Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.
Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.
One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.
Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.
Quite .... but I was wary of @JohnO accusing me of JohnMajorphobia.
I was more worried about Currying your Edwinaphilia.
If the Conservatives lose, it's because they won't have won enough votes. That will be their fault; not the fault of UKIP, the SNP, or the boundaries.
The Conservatives could have backed AV in 2011. They didn't, so they'll have to suck it up.
Fighting FPTP elections on biased boundaries is absurd. It was absurd of the absurd tory right wing to block HoL reform and thus give away boundary reform. The HoL BTW should be abolished.
The unresolved question is where all this leaves the LDs. If the tories hoover up their seats it might be some compensation, but Labour will probably pick up a chunk by default as well.
Boundaries are a red herring: the supposed bias is largely explained by differential turnout: piling up huge majorities in safe seats.
Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.
In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.
Watch this space.
I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.
I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
That's why it is so hard to call.
I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.
...
UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.
If the Conservatives lose, it's because they won't have won enough votes. That will be their fault; not the fault of UKIP, the SNP, or the boundaries.
The Conservatives could have backed AV in 2011. They didn't, so they'll have to suck it up.
Fighting FPTP elections on biased boundaries is absurd. It was absurd of the absurd tory right wing to block HoL reform and thus give away boundary reform. The HoL BTW should be abolished.
The unresolved question is where all this leaves the LDs. If the tories hoover up their seats it might be some compensation, but Labour will probably pick up a chunk by default as well.
The boundaries aren't biased against the Conservatives. But, turnout is lower in safe Labour seats than in safe Conservative seats. The Conservatives do very well out of the present boundaries. They won 47% of seats on 36% of votes in 2010. They could win a majority on 38% of the vote.
Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.
Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.
One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.
Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.
Quite .... but I was wary of @JohnO accusing me of JohnMajorphobia.
I was more worried about Currying your Edwinaphilia.
Lots of comment about oppositions losing share in the run up to the election - question is when ? Steady decline - last 200 days , 100 ? 50 ? 10 days ?
Kate Analoue (former Upper Edmonton Cllr) Ayfer Orhan (Cllr for Ponders End ward, stood in Cambridgeshire NW in 2005 and Hemel Hempstead in 2010) Kate Osamor (NEC member)
@iainmartin1: My appeal for examples of people attacking Boots when moved to Switzerland in 2008 has yielded @oakeshottm - any advance on Lord Oakeshott?
Lots of comment about oppositions losing share in the run up to the election - question is when ? Steady decline - last 200 days , 100 ? 50 ? 10 days ?
I've got some interesting stats about this. Not about opposition, but about Labour. More anon.
By the way, the country's still locked in winter and not thinking about the election. I'm still meeting people who haven't any idea there's a GE this May, and others who really can't be bothered to think about it right now. 'Tis cold and it doesn't feel like spring.
By the way, the country's still locked in winter and not thinking about the election. I'm still meeting people who haven't any idea there's a GE this May, and others who really can't be bothered to think about it right now. 'Tis cold and it doesn't feel like spring.
It's not the cold - this has been true since the beginning of January, when it was a lot milder.
TSE and I discussed this before. You can see that YouGov do not meet their daily polling quota of 2,000 respondents. Recent daily polls have had ~1,600 respondents. Similarly, other polls have had to be in the field for longer to reach their quota. The January ICM fieldwork covered four days, compared to three in November. Yesterday's Populus looks like it had to be extended into early Monday to gather enough responses.
As to who that will benefit when people do start to pay more attention, well there's a huge risk of projecting your own biases onto that. We saw that on here in the run-up to the 2010 GE on here, when posts anticipating the "Brown epiphany" were two-a-penny. It didn't happen.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Of course, the Tory track record on constitutional reform is exactly the same. They oppose ending FPTP because it means never having a Tory majority government again and they opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution because they knew they would probably never govern in either country. They advocated equalising and cutting the number of constituencies, and changing the way voters register, because they knew it favoured them. Like Labour, they will present it differently - as, no doubt, you will - but it's all about narrow interest.
A party genuinely interested in genuine reform would be advocating a full-scale, all-party constitutional convention with no pre-conditions and everything on the table. But, funnily enough, none of them are.
Mr. Observer, people get what they vote for. They do not vote for parties, they vote for individuals. Every MP gets more votes then their constituency rivals.
Looking at vote share nationally doesn't matter. It's 650 individual contests, as a simple matter of procedural fact.
Mr. Charles, well, quite.
The BBC's cretinous Mark Easton had a few disgraceful pieces about devolution. He visited Cornwall, where he learnt that Cornish nationalists were Cornish nationalists. He offered a group of pubgoers various options: A Cornish assembly (not viable financially) Being effectively governed by Plymouth A south-western assembly
No breath or word of an English Parliament was uttered. The BBC and the political class (more the left than the right, but the Conservatives are not going far enough in this regard) are trying to block the most obvious, just and desired response to a Scottish Parliament.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Of course, the Tory track record on constitutional reform is exactly the same. They oppose ending FPTP because e.
We had a referendum and the voters said "keep FPTP" ?
If nothing else this is shaping up to be a very interesting election.
A weak government of whatever stripe is the last thing we need right now though and it really is hard to see us getting anything else.
I think the country would have been better governed if the executive had been weaker in the years 1997-2010.
What I would like to see is individual MPs freeing themselves of the shackles of the whips, so that Parliament could properly debate the way forward for the country, and its collective will would choose a course out of this mess.
PMQs shows us that this is unlikely, but living without optimism is not a happy prospect.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Of course, the Tory track record on constitutional reform is exactly the same. They oppose ending FPTP because e.
We had a referendum and the voters said "keep FPTP" ?
How unfair of that nasty Mr Cameron.
That's what the Tories campaigned for and if the net result is that it hobbles them at elections, well, tough.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
I think that you will find that the Tory track record is the same or even worse.
Mr. Observer, people get what they vote for. They do not vote for parties, they vote for individuals. Every MP gets more votes then their constituency rivals.
Looking at vote share nationally doesn't matter. It's 650 individual contests, as a simple matter of procedural fact.
Mr. Charles, well, quite.
The BBC's cretinous Mark Easton had a few disgraceful pieces about devolution. He visited Cornwall, where he learnt that Cornish nationalists were Cornish nationalists. He offered a group of pubgoers various options: A Cornish assembly (not viable financially) Being effectively governed by Plymouth A south-western assembly
No breath or word of an English Parliament was uttered. The BBC and the political class (more the left than the right, but the Conservatives are not going far enough in this regard) are trying to block the most obvious, just and desired response to a Scottish Parliament.
The Tories want what is best for the Tories, Labour wants what is best for Labour. And so the world turns. You say you believe the English people should have their own parliament, but you do not believe that power in the parliament should be distributed according to the votes that English people cast. That makes no sense to me.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.
We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.
215 Labour MPs 208 Con MPs 85 UKIP MPs 52 Lib Dem MPs 52 Green MPs 38 Other MPs
For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.
FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.
So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.
FPTP is fine when you have two strong parties which always win 40%+ of the vote.
Now, it's in danger of delivering capricious results, as it does in Canada.
Harper won a federal majority in 2011 off the back of a national vote for the Conservatives of ~40%.
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Of course, the Tory track record on constitutional reform is exactly the same. They oppose ending FPTP because e.
We had a referendum and the voters said "keep FPTP" ?
How unfair of that nasty Mr Cameron.
We had a referendum about picking two crappy voting systems. The voters stuck with what they knew. The Tories support FPTP because it gives them the best chance of forming a government.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
I think that you will find that the Tory track record is the same or even worse.
The difference between me and Charles is that he believes that Labour is self-interested and the Tories are driven by a desire for what is best for the country, while I believe all parties are driven by self-interest. Funnily enough, what the Tories advocate constitutionally is what works best for the Tories and gives them the best chance of winning elections. Charles will see this as being entirely coincidental. I am less sure.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Mike, I have alot of time for Clegg but he did say
In answer to
Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.
You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:
Con 290 Lab 270 SNP 40 Lib Dem 25
There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.
Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
I'm not sure about that. A Con+Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats. It'd be able to outvote any Labour+SNP arrangement.
If some sort of arrangement was reached with the DUP that'd take it to 322/323 seats, which would scrape an effective overall majority, and the government would be stable enough. At least for a couple of years until it started to internally fragment.
Would the Tories want to govern as what is in effect a minority coalition government? Would the LibDems with fewer ministers, they might be better off rebuilding outside the government.
If the Conservatives won most seats and most votes, they'd absolutely want to stay in office and would feel they had a mandate to do so.
The Lib Dems are more complex but I certainly don't rule out a 2nd coalition if both parties really need each other. Politicians do deals. However, it's a question of whether the Conservatives can offer them something they want badly enough to convince them to do it.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Mike, I have alot of time for Clegg but he did say
In answer to
Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
If your point is that Nick Clegg lies then, taking the poll of polls at the top of this thread, 92% of people already know that.
Mr. Smithson, due to Labour's cack-handed mishandling of Lords reform it *is* unsustainable. But Clegg's proposals were utterly demented. One-off 15 years terms was a deranged suggestion.
Mr. Observer, I'd be willing to back other systems, provided they were at least reasonable, if it secured an English Parliament. I'd prefer FPTP, but the critical thing is getting equality for England in terms of establishing a Parliament.
Your point on what 'the English people want' is false. People vote for individuals, not party. Every individual with most votes get elected. [Party affiliation may be a cause of voting for someone, or not, that's a motivational matter and doesn't affect the way the system works].
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
Mr. Observer, people get what they vote for. They do not vote for parties, they vote for individuals. Every MP gets more votes then their constituency rivals.
Looking at vote share nationally doesn't matter. It's 650 individual contests, as a simple matter of procedural fact.
Mr. Charles, well, quite.
The BBC's cretinous Mark Easton had a few disgraceful pieces about devolution. He visited Cornwall, where he learnt that Cornish nationalists were Cornish nationalists. He offered a group of pubgoers various options: A Cornish assembly (not viable financially) Being effectively governed by Plymouth A south-western assembly
No breath or word of an English Parliament was uttered. The BBC and the political class (more the left than the right, but the Conservatives are not going far enough in this regard) are trying to block the most obvious, just and desired response to a Scottish Parliament.
The Tories want what is best for the Tories, Labour wants what is best for Labour. And so the world turns. You say you believe the English people should have their own parliament, but you do not believe that power in the parliament should be distributed according to the votes that English people cast. That makes no sense to me.
Must be why Tories campaigned for No to the freedom of Scotland.
Mr. Smithson, due to Labour's cack-handed mishandling of Lords reform it *is* unsustainable. But Clegg's proposals were utterly demented. One-off 15 years terms was a deranged suggestion.
Mr. Observer, I'd be willing to back other systems, provided they were at least reasonable, if it secured an English Parliament. I'd prefer FPTP, but the critical thing is getting equality for England in terms of establishing a Parliament.
Your point on what 'the English people want' is false. People vote for individuals, not party. Every individual with most votes get elected. [Party affiliation may be a cause of voting for someone, or not, that's a motivational matter and doesn't affect the way the system works].
People vote for individuals under our current FPTP system. An English parliament is a chance to rethink that. It's one of the reasons why I support one.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Mike, I have alot of time for Clegg but he did say
In answer to
Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
If your point is that Nick Clegg lies then, taking the poll of polls at the top of this thread, 92% of people already know that.
That's not what the poll at the top shows at all >.>...
Mr. Observer, mildly depressing that a prime motivation for an English Parliament, for you, is a chance to alter the electoral system rather than the essential justice of equality for England.
Still, better than not wanting one at all.
Mr. Anorak, it was a great shame we didn't get an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming.
Mr. Smithson, due to Labour's cack-handed mishandling of Lords reform it *is* unsustainable. But Clegg's proposals were utterly demented. One-off 15 years terms was a deranged suggestion.
Mr. Observer, I'd be willing to back other systems, provided they were at least reasonable, if it secured an English Parliament. I'd prefer FPTP, but the critical thing is getting equality for England in terms of establishing a Parliament.
Your point on what 'the English people want' is false. People vote for individuals, not party. Every individual with most votes get elected. [Party affiliation may be a cause of voting for someone, or not, that's a motivational matter and doesn't affect the way the system works].
I know I'm in a minority, but I can see some advantage of long single terms for a second chamber. You have time to gain experience, you have no reason to fear the whips and can be as independent minded as you like, the disadvantage is you can upset you local electorate, and unless there is a genuine power of recall you could ignore local needs.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Of course, the Tory track record on constitutional reform is exactly the same. They oppose ending FPTP because e.
We had a referendum and the voters said "keep FPTP" ?
How unfair of that nasty Mr Cameron.
We had a referendum about picking two crappy voting systems. The voters stuck with what they knew. The Tories support FPTP because it gives them the best chance of forming a government.
Because they thought at the time FPTP would give them the best chance of forming a government. Then UKIP started taking more votes away from them and are still taking more from the Tories than Labour.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
I know that Clegg lied through his teeth, I know why he did it. It just seems strange that Mike seems to relish the fact he did,as some sort of good thing, that surprised me.
Amazing that Labour have got into a row with a foreign national domiciled in a tax haven at a time they are struggling with the WWC vote and being outflanked on the left. What idiots
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Mike, I have alot of time for Clegg but he did say
In answer to
Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
If your point is that Nick Clegg lies then, taking the poll of polls at the top of this thread, 92% of people already know that.
That's not what the poll at the top shows at all >.>...
Well, no, I guess you can assume half the LDs know it too, but will vote for him anyway. 96%
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
Could of course be party self interest as FPTP is the only thing keeping the LDs in the game atm.
Mr. Observer, mildly depressing that a prime motivation for an English Parliament, for you, is a chance to alter the electoral system rather than the essential justice of equality for England.
Still, better than not wanting one at all.
Mr. Anorak, it was a great shame we didn't get an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming.
I do not see any justice in a party with 35% of the vote getting to impose its manifesto on a country that did not vote for it. I think it is extraordinary that you are so exercised by an English parliament while believing that its make-up should not reflect the wishes that English voters express through the ballot box.
Mr. H, we'd be lumbered with oafs for a decade and a half, the talented would be unable to remain in the second chamber. It's as daft as a shaved moose.
Mr. Alistair, not sure "Italians aren't paying tax in Britain - the bastards" is necessarily a killer line.
There was snow on the rooftops, Snow on the tiles Melting snow and snow in piles, Lots of children wreathed in smiles.............
Yep it's cold today, and except for a nip to the local grocer, I'm staying close to home. It must be horrible trying to canvas today, good luck to all the young ones, and the not so young, whoever and wherever they are.
Mr. Observer, elections allow the will of the people to determine who governs them. PR enables the people to decide who the politicians are who will then determine who the government will be.
But, as I said, I'm not absolutely wedded to it. If a compromise was the cost of getting England the Parliament we need, I'd support compromise.
As for my extraordinariness (thank you ), it's simply learning the lessons of history, both modern and ancient. It's not rocket science that having income tax decided by MSPs in Scotland, but also voted on for the English by Scottish MPs is blatantly unfair.
F1: McLaren running better today, putting some laps in.
Mr. Observer, mildly depressing that a prime motivation for an English Parliament, for you, is a chance to alter the electoral system rather than the essential justice of equality for England.
Still, better than not wanting one at all.
Mr. Anorak, it was a great shame we didn't get an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming.
I do not see any justice in a party with 35% of the vote getting to impose its manifesto on a country that did not vote for it. I think it is extraordinary that you are so exercised by an English parliament while believing that its make-up should not reflect the wishes that English voters express through the ballot box.
I support a movement towards a sensible form of PR (as long as it's not party centric), but it is a different question to governance for England.
As for my extraordinariness (thank you ), it's simply learning the lessons of history, both modern and ancient. It's not rocket science that having income tax decided by MSPs in Scotland, but also voted on for the English by Scottish MPs is blatantly unfair.
The proposed Scottish powers over income tax are rank rotten. For a start, can't set the personal allowance.
Mr. Alistair, agreed. It's a fudge practically designed to piss off people either side of the border. If Scots can vary the rate of tax they should be able to alter the personal allowance. It's stupid not to.
Mr. Observer, mildly depressing that a prime motivation for an English Parliament, for you, is a chance to alter the electoral system rather than the essential justice of equality for England.
Still, better than not wanting one at all.
Mr. Anorak, it was a great shame we didn't get an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming.
I do not see any justice in a party with 35% of the vote getting to impose its manifesto on a country that did not vote for it. I think it is extraordinary that you are so exercised by an English parliament while believing that its make-up should not reflect the wishes that English voters express through the ballot box.
I support a movement towards a sensible form of PR (as long as it's not party centric), but it is a different question to governance for England.
Harper won a federal majority in 2011 off the back of a national vote for the Conservatives of ~40%.
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
Right-wing parties have done badly all over the EU, as their leaders have given up on centre-right positions to sell out to a European superstate, political correctness and mass immigration. They've been foolish enough to equate such things with "inevitable modernity", when there's nothing inevitable about any of them. They are policy choices that the mainstream right has acquiesced to.
UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall reselected as candidate for Bootle:
twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/562528847464501248
You'd think UKIP would put their high profile individuals in winnable seats, even if it does mean they have no local roots. I get the impression that UKIP MEP's have an easy life in Brussels and don't actually want to become MPs.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
With AV gone, and HoL reform gone, the move from 650 to 600 constituencies would have decimated the LibDems (and it would have been pretty shit for UKIP and the Greens too).
I don't think Clegg could have delivered on 600 constituencies, even if he had desired with all his heart. (Just as I don't think Cameron could have delivered on Lords reform.)
UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall reselected as candidate for Bootle:
twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/562528847464501248
You'd think UKIP would put their high profile individuals in winnable seats, even if it does mean they have no local roots. I get the impression that UKIP MEP's have an easy life in Brussels and don't actually want to become MPs.
Ioan Smith @moved_average 48m48 minutes ago #Greece | THREE GREEK BANKS HAVE STARTED USING GREEK CENTRAL BANK'S EMERGENCY FUNDING (ELA) WINDOW, TAPPED ABOUT 2 BLN EUROS SO FAR- SOURCES
Harper won a federal majority in 2011 off the back of a national vote for the Conservatives of ~40%.
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
Right-wing parties have done badly all over the EU, as their leaders have given up on centre-right positions to sell out to a European superstate, political correctness and mass immigration. They've been foolish enough to equate such things with "inevitable modernity", when there's nothing inevitable about any of them. They are policy choices that the mainstream right has acquiesced to.
Ummm: aren't more than half of EU governments "right wing" in the accepted sense?
For example, Germany, Belgium, Spain, etc
And you could argue that in Italy and other places, there are left wing government implementing right wing policies (labour market reform and balanced budgets)
I'm assuming by "right wing" we mean pro-capital, free-market, sound budget, reduced labour market regulation, and by "left wing" you mean the opposite.
Ioan Smith @moved_average 48m48 minutes ago #Greece | THREE GREEK BANKS HAVE STARTED USING GREEK CENTRAL BANK'S EMERGENCY FUNDING (ELA) WINDOW, TAPPED ABOUT 2 BLN EUROS SO FAR- SOURCES
Greek banks have been using ELA funding since mid December
I see the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that UK whole life orders are compatible with the charter.
Court says whole life tarriffs have to be reviewed from time to time.
So whoever is at Home Secretary "reviews" the case.
Court says "OK" it's a review.
The only party I can imagine possibly letting the likes of this chap out with a Home Sec position are the Greens. Certainly it isn't something Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or UKIP would entertain, and I doubt the Nats would either.
Amazing that Labour have got into a row with a foreign national domiciled in a tax haven at a time they are struggling with the WWC vote and being outflanked on the left. What idiots
But it is good soundbite ! The bleeding boss who dodges taxes lecturing us. Good politics.
We've become so used to the catastrophic collapse in Labour's position in Scotland that we no longer bother to express surprise at polls like the latest YouGov. This is wrong: we should remain astonished at the sheer scale of the shift and its consistency. Since November 1st, there have 10 Scottish Westminster polls, 9 of which have shown SNP leads of at least 17 points. John Curtice's current poll of polls has an SNP lead of 20 points, to be compared with a GE2010 Labour lead of 22 points. On UNS, that would translate to a staggering 52 SNP Westminster MPs.
Now, maybe we should ignore the polling, or at least mentally adjust it back a bit. Maybe we should make allowance for incumbency, especially for well-established LibDem MPs. But even making all those allowances, the betting markets still don't seem to believe the height and reach of the SNP tsunami:
SPIN: 32-34 seats Spreadex: 31-24 seats Ladbrokes Over/Under: 32.5 seats Ladbrokes constituencies: SNP favourite in 30 seats
I see the Conservatives are trying to make it probable that future governments can control borrowing and spending but not taxation. That will no doubt end well, as many bankrupt US states can attest. Might as well book an appointment with the IMF right now so we can prepared for the inevitable.
And that's without going into the myriad fundamental constitutional problems with the proposal.
Still, it's pretty nice to see the Conservatives shameless opportunism, lust for power, ideological belief in entrenched mass privatisation and shameless support for lower taxation for the wealthiest turn into one single ridiculous policy.
Lots of talk right now on whether Labour will lose Scotland. Not much thinking yet on what will happen if it does. With Labour no longer having 40 Scottish MPs the power dynamic in the Party would change quite considerably. It would be much more English. There may be a desire to win the seats back but why any more desire to win them than the top 40 targets in England? Indeed you could argue it makes more sense to focus on Toy seats since they are the main opposition to governing at UK level.
The ridiculous vow promised Scotland more powers AND a maintenance of the Barnett formula. Delivering on this will not be popular in England or even Wales. If neither of the big two are very well represented in Scotland it will increasingly feel like the colony the Nationalists already seem to think it is and they won't have much incentive to offer the Scots generosity with the North Sea Oil industry in long term decline.
I thought the LibDems were in favour of STV in multi-member constituencies which is pretty much PR. Also that UKIP and The Greens were in favour of some sort of PR.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
I think that you will find that the Tory track record is the same or even worse.
Not at all.
The fundamental Conservative position is that it is up to the proponents to make their case for change. If they do not do so successfully then the status quo should prevail. If, however, they do make the case in principle, then it is critical to implement it in the optimal way.
Of SO's examoles: equalising constituency sizes is a "principle" issue. And I think that - with a reasonably flexibility to allow for practicality - it's difficult to argue why they should be different sizes. Number of constituencies, however, is not an issue of principle - I'm sure that the Tories were looking for an advantage, but it doesn't make a difference to the system whether there are 650 or 600 seats.
FPTP vs AV - there are arguments for and against. But it was put to a vote and the proponents of change lost heavily.
My issue is with Labour's introduction of multiple different electoral systems and different levels to try and maintain Scotland as a fiefdom. Plus their reaction to some of the suggestions of EVEL was to dismiss it. The relationship between England and Scotland needs to be perceived as fair to both parties if it is going to be sustained. Labour opposes that because it's not in their interests. Similarly they ruined the old HoL (which was philosophically indefensible but practically functional) without a plan of what to put in its place. So now we have ended up with a worse situation and no route forward - they did this because they felt that they couldn't get a majority in the old House.
By the way, the country's still locked in winter and not thinking about the election. I'm still meeting people who haven't any idea there's a GE this May, and others who really can't be bothered to think about it right now. 'Tis cold and it doesn't feel like spring.
It's not the cold - this has been true since the beginning of January, when it was a lot milder.
TSE and I discussed this before. You can see that YouGov do not meet their daily polling quota of 2,000 respondents. Recent daily polls have had ~1,600 respondents. Similarly, other polls have had to be in the field for longer to reach their quota. The January ICM fieldwork covered four days, compared to three in November. Yesterday's Populus looks like it had to be extended into early Monday to gather enough responses.
As to who that will benefit when people do start to pay more attention, well there's a huge risk of projecting your own biases onto that. We saw that on here in the run-up to the 2010 GE on here, when posts anticipating the "Brown epiphany" were two-a-penny. It didn't happen.
It's so true. Very, very, good post. It would make a welcome thread actually.
It's only that I don't think the cold weather helps. It causes even more of a lock-down mentality. 'May? I can't even think about March.' That kind of thing. I don't actually have a single friend talking about the election.
Good point about assuming it will help one's own bias. I've got some stats re. Labour that gobsmacked me so I'm pretty sure of only one thing from here: Labour won't win. That aside, you'd tend to think undecideds or uninteresteds will kick back to their traditional parties, and in that case the 2010 weighting was Cons 36.1, Lab 29, LD 23. The latter is the only cause for hope left for the LibDems: that somehow people will return.
Still, it's pretty nice to see the Conservatives shameless opportunism, lust for power, ideological belief in entrenched mass privatisation and shameless support for lower taxation for the wealthiest turn into one single ridiculous policy.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
Could of course be party self interest as FPTP is the only thing keeping the LDs in the game atm.
Is it. The LibDems won 57 MPs in 2010. Under PR they would have won many more, but say they get 10% in May, under PR that's 65 is it not?
Still, it's pretty nice to see the Conservatives shameless opportunism, lust for power, ideological belief in entrenched mass privatisation and shameless support for lower taxation for the wealthiest turn into one single ridiculous policy.
You're funny. Student?
Not at all. I used to be right-wing when I was younger until I grew up and stopped believing in naive fairytales.
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
This is correct, Clegg had to do this in order for the Liberal Democrats to survive. If the boundaries had been changed, they'd lose alot more seats than those they inevitably will in 2015.
That the membership of the upper house is based on patronage shames us all. But that's what the Tories wanted and there was a price to pay which was blindingly obvious at the time. Tories have no self-awareness,
Perhaps the Tories didn't expect the LD's to blatantly life to their faces and Welch on a deal? It's interesting you see this as lack of self awareness on the part of the Tories rather than duplicity from the LD's, it's almost as if you are saying they should have expected to be lied to.
It was the real politik of party management. Clegg felt he had no choice but to welch, or risk losing his leadership and the whole coalition.
Could of course be party self interest as FPTP is the only thing keeping the LDs in the game atm.
Is it. The LibDems won 57 MPs in 2010. Under PR they would have won many more, but say they get 10% in May, under PR that's 65 is it not?
It's not in the interest of their current, sitting MPs (either the half that will survive 2015, or the half that expect to be back in parliament in 2020). That's always the problem with a change like that, getting the Turkeys to vote for Christmas.
The old system worked pretty well because you had experts and a mass of (professionally) politically disinterested individuals. They accepted their limits - as a revising house - and didn't, as a rule, play silly political games for partisan advantage. That meant that their amendments were well regarded and when they disagreed on principle - such as with the War Crimes Bill - the Commons sat up and took notice
Now you have a mass of superannuated party hacks, who can't be removed by the electorate, manoeuvring for partisan advantage and trying to embarrass the government rather than doing their fundamental job as a revising house.
Still, it's pretty nice to see the Conservatives shameless opportunism, lust for power, ideological belief in entrenched mass privatisation and shameless support for lower taxation for the wealthiest turn into one single ridiculous policy.
You're funny. Student?
Not at all. I used to be right-wing when I was younger but then I grew up.
Interesting, and the polar opposite to most people. Was there a moment of epiphany, or was it more a gradual, creeping realignment?
Combined with his plans to make housebuilding less economic, it's perfect storm for the young.
I really feel sorry for the poor mugs who will pay the price if we get a Miliband government. Ironically, those who will suffer most will be Labour-voting demographics.
Now you have a mass of superannuated party hacks, who can't be removed by the electorate, manoeuvring for partisan advantage and trying to embarrass the government rather than doing their fundamental job as a revising house.
If only they had a few more scions of proper families in there to tut at them to show them how they are meant to behave things would be much better.
Harper won a federal majority in 2011 off the back of a national vote for the Conservatives of ~40%.
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
Right-wing parties have done badly all over the EU, as their leaders have given up on centre-right positions to sell out to a European superstate, political correctness and mass immigration. They've been foolish enough to equate such things with "inevitable modernity", when there's nothing inevitable about any of them. They are policy choices that the mainstream right has acquiesced to.
Ummm: aren't more than half of EU governments "right wing" in the accepted sense?
For example, Germany, Belgium, Spain, etc
And you could argue that in Italy and other places, there are left wing government implementing right wing policies (labour market reform and balanced budgets)
I'm assuming by "right wing" we mean pro-capital, free-market, sound budget, reduced labour market regulation, and by "left wing" you mean the opposite.
Harper won a federal majority in 2011 off the back of a national vote for the Conservatives of ~40%.
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
Right-wing parties have done badly all over the EU, as their leaders have given up on centre-right positions to sell out to a European superstate, political correctness and mass immigration. They've been foolish enough to equate such things with "inevitable modernity", when there's nothing inevitable about any of them. They are policy choices that the mainstream right has acquiesced to.
Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
It won't be empty-headed.
It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?
To have a balanced relationship with Scotland and the other parts of the UK to ensure a strong and sustainable union.
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
I think that you will find that the Tory track record is the same or even worse.
The difference between me and Charles is that he believes that Labour is self-interested and the Tories are driven by a desire for what is best for the country, while I believe all parties are driven by self-interest. Funnily enough, what the Tories advocate constitutionally is what works best for the Tories and gives them the best chance of winning elections. Charles will see this as being entirely coincidental. I am less sure.
Not - I see two levels. Fundamental reforms - such as the House of Lords, the Union and the electoral system - should be by consensus / popular ratification. Labour plays games with those, the Tories, as a rule, don't.
Number of constituencies, voter registration, etc are technical matters where all's fair.
On FPTP vs PR systems there are arguments for both. You and the Tories disagree: they see the constituency link as the most important, you want a more proportional system. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system: just that they don't think the case for change has been made. (Personally I'd quite like multi-member STV, but you don't get everything you want in life!)
Mr. Observer, that's a valid point (on Rose's allegiance). On the other hand, I can't recall hearing from him in a party political sense before, and he does make a good point (many FTSE bosses aren't UK-born/resident. Are their opinions irrelevant?).
UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall reselected as candidate for Bootle:
twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/562528847464501248
You'd think UKIP would put their high profile individuals in winnable seats, even if it does mean they have no local roots. I get the impression that UKIP MEP's have an easy life in Brussels and don't actually want to become MPs.
Jollies to Brussels and Strasbourg, whilst grumbling at your Euro partners and trousering non accountable 'allowances', with your wife or girlfriend on the payroll. What's not to like?
Comments
Labour's track record is to look to their own interests in designing constitutional reform - and we have all seen the problems that has caused
Kate Analoue (former Upper Edmonton Cllr)
Ayfer Orhan (Cllr for Ponders End ward, stood in Cambridgeshire NW in 2005 and Hemel Hempstead in 2010)
Kate Osamor (NEC member)
All women, all BAME
They made up the stuff about HoL reform only after they had welched.
And if HoL reform had gone through they would still have welched.
TSE and I discussed this before. You can see that YouGov do not meet their daily polling quota of 2,000 respondents. Recent daily polls have had ~1,600 respondents. Similarly, other polls have had to be in the field for longer to reach their quota. The January ICM fieldwork covered four days, compared to three in November. Yesterday's Populus looks like it had to be extended into early Monday to gather enough responses.
As to who that will benefit when people do start to pay more attention, well there's a huge risk of projecting your own biases onto that. We saw that on here in the run-up to the 2010 GE on here, when posts anticipating the "Brown epiphany" were two-a-penny. It didn't happen.
A party genuinely interested in genuine reform would be advocating a full-scale, all-party constitutional convention with no pre-conditions and everything on the table. But, funnily enough, none of them are.
Looking at vote share nationally doesn't matter. It's 650 individual contests, as a simple matter of procedural fact.
Mr. Charles, well, quite.
The BBC's cretinous Mark Easton had a few disgraceful pieces about devolution. He visited Cornwall, where he learnt that Cornish nationalists were Cornish nationalists. He offered a group of pubgoers various options:
A Cornish assembly (not viable financially)
Being effectively governed by Plymouth
A south-western assembly
No breath or word of an English Parliament was uttered. The BBC and the political class (more the left than the right, but the Conservatives are not going far enough in this regard) are trying to block the most obvious, just and desired response to a Scottish Parliament.
How unfair of that nasty Mr Cameron.
What I would like to see is individual MPs freeing themselves of the shackles of the whips, so that Parliament could properly debate the way forward for the country, and its collective will would choose a course out of this mess.
PMQs shows us that this is unlikely, but living without optimism is not a happy prospect.
twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/562528847464501248
Also, Tony Abbot's centre-right coalition won a majority in Australia in 2013 with ~45% of the vote. John Key in New Zealand won 47% of the vote last year and was one seat off an absolute majority, with a mixed-member system.
Cameron has achieved neither the vote share, nor the majority. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why his party is one of the most poorly performing conservative parties in the anglosphere.
For Cameron and Boy George!
In answer to
Tory Eleanor Laing
“It is now being reported that the Liberal Democrat party … will not continue to support the boundaries legislation unless House of Lords reform is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that the case?”
Clegg responded:
“There is no formal link between the two.”
“Of course, there is no reliance on our support for a Coalition Agreement commitment for progress on unrelated or other significant parallel constitutional formations. I have said that. There is no link; of course, there is no link.”
The Lib Dems are more complex but I certainly don't rule out a 2nd coalition if both parties really need each other. Politicians do deals. However, it's a question of whether the Conservatives can offer them something they want badly enough to convince them to do it.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OSODZEHip6M/TZA6idVSCXI/AAAAAAAAGds/YyeYBmBOVxc/s1600/LibDem+dead+parrot.jpg
Mr. Smithson, due to Labour's cack-handed mishandling of Lords reform it *is* unsustainable. But Clegg's proposals were utterly demented. One-off 15 years terms was a deranged suggestion.
Mr. Observer, I'd be willing to back other systems, provided they were at least reasonable, if it secured an English Parliament. I'd prefer FPTP, but the critical thing is getting equality for England in terms of establishing a Parliament.
Your point on what 'the English people want' is false. People vote for individuals, not party. Every individual with most votes get elected. [Party affiliation may be a cause of voting for someone, or not, that's a motivational matter and doesn't affect the way the system works].
'A Labour one would probably set calls for independence back a fair few years.'
The same Labour party that claimed to have killed nationalism stone dead less than 20 years ago,your having a laugh.
Still, better than not wanting one at all.
Mr. Anorak, it was a great shame we didn't get an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/tree-is-a-government-patsy-says-internet-2015020395007
Mr. Alistair, not sure "Italians aren't paying tax in Britain - the bastards" is necessarily a killer line.
There was snow on the rooftops,
Snow on the tiles
Melting snow and snow in piles,
Lots of children wreathed in smiles.............
Yep it's cold today, and except for a nip to the local grocer, I'm staying close to home.
It must be horrible trying to canvas today, good luck to all the young ones, and the not so young, whoever and wherever they are.
But, as I said, I'm not absolutely wedded to it. If a compromise was the cost of getting England the Parliament we need, I'd support compromise.
As for my extraordinariness (thank you
F1: McLaren running better today, putting some laps in.
You should have offered it to your old man at 3.6 !
They don't like it up 'em.
I don't think Clegg could have delivered on 600 constituencies, even if he had desired with all his heart. (Just as I don't think Cameron could have delivered on Lords reform.)
Richard Fletcher @fletcherr 3h3 hours ago
Today's @TimesBusiness front page: News Corp ‘in clear’ in US over phone hacking http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/media/article4342643.ece …
#Greece | THREE GREEK BANKS HAVE STARTED USING GREEK CENTRAL BANK'S EMERGENCY FUNDING (ELA) WINDOW, TAPPED ABOUT 2 BLN EUROS SO FAR- SOURCES
For example, Germany, Belgium, Spain, etc
And you could argue that in Italy and other places, there are left wing government implementing right wing policies (labour market reform and balanced budgets)
I'm assuming by "right wing" we mean pro-capital, free-market, sound budget, reduced labour market regulation, and by "left wing" you mean the opposite.
So whoever is at Home Secretary "reviews" the case.
Court says "OK" it's a review.
The only party I can imagine possibly letting the likes of this chap out with a Home Sec position are the Greens. Certainly it isn't something Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or UKIP would entertain, and I doubt the Nats would either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmac71R5Br8
Lay into the bastard, I say !
'Why Scotland is tearing the Tories apart
A terrible row is brewing behind David Cameron's proposal of English votes for English laws'
http://tinyurl.com/ptu4wp5
Now, maybe we should ignore the polling, or at least mentally adjust it back a bit. Maybe we should make allowance for incumbency, especially for well-established LibDem MPs. But even making all those allowances, the betting markets still don't seem to believe the height and reach of the SNP tsunami:
SPIN: 32-34 seats
Spreadex: 31-24 seats
Ladbrokes Over/Under: 32.5 seats
Ladbrokes constituencies: SNP favourite in 30 seats
And that's without going into the myriad fundamental constitutional problems with the proposal.
Still, it's pretty nice to see the Conservatives shameless opportunism, lust for power, ideological belief in entrenched mass privatisation and shameless support for lower taxation for the wealthiest turn into one single ridiculous policy.
The ridiculous vow promised Scotland more powers AND a maintenance of the Barnett formula. Delivering on this will not be popular in England or even Wales. If neither of the big two are very well represented in Scotland it will increasingly feel like the colony the Nationalists already seem to think it is and they won't have much incentive to offer the Scots generosity with the North Sea Oil industry in long term decline.
The fundamental Conservative position is that it is up to the proponents to make their case for change. If they do not do so successfully then the status quo should prevail. If, however, they do make the case in principle, then it is critical to implement it in the optimal way.
Of SO's examoles: equalising constituency sizes is a "principle" issue. And I think that - with a reasonably flexibility to allow for practicality - it's difficult to argue why they should be different sizes. Number of constituencies, however, is not an issue of principle - I'm sure that the Tories were looking for an advantage, but it doesn't make a difference to the system whether there are 650 or 600 seats.
FPTP vs AV - there are arguments for and against. But it was put to a vote and the proponents of change lost heavily.
My issue is with Labour's introduction of multiple different electoral systems and different levels to try and maintain Scotland as a fiefdom. Plus their reaction to some of the suggestions of EVEL was to dismiss it. The relationship between England and Scotland needs to be perceived as fair to both parties if it is going to be sustained. Labour opposes that because it's not in their interests. Similarly they ruined the old HoL (which was philosophically indefensible but practically functional) without a plan of what to put in its place. So now we have ended up with a worse situation and no route forward - they did this because they felt that they couldn't get a majority in the old House.
It's only that I don't think the cold weather helps. It causes even more of a lock-down mentality. 'May? I can't even think about March.' That kind of thing. I don't actually have a single friend talking about the election.
Good point about assuming it will help one's own bias. I've got some stats re. Labour that gobsmacked me so I'm pretty sure of only one thing from here: Labour won't win. That aside, you'd tend to think undecideds or uninteresteds will kick back to their traditional parties, and in that case the 2010 weighting was Cons 36.1, Lab 29, LD 23. The latter is the only cause for hope left for the LibDems: that somehow people will return.
Now you have a mass of superannuated party hacks, who can't be removed by the electorate, manoeuvring for partisan advantage and trying to embarrass the government rather than doing their fundamental job as a revising house.
I think that's worse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/labour-help-9m-renters-save-600-pounds-ed-miliband?CMP=share_btn_tw
Combined with his plans to make housebuilding less economic, it's perfect storm for the young.
I really feel sorry for the poor mugs who will pay the price if we get a Miliband government. Ironically, those who will suffer most will be Labour-voting demographics.
William Hill @sharpeangle
William Hill client from Hampstead has staked £5000 on Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister at odds of 4/5.
Doubt it was Dan Hodges.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 11m11 minutes ago
Come play Hello Kitty World with me!
#hellokittyworld
Kittt pic.twitter.com/GeoN0bqdFa
Number of constituencies, voter registration, etc are technical matters where all's fair.
On FPTP vs PR systems there are arguments for both. You and the Tories disagree: they see the constituency link as the most important, you want a more proportional system. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system: just that they don't think the case for change has been made. (Personally I'd quite like multi-member STV, but you don't get everything you want in life!)