, as they become better at identifying their targets, etc.

    So the election this year is likely to be anomalous, because the Lib Dem vote share is dropping as the UKIP and Green vote share is rising. I'd expect the anomaly to be reduced for the election after this one.

    It's also worth pointing out that, even if the Lib Dems retain 30-ish seats on as little as 7% of the vote, they are still being penalised by FPTP, as 7% of the GB seats would be 44 seats. So the main feature of FPTP would remain: it massively benefits the largest [two] parties at the expense of all the others, regardless of whether it penalises one party [UKIP] more than another [Lib Dems].

    Yes and no.

    It all depends on your ability to receive tactical votes. Historically, the LibDems (and the SNP) have been excellent at saying "OK, so we're not your number one choice, but if you vote for us at least it'll stop [the Conservatives/Labour] winning this seat."

    If UKIP can benefit from tactical voting, then they will - over a couple of election series - get a decent number of seats. If, on the other hand, they suffer from anti-UKIP tactical voting, then they may struggle to get a decent number of seats, even if they are on 20% of the national vote. Right now, it's too early to tell: however, the AV poll that was released about 3-4 months ago should be of some concern to UKIP, as only a minority of current Conservatives and Labour supporters would have UKIP as their second choice.
    OTOH, we're a very long way from Conservatives being willing to vote Labour to keep out another party, or vice versa. Look at Scotland. They have a common, existential, enemy, in the shape of the SNP, and still they loathe each other more than they do the SNP.
    Can you explain these two Holyrood and Westminster constituencies to me :) ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumfries_and_Galloway_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway_and_West_Dumfries_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)
    Westminster Constituency takes in all of Dumfries and naeby villages, Scottish Constituency cuts Dumfries in two
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Cyclefree said:

    rules about trying to bribe voters.....

    There are ??!

    Was the recent bond issue a figment of my imagination ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    Socrates said:

    DavidL said:

    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    That is not the way it works in Scotland Socrates, possibly because the list members are still allocated to regions. I am told by some list MSPs that I come across that they are quite busy on behalf of their constituents. Apparently some people prefer to go to a list MSP of "their" party rather than their constituency MSP who isn't.
    If you have multi-member constituencies, you'd still have this issue. Even on a regional basis, people at the top of the list are going to be very, very hard to displace. The critical test for an electoral system to me is how difficult it is to "kick the bums out".
    One of the oddities of the Scottish system is that if you are a list MSP you can be penalised by a surge in favour of your party. When Glasgow finally comes to its senses and elects a series of tory constituency MSPs Ruth Davidson will be out of a job.

    The reverse of course allegedly happened to Labour in 2011. A whole series of time servers and incompetents who were not supposed to be elected were put on the lists and found themselves in Parliament as constituency after constituency fell to the SNP. Of course with SLAB it is not easy to tell the difference.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    volcanopete said:

    Poor Winston McKenzie has been sacked by Ukip.How could they shoot themselves in the foot yet again?

    Stalinist paranoia seeping through the UKIP heirarchy. The purges will continue...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    In the utopia of the eurozone, calls for unlimited quantitative easing:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210

    I wonder what the Germans will think of printing money.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    30 LD MPs?
    FPTP is fine if you also have a reasonable level of support which I would suggest has to be above 10% and probably 12%+. The current LD polling is at catastrophically low levels of 7% to 8% (except ICM). The last GE where the LDs/Liberal/SDP got under 10% of the vote was 1970's 7.5%. They also only stood in 322 seats. If Liberals in the missing seats could reasonably be expected to average 4%, then that 7.5% equates to about a 9.5% overall vote. From the 1970 election the Liberals had just 6 seats. Now to get to 20 requires an even larger disproportionate vote allocation than in 1970. Getting to a "30 seat" level on under 10% of the votes requires a miracle.

    I broadly agree with that: below 11 or 12%, seat numbers begin to fall off very quickly for the Libs, and I doubt they'd have more than half a dozen seats at a 6 or 7% share.

    That being said, I suspect the Libs will creep up into the double digits (just), and will probably manage 18-22 seats (likely including Cambridge, although quite likely not Southwalk).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,019
    CarlottaVance said:

    Interesting analysis in The Economist of what constitutes a 'mansion' - the £2million is clearly arbitrary - if the top 2.5% of houses that represents in London was applied nation wide, a mansion in the North East would be £344,000

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21640222-how-proposed-mansion-tax-would-take-effect-outside-london-mansions-or-houses

    I really don't think they should be giving Ed ideas.......

    Someone has to and better the Economist than most of those around him.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    john_zims said:

    @OblitusSumMe

    'Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?'

    The far left on a vegan diet?

    eco-loons.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited January 2015
    The latest GE Seats update from http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ has the Tories leading by the narowest margin:

    Conservatives ......... 282
    Labour ................... 281
    SNP .........................34
    Liberal Democrats .... 28
    UKIP ..........................3
    Others (incl N.I.) ....... 22

    Total ...................... 650
  • peterelectionfollopeterelectionfollo Posts: 13
    Very interesting debate. GE2015 is similar to GEFeb74 in which a party other than big two increased votes significantly then Liberal and now UKIP. Liberals picked up few seats despite vote share of 20% challenging about 500 seats and hence I believe UKIP will follow suit; they will challenge all seats but may have only Carswell and Farage as MPs.

    There will be complaints over GE2015 result from UKIP and Greens and to a small degree from LDs and Con but I cannot see the FPTP system being changed till Con accept they cannot win majority under it or if combined Con and Lab vote fell to 55%.

    I agree best system is that used in Scotland and also in Germany and New Zealand of top up seats by region.

    Finally I recall Farage saying in May13 as county council election results came in, he favoured German system. Will AMS be UKIP policy I wonder?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    In the utopia of the eurozone, calls for unlimited quantitative easing:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210

    I wonder what the Germans will think of printing money.

    Wouldn't be the first time. Sales of wheelbarrows will rocket.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    isam said:

    Rachel Halliburton ‏@Hallibee1 · 3h3 hours ago
    My piece on how Marine Le Pen is winning France’s gay vote http://specc.ie/1BICo7G via @spectator

    Not entirely surprising. It's not just the Livingstones of this world who can adopt a policy of targeting particular communities. And if you do - at some point - if there is a clash between those communities you have to choose. And the choices you make say a lot about what principles you really have.

    Some on the Left (Livingstone is a good example) seemed quite willing to drop one minority to favour another larger and later best friend. Though the mental gymnastics they go through to justify this to themselves would be quite amusing to the rest of us were the results not so deadly.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Morris_Dancer said:

    In the utopia of the eurozone, calls for unlimited quantitative easing:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210

    I wonder what the Germans will think of printing money.

    Pretty unhappy I think, since they said no, and their constitutional court ruled it unconstitutional and the ECJ overruled them. I think its healthy for other countries to have key national interests overruled by the ECJ, it focuses minds on what an dangerous idea it is to have appointed judges with relatively little appeals experience, and beholden to politicians for their jobs in such key positions. Its a complete disgrace that only a third of ECJ judges have any experience judging appeals at all when appointed.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    DavidL said:

    Socrates said:

    DavidL said:

    Socrates said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    another [Lib Dems].

    Get rid of 50 constituencies (or 59??) and allocate a seat in the commons per 2% of National vote share
    Top up seats? That's how Scotland works. Not a stupid idea at all.

    It would mean that if you're UKIP on 15%, you get 7 or 8 additional seats.
    That would be excellent for democracy, and would mean that my vote in North East Derbyshire, whilst not having the power (At this GE) of OGH's Bedford vote would at least count for something.
    It does mean you create a class of MPs without any constituents to be accountable to, and who party elites can make sure get in regardless, however.

    Multi-member constituencies is a better option, in my view. You need to maintain only a limited number of seats for each constituency to stop too many safe seats though. I think three per constituency would be optimum.
    That is not the way it works in Scotland Socrates, possibly because the list members are still allocated to regions. I am told by some list MSPs that I come across that they are quite busy on behalf of their constituents. Apparently some people prefer to go to a list MSP of "their" party rather than their constituency MSP who isn't.
    If you have multi-member constituencies, you'd still have this issue. Even on a regional basis, people at the top of the list are going to be very, very hard to displace. The critical test for an electoral system to me is how difficult it is to "kick the bums out".
    One of the oddities of the Scottish system is that if you are a list MSP you can be penalised by a surge in favour of your party. When Glasgow finally comes to its senses and elects a series of tory constituency MSPs Ruth Davidson will be out of a job.

    The reverse of course allegedly happened to Labour in 2011. A whole series of time servers and incompetents who were not supposed to be elected were put on the lists and found themselves in Parliament as constituency after constituency fell to the SNP. Of course with SLAB it is not easy to tell the difference.
    David, For sure Davidson will be safe for many many years to come. They will need to rely on consolation prizes to keep their leader in place , very apt.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Cyclefree said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?

    I'm beginning to think that we're receiving the short end of the stick compared to the "fruitcakes and closet racists" jibe directed towards UKIP. I like fruit cake. A lot.

    Well, from my perspective, they don't seem very "green" at all. They never seem to speak at all about plants, trees, birds, bees, the reintroduction of otters, the joys of a good walk, fresh air, repairing stuff, the use of washing lines etc.

    TBH they seem indistinguishable from the SWP.

    Greenery is green in the same sense that Catholicism is catholic, i.e. not.

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    rottenborough said:

    completely off topic, but I was following old links on LabourList and came across this Ed M statement from 2013:

    "We would tax houses worth over £2 million.
    And we would use the money to cut taxes for working people.
    We would put right a mistake made by Gordon Brown and the last Labour government.
    We would use the money raised by a mansion tax to reintroduce a lower 10 pence starting rate of tax, with the size of the band depending on the amount raised.
    This would benefit 25 million basic rate taxpayers."
    (http://labourlist.org/2013/02/a-mansion-tax-to-fund-a-10p-tax-rate-ed-milibands-speech-in-full/)

    Now then, I have a nice, glossy Labour leaflet in my hand which was delivered yesterday. It all about the NHS and says Labour will give us more GPs, nurses etc etc. And all paid for by the Mansion Tax.

    So, what's happened to our promised 10p rate?

    Miliband was lying.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    rcs1000 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    30 LD MPs?
    FPTP is fine if you also have a reasonable level of support which I would suggest has to be above 10% and probably 12%+. The current LD polling is at catastrophically low levels of 7% to 8% (except ICM). The last GE where the LDs/Liberal/SDP got under 10% of the vote was 1970's 7.5%. They also only stood in 322 seats. If Liberals in the missing seats could reasonably be expected to average 4%, then that 7.5% equates to about a 9.5% overall vote. From the 1970 election the Liberals had just 6 seats. Now to get to 20 requires an even larger disproportionate vote allocation than in 1970. Getting to a "30 seat" level on under 10% of the votes requires a miracle.

    I broadly agree with that: below 11 or 12%, seat numbers begin to fall off very quickly for the Libs, and I doubt they'd have more than half a dozen seats at a 6 or 7% share.

    That being said, I suspect the Libs will creep up into the double digits (just), and will probably manage 18-22 seats (likely including Cambridge, although quite likely not Southwalk).
    Appreciate the agreement and note that you think 18-22 is only possible with the LDs getting into low double digits (just).
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    If the Lib Dems poll 10% in 2015 then on a proportional representation basis they would have more MPs than they won in 2010 and more than they are likely to win in 2015 on a FPTP system.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    peter_from_putney said:

    The latest GE Seats update from http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ has the Tories leading by the narowest margin:

    Conservatives ......... 282
    Labour ................... 281
    SNP .........................34
    Liberal Democrats .... 28
    UKIP ..........................3
    Others (incl N.I.) ....... 22

    Total ...................... 650

    Majority = 326



    Labour + Lib Dem + SNP = 343
    Labour + SNP = 315
    Con + Lib Dem = 310
    Labour + Lib Dem = 309
    Con + UKIP + DUP = 293

    Sinn Fein abstentions, De facto majority 323
    Lib Dem abstentions set the bar to 310
    SNP abstentions set the bar to 306
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited January 2015
    Lovely tale for our military and horse buffs dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921124/The-real-life-War-Horse-Incredible-story-stallion-nicknamed-Sikh-WALKED-Britain-Russia-spending-years-delivering-supplies-troops.html#ixzz3PY6XO0xg

    The real-life War Horse: Incredible story of stallion nicknamed ‘The Sikh’ who WALKED back to Britain from Russia after spending years delivering supplies to troops
  • JohnWheatleyJohnWheatley Posts: 142
    "It’s winning seats that matters not building national vote totals" OGH

    Only true in the very short term.. What happens when each incumbent stands down. Those seats were obtained because the LD's had 20% of the vote to build on

    As many old LD's seem to be going to the Greens they are clearly not people voting with any eye on legislation. They want a warm glow. The Lib Dems have lost the warm glow that was part of their appeal.

    The Tories have recreated their old liberal wing that left during Thatcher's time.

    The best thing for the LD's would be a spell in opposition - regardless of the outcome of the election - to rebuild their popular base. It depends whether they are thinking long term or not
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Anorak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    In the utopia of the eurozone, calls for unlimited quantitative easing:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210

    I wonder what the Germans will think of printing money.

    Wouldn't be the first time. Sales of wheelbarrows will rocket.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
    Is there any company manufacturing BOTH helicopters AND wheelbarrows? They should clean up.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    JohnWheatley said:

    "It’s winning seats that matters not building national vote totals" OGH

    Only true in the very short term.. What happens when each incumbent stands down. Those seats were obtained because the LD's had 20% of the vote to build on

    As many old LD's seem to be going to the Greens they are clearly not people voting with any eye on legislation. They want a warm glow. The Lib Dems have lost the warm glow that was part of their appeal.

    The Tories have recreated their old liberal wing that left during Thatcher's time.

    The best thing for the LD's would be a spell in opposition - regardless of the outcome of the election - to rebuild their popular base. It depends whether they are thinking long term or not

    They are trying to defend and hold what they have. The problem is that they should have replaced Clegg and re-launched the party under a new fresh Leader. Their MP losses will be much higher because they have Clegg making a bad position far far worse.
This discussion has been closed.