Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
For the Conservatives in office, yes. For a Conservative government able to do blue-blooded things such as cut IHT and raise 40p threshold, profit making free schools etc. and an EU referendum guaranteed they need 315+ seats.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Of course Dave will go with the DUP rather than the LDs if he can - but it has to be sustainable.
If it's 324-321 (excluding Sinn Fein) then that's not a sustainable way of governing the country - every vote would be on a knife edge - and what if he loses one, let alone two by-elections?
To go just with the DUP (ie not attempt any deal with the LDs) I reckon he would want a majority of 9 (with DUP voting with Con) - ie 327-318 (exc SF) - ie 318 Con MPs including Speaker, 317 excluding Speaker.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Assuming 10 seats 'lost' then 310 might work for Tories (LD coalition or tacit support?) Its probably the tories who have the key issue to put to the commons which is EU referendum. If that were voted down then most other parties would suffer in the subsequent general election. Could tories get their cuts and budgets through? Possibly if linked to tax cuts.
Is there really any chance the LDs can support Cameron this time? Cameron has stated categorically he will only be PM if we have an EU In/Out Referendum. Clegg (and any other LD leader is likely to be even more anti) says he won't play footsie with EU membership - which must translate to a line in the sand of no referendum ??
If Clegg is still leader and the number stack up the LD will support a second coalition with the Tories. First, though, he's got to hold Hallam.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
If you lived here then you would realise it does. Labour offered their ill thought out rent freeze just before then. The local Tories all thought they would scrape through and hold on but they got smashed to pieces.
I did live there until a couple of years ago. Greg Hands was my local MP.
Traditionally it is a Labour held borough too, Cons only holding office for three terms, since 1964. And how can we forget the ill fated multi-million pound swaps losses under a previous Left administration. That was pure genius.
Given demographic changes and gentrification H&F should have been an easy hold for the Tories, but Labour have recognised that a generation of renters is unhappy in centralish London. The Tories haven't and that is why they are not doing well with private renters in London.
Gentrification is part of the problem too, families in W12 and elsewhere being squished out by City boys and their cash.
So the Tories getting smashed in London, in areas they should be winning, is clearly not happening. I mean they retained Hammersmith and Fulham last year, oh you're saying they didn't...
That loss had very little to do with 'rents'.
If you lived here then you would realise it does. Labour offered their ill thought out rent freeze just before then. The local Tories all thought they would scrape through and hold on but they got smashed to pieces.
I did live there until a couple of years ago. Greg Hands was my local MP.
Traditionally it is a Labour held borough too, Cons only holding office for three terms, since 1964. And how can we forget the ill fated multi-million pound swaps losses under a previous Left administration. That was pure genius.
Given demographic changes and gentrification H&F should have been an easy hold for the Tories, but Labour have recognised that a generation of renters is unhappy in centralish London. The Tories haven't and that is why they are not doing well with private renters in London.
Gentrification is part of the problem too, families in W12 and elsewhere being squished out by City boys and their cash.
Who should be voting Tory, but don't. It's not usually City boys either, tech workers tend to be around where I am.
Lib Dem oblivion keeping Labour in the game right now.
It is also boosting the Tories. At the moment according to this poll an incredible 17 percentage points have gone walk about. The surprise is that the 2 large parties that seek to straddle the centre are not both somewhat higher than they are at the moment.
Eighteen Tory leads in the polls this month - twice as many as in any recent previous month...
Rod, what's fascinating is that Tories recently seem to have broken out of the 30-32% range that had seemed set around their ankles like mafia concrete. They are now polling close to 2010 levels - which is astonishing when UKIP are still around 13-15%.
Surprised Con are at 1.52 (Betfair Most seats), ie longer than they were pre the publication of the Sunday Times YouGov.
If we average all 4 polls (ie YouGov, ComRes, Populus, Ashcroft) we get a Con lead of 0.5%.
However I do think there is at least tentative justification for paying less attention to the YouGov - because we know as a fact that it massively oversampled people who watched the C4 debate.
Sure, the YouGov can't be dismissed. But if we downweight it at all it means the four polls, taken together, do look good for Con.
Eighteen Tory leads in the polls this month - twice as many as in any recent previous month...
Rod, what's fascinating is that Tories recently seem to have broken out of the 30-32% range that had seemed set around their ankles like mafia concrete. They are now polling close to 2010 levels - which is astonishing when UKIP are still around 13-15%.
ELBOW for 29th March shows Tories on their highest score (33.6%) since the series started on 10th August (33.7%).
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
For the Conservatives in office, yes. For a Conservative government able to do blue-blooded things such as cut IHT and raise 40p threshold, profit making free schools etc. and an EU referendum guaranteed they need 315+ seats.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Of course Dave will go with the DUP rather than the LDs if he can - but it has to be sustainable.
If it's 324-321 (excluding Sinn Fein) then that's not a sustainable way of governing the country - every vote would be on a knife edge - and what if he loses one, let alone two by-elections?
To go just with the DUP (ie not attempt any deal with the LDs) I reckon he would want a majority of 9 (with DUP voting with Con) - ie 327-318 (exc SF) - ie 318 Con MPs including Speaker, 317 excluding Speaker.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
And when you have got 23 idiots who think that a government defeat is the ideal thing to achieve on the last day before an incredibly tight and unpredictable election you in practice need a lot more than that. I suspect Cameron would be quite keen to have the more reliable Lib Dems on board again. Unfortunately I don't think they will be so keen.
It wasn't a government defeat, it was a free vote on a procedural issue.
Surprised Con are at 1.52 (Betfair Most seats), ie longer than they were pre the publication of the Sunday Times YouGov.
If we average all 4 polls (ie YouGov, ComRes, Populus, Ashcroft) we get a Con lead of 0.5%.
However I do think there is at least tentative justification for paying less attention to the YouGov - because we know as a fact that it massively oversampled people who watched the C4 debate.
Sure, the YouGov can't be dismissed. But if we downweight it at all it means the four polls, taken together, do look good for Con.
YouGov fieldwork ended on the 28th, so it belongs in last week's ELBOW!
ELBOW for ComRes, Populus and Ashcroft puts the Tories 1.3% in the lead!
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
And when you have got 23 idiots who think that a government defeat is the ideal thing to achieve on the last day before an incredibly tight and unpredictable election you in practice need a lot more than that. I suspect Cameron would be quite keen to have the more reliable Lib Dems on board again. Unfortunately I don't think they will be so keen.
It wasn't a government defeat, it was a free vote on a procedural issue.
It was a government motion moved by William Hague as leader of the House. It was also completely inept but the idea that Cameron could provide stable government whilst relying on those plonkers who occupy safe tory seats is almost as incredible as Ed giving us stable government whilst living in Eck's top pocket.
Eighteen Tory leads in the polls this month - twice as many as in any recent previous month...
Rod, what's fascinating is that Tories recently seem to have broken out of the 30-32% range that had seemed set around their ankles like mafia concrete. They are now polling close to 2010 levels - which is astonishing when UKIP are still around 13-15%.
I expect UKIP to get a mini-boost from the debate but I doubt it will last. I think the big factor concentrating minds outside Scotland is Ed in Salmond & Sturgeon's pockets - to snag one fish is unfortunate but 2 is downright careless.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Mr. Smithson, it'll also be intriguing to see how the media behaves. Will it give all polling firms equal billing, or will the constant splurge of YouGovs see them dominate the agenda?
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
For the Conservatives in office, yes. For a Conservative government able to do blue-blooded things such as cut IHT and raise 40p threshold, profit making free schools etc. and an EU referendum guaranteed they need 315+ seats.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Of course Dave will go with the DUP rather than the LDs if he can - but it has to be sustainable.
If it's 324-321 (excluding Sinn Fein) then that's not a sustainable way of governing the country - every vote would be on a knife edge - and what if he loses one, let alone two by-elections?
To go just with the DUP (ie not attempt any deal with the LDs) I reckon he would want a majority of 9 (with DUP voting with Con) - ie 327-318 (exc SF) - ie 318 Con MPs including Speaker, 317 excluding Speaker.
Ruth Dudley Edwards, for all her other qualities, is not the commentator to turn to for insight into Sinn Féin's thinking at the highest (or any other) level.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
We vote in this country to elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I respectfully suggest you move to a marginal if you want your vote to count, or lobby for a change in the electoral system.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
We are almost mirror images of each other on this SO. I remain pessimistic about the Tories having the most seats although I do agree they are likely to win the popular vote.
Eighteen Tory leads in the polls this month - twice as many as in any recent previous month...
Rod, what's fascinating is that Tories recently seem to have broken out of the 30-32% range that had seemed set around their ankles like mafia concrete. They are now polling close to 2010 levels - which is astonishing when UKIP are still around 13-15%.
I expect UKIP to get a mini-boost from the debate but I doubt it will last. I think the big factor concentrating minds outside Scotland is Ed in Salmond & Sturgeon's pockets - to snag one fish is unfortunate but 2 is downright careless.
Certainly down here in the South-west there is an acknowledgement on the doorsteps that an SNP-supported Labour Govt. will scupper any chance of getting infrastructure money. That will primarily be heading north. North of Hadrian's Wall at that.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
For the Conservatives in office, yes. For a Conservative government able to do blue-blooded things such as cut IHT and raise 40p threshold, profit making free schools etc. and an EU referendum guaranteed they need 315+ seats.
I think the DUP would play ball as long as they get cash, and a bedroom tax amendment. Their 9 MPs would carry the Tories to 324 seats, which would do the trick.
Of course Dave will go with the DUP rather than the LDs if he can - but it has to be sustainable.
If it's 324-321 (excluding Sinn Fein) then that's not a sustainable way of governing the country - every vote would be on a knife edge - and what if he loses one, let alone two by-elections?
To go just with the DUP (ie not attempt any deal with the LDs) I reckon he would want a majority of 9 (with DUP voting with Con) - ie 327-318 (exc SF) - ie 318 Con MPs including Speaker, 317 excluding Speaker.
Ruth Dudley Edwards, for all her other qualities, is not the commentator to turn to for insight into Sinn Féin's thinking at the highest (or any other) level.
Thanks. The comments did share your view, I noticed - but what is the general view on this issue? It would be interesting to know in the current circumstances.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
We vote in this country to elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I respectfully suggest you move to a marginal if you want your vote to count, or lobby for a change in the electoral system.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
Assuming 10 seats 'lost' then 310 might work for Tories (LD coalition or tacit support?) Its probably the tories who have the key issue to put to the commons which is EU referendum. If that were voted down then most other parties would suffer in the subsequent general election. Could tories get their cuts and budgets through? Possibly if linked to tax cuts.
Is there really any chance the LDs can support Cameron this time? Cameron has stated categorically he will only be PM if we have an EU In/Out Referendum. Clegg (and any other LD leader is likely to be even more anti) says he won't play footsie with EU membership - which must translate to a line in the sand of no referendum ??
An In/Out referendum was LD policy in 2010 as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse for not wanting a Lisbon referendum. Makes it all the more amusing that once Cameron called for it they ran away fast. If the LD's had any self-respect they'd enact their own policy.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or spoofing the type of poster that gets wound up by OGH's vote swapping pact. Well done if it's the latter.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
We vote in this country to elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I respectfully suggest you move to a marginal if you want your vote to count, or lobby for a change in the electoral system.
Technically that is what Mike will be doing. He will be voting in Bedford. And I would put the chances of his X being placed for Richard Fuller at about 0.0002%. Hence my gentle ribbing.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
And when you have got 23 idiots who think that a government defeat is the ideal thing to achieve on the last day before an incredibly tight and unpredictable election you in practice need a lot more than that. I suspect Cameron would be quite keen to have the more reliable Lib Dems on board again. Unfortunately I don't think they will be so keen.
It wasn't a government defeat, it was a free vote on a procedural issue.
It was a government motion moved by William Hague as leader of the House. It was also completely inept but the idea that Cameron could provide stable government whilst relying on those plonkers who occupy safe tory seats is almost as incredible as Ed giving us stable government whilst living in Eck's top pocket.
Fair enough - a grubby government motion defeated on a free vote. But I agree: a small Tory majority would be pretty much the same as a large Tory minority. Thought from where I sit the latter would be infinitely preferable, because Cameron has always headed right when under pressure and would no doubt do so again.
If someone was offering me the chance to vote Tory in Dumfries & Galloway or for Danny Alexander in Inverness instead of registering/wasting my vote in Dundee West with a choice of Scylla and Charybdis I would take it. I am really struggling to see the problem (other than trusting the person you have the deal with).
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or spoofing the type of poster that gets wound up by OGH's vote swapping pact. Well done if it's the latter.
No that's me being polite to the site owner. If I put it less politely id be thrown off the forum most probs. Do I like the idea of voting somewhere you don't live to boost their chances? No siree.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
But in doing this he is demonstrating typical libdemmery. Sanctimony. How indeed are we to talk about MPs with a 'personal following' only for an outsider to butt in to vote against that?
Its an affront to democracy not a defence of it and and possibly breaking the law as he is displaying his 'voting slip' (and only voting by seeing how someone else votes). How many other people is Mr Smithsons partner in this charade persuading to vote for whoever in return for votes where ever? I do not like criticising Mr Smithson, but he lays himself open to it by this tactic which is an exploitation of postal voting.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or spoofing the type of poster that gets wound up by OGH's vote swapping pact. Well done if it's the latter.
No that's me being polite to the site owner. If I put it less politely id be thrown off the forum most probs. Do I like the idea of voting somewhere you don't live to boost their chances? No siree.
Before I get banned sine die I would just say that Mike is in danger of losing all credibility in the world he inhabits.
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
DavidL someone used the word "pompous" & my attempt to be that is this - for centuries people have fought tooth n' nail and sometimes giving their lives for the right of one person one vote. The ability to go into a ballot box and place your, yes your, cross in a box to help select your local member of parliament is sacrosanct. It's what Suffragettes to black South Africans fought for. Shame on Mr S.
If someone was offering me the chance to vote Tory in Dumfries & Galloway or for Danny Alexander in Inverness instead of registering/wasting my vote in Dundee West with a choice of Scylla and Charybdis I would take it. I am really struggling to see the problem (other than trusting the person you have the deal with).
If Danny were to win by 1 vote, thanks to your support, then you would be depriving the people of Inverness the MP they had voted for and imposing someone else.
You'd have all the benefits (of a talented MP in parliament) and none of the costs (being represented by a Lib Dem)
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
We vote in this country to elect an MP to represent the constituency we live in. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I respectfully suggest you move to a marginal if you want your vote to count, or lobby for a change in the electoral system.
He does live in a marginal
Voting for positions on UN bodies follows much the path that OGH is preaching. Private bilateral voting pacts are made all over the place. It does lead for chaos, particularly as the secrecy of the voting booth invites treachery. I remember the UK going into one election for the UN Human Rights Council back in the 1980s. We had all the necessary promised votes for election (it was a long time ago so I don't remember the exact number, but it in the high 30s). We got 7. And I though it was Albion who was supposed to be treacherous.
What OGH is proposing will, IMO, have very little effect on outcomes as few enough people trust each other sufficiently to have faith that the other party will fulfill his or her obligations when veiled in secrecy and where no proof of fulfilling the contract other than his or her word is available.
Mr. W, with the fragmentation of seats, an overall majority (for either major party) isn't really needed. 300-310 would surely be enough, given Sinn Fein's absence, a few lost to the Speaker and his deputies, and the unlikelihood of the Conservatives/Labour agreeing with the SNP, UKIP, DUP, Plaid and the Lib Dems.
In theory yes. However I minded to recall the last year of the Major government where he limped along in government but not actually governing whilst have lost his majority.
A minority government is fraught with dangers even if the allure of "governing" alone might at first sight appear appealing.
And when you have got 23 idiots who think that a government defeat is the ideal thing to achieve on the last day before an incredibly tight and unpredictable election you in practice need a lot more than that. I suspect Cameron would be quite keen to have the more reliable Lib Dems on board again. Unfortunately I don't think they will be so keen.
It wasn't a government defeat, it was a free vote on a procedural issue.
It was a government motion moved by William Hague as leader of the House. It was also completely inept but the idea that Cameron could provide stable government whilst relying on those plonkers who occupy safe tory seats is almost as incredible as Ed giving us stable government whilst living in Eck's top pocket.
Fair enough - a grubby government motion defeated on a free vote. But I agree: a small Tory majority would be pretty much the same as a large Tory minority. Thought from where I sit the latter would be infinitely preferable, because Cameron has always headed right when under pressure and would no doubt do so again.
Gay Marriage Increases in NWM in real terms International Aid. Gradual deficit reduction Cutting police numbers. Resisting really silly anti terrorist provisions. Really, really aggressive attacks on tax avoidance. Holding some sort of a line on the EU. Fruitcakes etc in UKIP.
I am really not sure you can say that. He is, like all leaders, subject to the whims and insanities of his party but he is deeply centralist as is Osborne. It is why they are both more popular that the Conservative party as a whole.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or spoofing the type of poster that gets wound up by OGH's vote swapping pact. Well done if it's the latter.
No that's me being polite to the site owner. If I put it less politely id be thrown off the forum most probs. Do I like the idea of voting somewhere you don't live to boost their chances? No siree.
No Mike is swapping a vote with someone who lives where he doesn't live!
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Quite interested in Mike's vote swap thing. I sort of very slightly disapprove, but actually it's in line with a PR sort of philosophy, and I sort of thing PR is right although I don't want the governments that it'd produce.
Down thread Mike I think you said that you didn't know which way you'd be voting (i.e. your swap hadn't said). Would you reconsider if it was some madcap vote that you couldn't stomach? (Let's say 'Mad Bunny Decapitation Party' to avoid specifics)
-----
The Tories at 40% in England is enough for an overall majority I think isn't it? Certainly if it was 41/33 they'd be home and dry wouldn't they? Labour may finish up acquiring the old Tory habit of piling up votes where they don't help. (Scotland where 2nd best to the SNP, East London)
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
DavidL someone used the word "pompous" & my attempt to be that is this - for centuries people have fought tooth n' nail and sometimes giving their lives for the right of one person one vote. The ability to go into a ballot box and place your, yes your, cross in a box to help select your local member of parliament is sacrosanct. It's what Suffragettes to black South Africans fought for. Shame on Mr S.
If someone was offering me the chance to vote Tory in Dumfries & Galloway or for Danny Alexander in Inverness instead of registering/wasting my vote in Dundee West with a choice of Scylla and Charybdis I would take it. I am really struggling to see the problem (other than trusting the person you have the deal with).
If Danny were to win by 1 vote, thanks to your support, then you would be depriving the people of Inverness the MP they had voted for and imposing someone else.
You'd have all the benefits (of a talented MP in parliament) and none of the costs (being represented by a Lib Dem)
If only there was any chance of it being that close Charles.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
It's not up to him where he decides to vote though.
Yet more evidence that the You Gov snap poll was out of line. Not saying you gov are out of line but that post debate poll certainly looks a bit iffy, but that's polling for you, there are always going to be rogue polls.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
Agree for the most part, and as well as Danny Alexander a very special mention for Steve Webb.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I completely agree. It is unfortunate that the Coalition is not on the ticket. The last 5 years have been some of the best and rational government I have seen in my adult life. And the Lib Dems are going to be kicked to death for facilitating it. Funny old world.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
The increased poll figures for UKIP adds something to that. If the Tory vote really is 36 then where is it coming from? If the LDs stay moribund (Vince Cable excepted) and the SNP meet their predictions then really the only way for tories is up, provided UKIP continue a steady decline. But where Mr Smithson has a point is in translating %ages to seats. Despite labour's percentage hiding a disproportionate loss in seats I do not see where any tory +% hides a disproportionate gain in seats. For one to equal the other it has to come from EVEL and for Labour to embrace that shatters their chances in Scotland. Cameron standing next to Nicola in the debates remember...
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Absolutely! What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
It's not the use of the vote it's where it is used. I can see the general idea but somehow if I got a Labour MP under those circumstances I would be very unhappy. Perhaps it's like MPs pairing but that removes the vote not distorts it. Is distort the right or fair word? I am surprised that Mike does post this on here though.
Perhaps we should get TSE to do yet another one of his threads on AV
Err.... That's " absent voting"
(Runs for the door quickly..... Before the incoming.)
As are many of our laws, its still regarded as proper practise to campaign to change them through the democratic process rather than ignore them though
Quite interested in Mike's vote swap thing. I sort of very slightly disapprove, but actually it's in line with a PR sort of philosophy, and I sort of thing PR is right although I don't want the governments that it'd produce.
How fortunate you are not in favour of the death penalty, but not the sort of government that would have to be elected to produce it
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
It's not up to him where he decides to vote though.
Out of curiosity, is it against electoral law to take a photo of your voting slip before you put it in the ballot box?
If not, I guess that would work. But even so, what is Mike's recourse if his counterparty is not good to his or her word? None, methinks.
No recourse at all. But seeing a cross against St VInce on the ballot paper would confirm the system had worked in this particular instance. With i-Phones it would only take an instant.
folks regarding OGH's vote swap, most of you are not old enough to remember Billy Bragg tried to organise a formal scheme for vote swapping many years ago. He lived at the time in Dorset and was trying to get LibDems to vote Labour and Labour voters to vote LibDem to get rid of Oliver Letwin and keep the Tories out of Mid and South Dorset. The LibDems were going to "decapitate" Oliver Letwin and supported Bragg. In the event Letwin increased his majority in 2005 and again in 2010. The Tories took South Dorset in 2010 and now it is only number 91 on Labour's target list given the Tory majority is 7400.
In short vote swaps like the one OGH is planning often backfire. When does Boris get unleashed on Labour and LibDem seats in London? Time for Vince Cable to retire anyway.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
Isn't his choice of candidate being sold, for someone else's choice, and vice versa?
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
[Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Tuition Fees"]
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
.. and if this starts to be mediated by political parties and their agents at the next election ? Would be interesting if the kippers asked people in Clacton if they could swap votes with floating voters in Heywood and Middleton.
Why on earth is SLAB using Martin Freeman, an obviously English actor, to front their new PPB in Scotland? Him swearing/blaspheming in the PPB will go down like a lead balloon in large parts of rural Scotland.
Out of curiosity, is it against electoral law to take a photo of your voting slip before you put it in the ballot box?
If not, I guess that would work. But even so, what is Mike's recourse if his counterparty is not good to his or her word? None, methinks.
No recourse at all. But seeing a cross against St VInce on the ballot paper would confirm the system had worked in this particular instance. With i-Phones it would only take an instant.
I still see this as having a minimal impact though. For the most of us, the people we trust most either live and work closely with us, go to the same church (insert other social institution) or are family. Not many of us have someone whom we trust in a marginal where a vote swap would make sense to both parties. And as the frequency of interactions is only once every 5 years, with minimal likelihood that the two parties would repeat the transaction sufficient times for cheating to be effectively punished, it's a pretty iffy proposition open to cheating.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
The right to decide how the vote is cast is being sold. The value received is the right to decide how a vote is cast elsewhere, presumably perceived as more productively.
Taken together, the past 24 hours have witnessed easily the three most significant polls we have experienced on PB.com for a good few months. These don't as yet amount to a game changer, but further moves in the same direction and the Blue Team may become the clear favourites to win the GE comfortably. As I've been suggesting for some time, there should be some value within Labour's hitherto 40th - 60th target seats, which even now are probably no longer realistic targets yet continue to offer attractive odds as Conservative holds. It just needs someone with sufficient patience to identify the best bets!
What nonsense. We had a ref only 4yrs ago and it got a huge thumbs down. You may not like it or any other law. but that's what we collectively live by.
I'm amazed at the studenty anarchy on here by some who clearly have brains and wouldn't park in a disabled space - but will subvert the wishes of a whole constituency for their own ends.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
Quite. I don't much like the sound of it myself, but it's not against the rules apparently, and at the end of the day it is a personal decision about how to cast one's own vote, and if that happens to be by making a personal arrangement with someone else in a gentleman's agreement, it's not great (in my opinion) but it's not actually reprehensible either.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
Never said it was perfect and the Lib Dems were junior partner and had to maintain some distance. As regards tuition fees Sunil well that was a Labour introduction like many things that steadily goes up.
All I was saying was Look beyond that and all in all they did not do too bad a job under very difficult circumstances. I never thought it would last a year. It did.
Comments
If it's 324-321 (excluding Sinn Fein) then that's not a sustainable way of governing the country - every vote would be on a knife edge - and what if he loses one, let alone two by-elections?
To go just with the DUP (ie not attempt any deal with the LDs) I reckon he would want a majority of 9 (with DUP voting with Con) - ie 327-318 (exc SF) - ie 318 Con MPs including Speaker, 317 excluding Speaker.
If we average all 4 polls (ie YouGov, ComRes, Populus, Ashcroft) we get a Con lead of 0.5%.
However I do think there is at least tentative justification for paying less attention to the YouGov - because we know as a fact that it massively oversampled people who watched the C4 debate.
Sure, the YouGov can't be dismissed. But if we downweight it at all it means the four polls, taken together, do look good for Con.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/ruth-dudley-edwards/sinn-fein-would-breach-house-of-commons-abstention-taboo-if-it-suited-them-30462679.html
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
ELBOW for ComRes, Populus and Ashcroft puts the Tories 1.3% in the lead!
Hell no! I mean Yes!
I don't think Mike can possibly talk about incumbency and constituency MPs ever again as he has lost the moral authority to do so.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
Dramatic BBC1 News intro - Cameron and Miliband.
No Clegg. No Farage.
Let's wait and see what Major party status actually amounts to.
Four parties are too many for them to focus on.
I think it is a huge lack of judgement on his part, though not as catastrophic as posting it on here for all to see.
That's pretty strong. He's not pretending to be 27 different people and casting many votes.
Edited extra bit: off for a bit now.
Its an affront to democracy not a defence of it and and possibly breaking the law as he is displaying his 'voting slip' (and only voting by seeing how someone else votes). How many other people is Mr Smithsons partner in this charade persuading to vote for whoever in return for votes where ever?
I do not like criticising Mr Smithson, but he lays himself open to it by this tactic which is an exploitation of postal voting.
Tories are getting smashed to the east (bad numbers in Redbridge and havering?), but look very competitive in the rest from those Comres numbers.
Again, the Lab vote is strong among the young (registered?).
You'd have all the benefits (of a talented MP in parliament) and none of the costs (being represented by a Lib Dem)
What OGH is proposing will, IMO, have very little effect on outcomes as few enough people trust each other sufficiently to have faith that the other party will fulfill his or her obligations when veiled in secrecy and where no proof of fulfilling the contract other than his or her word is available.
Increases in NWM in real terms
International Aid.
Gradual deficit reduction
Cutting police numbers.
Resisting really silly anti terrorist provisions.
Really, really aggressive attacks on tax avoidance.
Holding some sort of a line on the EU.
Fruitcakes etc in UKIP.
I am really not sure you can say that. He is, like all leaders, subject to the whims and insanities of his party but he is deeply centralist as is Osborne. It is why they are both more popular that the Conservative party as a whole.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
Down thread Mike I think you said that you didn't know which way you'd be voting (i.e. your swap hadn't said). Would you reconsider if it was some madcap vote that you couldn't stomach? (Let's say 'Mad Bunny Decapitation Party' to avoid specifics)
-----
The Tories at 40% in England is enough for an overall majority I think isn't it? Certainly if it was 41/33 they'd be home and dry wouldn't they? Labour may finish up acquiring the old Tory habit of piling up votes where they don't help. (Scotland where 2nd best to the SNP, East London)
I've recently started backing a Tory majority.
BBC asked a lecture room of nursing students if they were registered to vote - only 50% were.
If the LDs stay moribund (Vince Cable excepted) and the SNP meet their predictions then really the only way for tories is up, provided UKIP continue a steady decline.
But where Mr Smithson has a point is in translating %ages to seats. Despite labour's percentage hiding a disproportionate loss in seats I do not see where any tory +% hides a disproportionate gain in seats. For one to equal the other it has to come from EVEL and for Labour to embrace that shatters their chances in Scotland. Cameron standing next to Nicola in the debates remember...
Absolutely!
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
It's not the use of the vote it's where it is used. I can see the general idea but somehow if I got a Labour MP under those circumstances I would be very unhappy. Perhaps it's like MPs pairing but that removes the vote not distorts it. Is distort the right or fair word? I am surprised that Mike does post this on here though.
Perhaps we should get TSE to do yet another one of his threads on AV
Err.... That's " absent voting"
(Runs for the door quickly..... Before the incoming.)
Fine if you are postal voting.
In short vote swaps like the one OGH is planning often backfire. When does Boris get unleashed on Labour and LibDem seats in London? Time for Vince Cable to retire anyway.
But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
As I've been suggesting for some time, there should be some value within Labour's hitherto 40th - 60th target seats, which even now are probably no longer realistic targets yet continue to offer attractive odds as Conservative holds.
It just needs someone with sufficient patience to identify the best bets!
I'm amazed at the studenty anarchy on here by some who clearly have brains and wouldn't park in a disabled space - but will subvert the wishes of a whole constituency for their own ends.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/149729/List-of-electoral-offences.pdf
Edit: in view of the rest of this thread, I should clarify I was commenting on "benefit in kind" and not putative vote swaps.
All I was saying was Look beyond that and all in all they did not do too bad a job under very difficult circumstances. I never thought it would last a year. It did.
The alternative in 2010 was unthinkable.