@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
No PR is a job for life. Get to the top of your parties list and all you need to do is ensure you stay at the top by ingratiating yourself with the party rather than serve the public. Terrible system.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
Nick Clegg has said that his party would theoretically be willing to form a coalition with the second largest party after the general election, as long as the largest party is given the “time and space” to attempt to form a stable government first.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
No PR is a job for life. Get to the top of your parties list and all you need to do is ensure you stay at the top by ingratiating yourself with the party rather than serve the public. Terrible system.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.
Closed-list PR is not the best or only alternative, though FPTP partisans sometimes speak as though it is. It would be better to have Danish-style open lists or Irish-style STV, each of which offers voters the choice as to which candidate from each party comes out on top. I suspect that the real problem is that closed lists lead to good candidates losing too OFTEN, since parties are dens of vipers full of backstabbing ambition, much more so than a safe seat in FPTP.
Portillo moments may be dramatic, but kabuki theatre does not a fair and competitive system make. Put another way, there is a memory selection bias. Everyone remembers the blue moon, not the thousand predictable constituencies that followed it.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
No PR is a job for life. Get to the top of your parties list and all you need to do is ensure you stay at the top by ingratiating yourself with the party rather than serve the public. Terrible system.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
Or the German system, half FPTP half PR, however I don't like lists, it's acceptable only if the party candidate with most votes from the list gets the seat and not the one who's simply selected by party leaders to be on the top of the list.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
That is not the annual sum though but rather the potential liability of outstanding cases. Many will be won, many will be settled out of court for less and not infrequently obstetric cases drag on for years or decades, so have to be carried as a risk.
As a comparison my negligence insurance for my Private Practice (and I have never had a case, even a successfully defended one) costs me nearly 20% of gross billings.
You make a good point there and serious though the numbers may be - to imply as the headline does that it is an annual payment is pretty pathetic by the Telegraph.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
No PR is a job for life. Get to the top of your parties list and all you need to do is ensure you stay at the top by ingratiating yourself with the party rather than serve the public. Terrible system.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
Don't FPTP candidates get places on the list so if they lose their FPTP post seat they get elected anyway?
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not s
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
I think even fewer will turnout this time. There is not the same fear or enthusiasm about as 2010.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010. Some parts of Essex, West Midlands and Lancashire. Those voters have to go somewhere, and UKIP can pick them up alongside a lot of more mainstream right wingers.
Even so; I dont think they will breakthrough 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. Farages debate and "Major Party" status is fizzling out.
I can see turnout falling to about 55% or so, with a large number of lifelong Labour voters not bothering.
With turnout of 65% last time that would be quite the steep drop. With the proportion of votes Labour are still expected to get, unless the Tories are similarly unenthused, I think we're safe from falling that low. I'm hopeful of maintaining the level, though I would like some increase, however small - even though the rate would still be a bit low, it would enable even more rebutting of people who still claim far too loosely that the turnout is going down and down each time. It's fine for them to still be concerned by how low it is, but lazy to ignore the actual turnouts, which does happen on occasion.
Nick Clegg has said that his party would theoretically be willing to form a coalition with the second largest party after the general election, as long as the largest party is given the “time and space” to attempt to form a stable government first.
Nick Clegg has said that his party would theoretically be willing to form a coalition with the second largest party after the general election, as long as the largest party is given the “time and space” to attempt to form a stable government first.
On SPIN you can trade Labour 300 up: sell 1.5, buy at 3.5.
Assuming there isn't a cat in h***s chance of Labour getting 301 seats does this mean you are bound to get a 50% ROI?
That's one massively risky bet.
But is it correct? - you bet (say) £100 - labour get 300 (which is more than 30 above current forecasts) and you return £150.00 - Yes I understand if Labour get 305 then you lose £350.00. If Labour get 301 you lose £50?
Another way of looking at it, I suppose is that if we assume that 265 - 269 is the current spread then what is the variance. Probably about 10 - so 301 upwards is more than 3 SDs (1% chance). So you have a 99% chance of winning £50 and a 1% chance of losing 150.
(In fact on a binomial model if 268 is the mean then p = 268/625 =0.43 so q = 0.57 so SD = 12.5. (sqrt (npq)) 301 is (301-268)/12.5 = 2.64 SDs so (going back to a normal distribution) (1- z) = .0041 so less than one chance in 200.)
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
Not so. The price of oil was and is a world price. The rapid rise in the price of oil far outweighed any small changes in exchange rates and that was what drove the idea of the value of oil to Scotland's economy. Even ignoring the spike in 2008, the price of oil had still risen from $30 a barrel in 2003 to $100 a barrel prior to the latest slump.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not s
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
I think even fewer will turnout this time. There is not the same fear or enthusiasm about as 2010.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010. Some parts of Essex, West Midlands and Lancashire. Those voters have to go somewhere, and UKIP can pick them up alongside a lot of more mainstream right wingers.
Even so; I dont think they will breakthrough 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. Farages debate and "Major Party" status is fizzling out.
I can see turnout falling to about 55% or so, with a large number of lifelong Labour voters not bothering.
With turnout of 65% last time that would be quite the steep drop. With the proportion of votes Labour are still expected to get, unless the Tories are similarly unenthused, I think we're safe from falling that low. I'm hopeful of maintaining the level, though I would like some increase, however small - even though the rate would still be a bit low, it would enable even more rebutting of people who still claim far too loosely that the turnout is going down and down each time. It's fine for them to still be concerned by how low it is, but lazy to ignore the actual turnouts, which does happen on occasion.
Also, turnout as a percentage depends on the register, and if disproportionately non-voting groups like students have been disproportionately removed from registers, turnout should increase even on a smaller vote.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
That system makes it almost impossible to change the numbers of seats a party holds because what they lose on the constituencies they regain on the lists. It is the system that has kept Labour around the 26-30 seats mark in Wales for 16 years despite huge fluctuations in their vote.
Short of a truly seismic event, like the SNP surge at Holyrood four years ago, it makes normal democracy almost impossible and does indeed guarantee a lucky handful (usually the least capable and deserving) safe seats. That's incredibly unhealthy and makes for an even worse disconnection between governors and governed.
Isn't turnout likely to increase with the 'can't be bothered' less likely to have registered anyway - so there is bias in favour of those who have registered?
I’ve updated the UK-Elect forecast again – it’s still predicting a very close contest and a very hung parliament, but now showing a smaller Labour lead of 3 seats, (274 Lab, 271 Con) with 54 seats predicted for the SNP and 26 for the LibDems. The detailed version of the forecast is here: UK-Elect detailed forecast
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
Not so. The price of oil was and is a world price. The rapid rise in the price of oil far outweighed any small changes in exchange rates and that was what drove the idea of the value of oil to Scotland's economy. Even ignoring the spike in 2008, the price of oil had still risen from $30 a barrel in 2003 to $100 a barrel prior to the latest slump.
British exchange rates did not have a small change; they had a substantial and massive change. The pound lost twenty per cent of its value against the dollar, and thirty per cent versus the euro, in little over a year. The still-famous (infamous?) Wilson devaluation was smaller by far. Imported goods rising in price by one pound in four - not small by any means!
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
One of the comments on that article says, '' Journalism of the Lazy kind. Jaw-dropping indeed. http://www.nhsla.com/CurrentAc... The bar chart from 1981 onwards shows that the number of claims have flattened out from 94/95 onwards (this, against an increased number of clinical encounters). However there is bound to be an increase in the amount paid out for similar incidents (inflation). For the last 2-4 years, it is granted that claims could yet arise in the future, hence the Actuarial estimate . '' ''Total amount paid out for year 2011-12 (last available) is £ 1.33billion, with legal costs of £ 230 million.''
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900
Gods, we cannot even fit all the ones we currently have into the Commons chamber.
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
It would also be damn near impossible to find a place where they could all meet. The House of Commons has a capacity of 423 (officially at least). Bearing in mind that the largest HoC elected to date was 1918 (707) and the crush was somewhat relieved by 73 Sinn Fein members deciding to set up the Dail instead (not that they did it for that reason, of course) there is no way 900 members could be accommodated. Even in the Lords, it would be a major squash.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
I think even fewer will turnout this time. There is not the same fear or enthusiasm about as 2010.
We'll see. I hope you're wrong.
----
Going back to your earlier 'anti-UKIP alliance' point.
General elections tend to be presented as change vs stay-the-course. I don't see why individual seats should be viewed differently.
In a two horse race you have the sitting MP, and the challenger. Perceptions of the sitting MP will drive the challenger's support.
You may have me mixed up with someone else. I have not advocated an anti-UKIP alliance, or indeed tactical voting against anyone. I started by pointing out that the dislike of UKIP is a real obstacle in FPTP. You need to pass 30% to have any real chance of winning a seat, and UKIP is too Marmite to get there.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
That system makes it almost impossible to change the numbers of seats a party holds because what they lose on the constituencies they regain on the lists. It is the system that has kept Labour around the 26-30 seats mark in Wales for 16 years despite huge fluctuations in their vote.
Short of a truly seismic event, like the SNP surge at Holyrood four years ago, it makes normal democracy almost impossible and does indeed guarantee a lucky handful (usually the least capable and deserving) safe seats. That's incredibly unhealthy and makes for an even worse disconnection between governors and governed.
The Labour vote and seat numbers (out of 60) at the Welsh assembly have been: 1999, 35.4%; 28 2003, 36.6%; 30 2007, 29.6%; 26 2011, 36.9%; 30. So, the Labour vote has not fluctuated in Wales except in 2007 when they lost 7 per cent of seats by losing 7 per cent of votes, and in so far as they do better on seats than they deserve, it is because of the extreme dominance of the FPTP element in seat allocations (2/3rds).
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
It would have shown in the constituency polls, apart from the West Midlands and the occasional seat in Yorkshire it doesn't show. Though it is possible that UKIP may take a seat from Labour, the chances of the Tories gaining a Labour seat in the north because of UKIP is zero.
I think it could happen in certain seats where the Tories are close but there is also a large WWC vote. Ed Balls' seat stands out to me, but the Tories had a very good campaign there in 2010 (9.5% swing vs a national swing of 5%) so they may be artificially close.
I don't detect any electoral desire to stuff the Scots - given that 45% of them recently wanted to leave us, there is clearly something amiss and we should be willing to discuss how to address that. There is certainly a desire not to have the SNP blackmail the government successfully, but the SNP aversion to helping a Tory government weakens their negotiating position - "Do what I say! Or I'll...er..."
Or I'll propose amendments which gut the legislation you are trying to pass. Or vote you down in a No confidence or Budget motion with no chance of a Tory government unless LABOUR support it.
There really is no-where for Labour to go other than accept anything the SNP demand.
That would be a boo-boo of massive proportions. If the SNP voted down Labour in a VoNC, that would lead to either a Conservative PM returning directly, or to a new election which might result in a Conservative PM. What prospect then for all those newly won ex-Labour recruits the SNP have?
No, it wouldn't. Unless Labour agreed with the Tories to abstain from votes, it would lead to another Labour led government.
Repeat after me. Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.
Huh? So you're saying that the SNP might vote firstly against Labour on a VoNC and then in favour of the same leadership in a VoC within the space of two weeks? Or that Labour will allow the SNP to dictate who its own leader is?
That's exactly what it means. The numbers don't change if Labour loses a budget or confidence vote and FTPA gives two weeks for a government to pass one. The options for who can and cannot don't change, so it will be back to the negotiation table with the SNP.
This is what happened to the SNPs third budget of their minority government in 2009
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
It would also be damn near impossible to find a place where they could all meet. The House of Commons has a capacity of 423 (officially at least). Bearing in mind that the largest HoC elected to date was 1918 (707) and the crush was somewhat relieved by 73 Sinn Fein members deciding to set up the Dail instead (not that they did it for that reason, of course) there is no way 900 members could be accommodated. Even in the Lords, it would be a major squash.
I agree, however despite what you say the problem could be eased by abolishing the Lords and having more committees to do the work that the Lords did. The need for a 800 to 900 capacity Commons is then limited. In terms of what is going on we do have TV and most debates are not packed. The virtue of FPTP does need to be accompanied by sensible constituencies.
The Labour vote and seat numbers (out of 60) at the Welsh assembly have been: 1999, 35.4%; 28 2003, 36.6%; 30 2007, 29.6%; 26 2011, 36.9%; 30. So, the Labour vote has not fluctuated in Wales except in 2007 when they lost 7 per cent of seats by losing 7 per cent of votes, and in so far as they do better on seats than they deserve, it is because of the extreme dominance of the FPTP element in seat allocations (2/3rds).
On 35% of the vote, they win 47% of the seats.
36% of the vote, they win 50% of the seats.
On 29% of the vote, they win 43% of the seats.
Or to put it another way, in 2007 they lost 20% of their vote, but only 13% of their seats, starting from a base that grossly over-represented their electoral strength in the first place.
No system that was even remotely proportional would let them get that result. Certainly FPTP would not - did not, at Westminster in 2010.
If that does not represent 'substantial voting fluctuations' while only minor variations in the actual seats, I don't know what does.
If you wish to make statistical comparisons, make sure that they are valid ones.
The effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 should not be exaggerated. There is nothing whatever to stop the Prime Minister of a minority government proposing the motion "[t]hat this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", ordering his party to vote for it and waiting fourteen days, whereupon the Crown has the power by Royal Proclamation to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament. The only things which could prevent this contrivance are (1) the opposition parties choosing to vote against a motion of no-confidence, or (2) the Crown unilaterally sacking its Government. Neither seem particularly likely.
It is worth remembering that to achieve an early general election via the other method set out in the Act is much more difficult. A motion that "[t]hat there shall be an early parliamentary general election" must pass, either nemine dissentiente, or on division with the support of 434 MPs.
The FTPA is ambiguous. The wording implies surely that after a vote of no-confidence, another government should be given the opportunity to pass a vote of confidence in itself, and only in the event of another failure of confidence would an election ensue...
Ergo, a PM could either try to reconstitute his own government, or resign and pass the government to the Opposition. Doing neither seems not to be an option.
There would still be the prospect of "Portillo Moments" if we adopted the Scottish/Welsh system, which still has FPTP constituencies mixed with a list system to even things out proportionally.
That system makes it almost impossible to change the numbers of seats a party holds because what they lose on the constituencies they regain on the lists. It is the system that has kept Labour around the 26-30 seats mark in Wales for 16 years despite huge fluctuations in their vote.
Short of a truly seismic event, like the SNP surge at Holyrood four years ago, it makes normal democracy almost impossible and does indeed guarantee a lucky handful (usually the least capable and deserving) safe seats. That's incredibly unhealthy and makes for an even worse disconnection between governors and governed.
The Labour vote and seat numbers (out of 60) at the Welsh assembly have been: 1999, 35.4%; 28 2003, 36.6%; 30 2007, 29.6%; 26 2011, 36.9%; 30. So, the Labour vote has not fluctuated in Wales except in 2007 when they lost 7 per cent of seats by losing 7 per cent of votes, and in so far as they do better on seats than they deserve, it is because of the extreme dominance of the FPTP element in seat allocations (2/3rds).
Regional assembly elections in 2016 will be interesting, in scotland the SNP might lose it's majority because it's surge already happened in 2011 for Holyrood and the UKIP&GRN entry will cost the SNP seats. In wales the same thing happened in 2011 too but the collapse of the LD favoured Labour instead of the local nationalists, and there too UKIP&GRN entry will take seats off.
Although the SNP might be able to hold on to power with GRN MSP's, in Wales a traffic light coalition might be needed for Labour to hold on.
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
It would also be damn near impossible to find a place where they could all meet. The House of Commons has a capacity of 423 (officially at least). Bearing in mind that the largest HoC elected to date was 1918 (707) and the crush was somewhat relieved by 73 Sinn Fein members deciding to set up the Dail instead (not that they did it for that reason, of course) there is no way 900 members could be accommodated. Even in the Lords, it would be a major squash.
I agree, however despite what you say the problem could be eased by abolishing the Lords and having more committees to do the work that the Lords did. The need for a 800 to 900 capacity Commons is then limited. In terms of what is going on we do have TV and most debates are not packed. The virtue of FPTP does need to be accompanied by sensible constituencies.
I'm strongly against the abolition of the House of Lords, it's the only place where the opposition can screw the government, very useful for both the Tories and Labour in the event of them losing elections.
I have just taken a spin round the Golden Triangle area of Norwich South. This area was predominantly Lib Dem at the 2010 election but if posters are anything to go by then they will be decimated come May 7th.
Last week there was a massive preponderance of Labour posters but that has changed radically in recent days. In my survey which covers the Unthank, Earlham and Dereham roads plus most side streets I have counted 0 UKIP, 2 Conservative, 11 Lib Dem, 89 Labour and 137 Green party posters.
I had a visit from Clive Lewis (Lab) yesterday, nice chap but he won't be getting my vote. However I expect him to win comfortably despite the heavy Green poster campaign. The Greens will certainly come second and might be worth a few bob to win it if you think the poster count is significant. The Tories will poll fairly well to finish third despite the lack of posters. It's safer to keep you head down if you are a Tory in this constituency.
For Lib Dems, I'm sad to say Simon Wright is the deadest of dead ducks and will finish fourth at best.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
I have just taken a spin round the Golden Triangle area of Norwich South. This area was predominantly Lib Dem at the 2010 election but if posters are anything to go by then they will be decimated come May 7th.
Last week there was a massive preponderance of Labour posters but that has changed radically in recent days. In my survey which covers the Unthank, Earlham and Dereham roads plus most side streets I have counted 0 UKIP, 2 Conservative, 11 Lib Dem, 89 Labour and 137 Green party posters.
I had a visit from Clive Lewis (Lab) yesterday, nice chap but he won't be getting my vote. However I expect him to win comfortably despite the heavy Green poster campaign. The Greens will certainly come second and might be worth a few bob to win it if you think the poster count is significant. The Tories will poll fairly well to finish third despite the lack of posters. It's safer to keep you head down if you are a Tory in this constituency.
For Lib Dems, I'm sad to say Simon Wright is the deadest of dead ducks and will finish fourth at best.
Why is it sad?
Simon Wright and other LD MP's had 5 years and countless excuses to defect to the Labour party when they had the chance. They didn't and now they are going to pay the price.
I have just taken a spin round the Golden Triangle area of Norwich South. This area was predominantly Lib Dem at the 2010 election but if posters are anything to go by then they will be decimated come May 7th.
Last week there was a massive preponderance of Labour posters but that has changed radically in recent days. In my survey which covers the Unthank, Earlham and Dereham roads plus most side streets I have counted 0 UKIP, 2 Conservative, 11 Lib Dem, 89 Labour and 137 Green party posters.
I had a visit from Clive Lewis (Lab) yesterday, nice chap but he won't be getting my vote. However I expect him to win comfortably despite the heavy Green poster campaign. The Greens will certainly come second and might be worth a few bob to win it if you think the poster count is significant. The Tories will poll fairly well to finish third despite the lack of posters. It's safer to keep you head down if you are a Tory in this constituency.
For Lib Dems, I'm sad to say Simon Wright is the deadest of dead ducks and will finish fourth at best.
Why is it sad?
Simon Wright and other LD MP's had 5 years and countless excuses to defect to the Labour party when they had the chance. They didn't and now they are going to pay the price.
Anybody that took the seat from Mr Potato head at the last election can't be all bad.
Five minutes into Marr, my blood pressure is already rising, watching him and Steve Richards "bigging up" EdM. Isabel Hardman was sat there as usual like a "nodding dog." Glad to see David Cameron standing up to his aggressive interruptions (about time). Marr still obsessed with proving he is better than Paxman. Switched over to Murnaghan and see the usual 'soft' interview with EdBalls. Every question was answered with 'tory bashing.' Why do commentators let him get away with this time and time again? Then Andrew Neil spent the first ten minutes (with his team of spiinners) talking about the tories and 'how well EdM was doing. Whilst the GE campaign is not setting everyone alight (which is nothing new) I think the quality of reporting has been dire. It seems more about the egos' of the commentators. I switchon to watch a speech and most of the time it is the commentator giving us their 'narrative', I'm sick to death of it. I see Marr asked David Cameron about fox-hunting and immediately after, Norman Smith and Carole Walker were tweeting the same. Just another BBC stitch up.
Then Andrew Neil spent the first ten minutes (with his team of spiinners) talking about the tories and 'how well EdM was doing.
I thought Neil was generally more favourable with right wingers, he certainly provides them with more moments to please them than, say, Marr. In any case, Ed Mis doing well (even if Lab as a whole are doing no better or worse than they were a few weeks ago).
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
It would also be damn near impossible to find a place where they could all meet. The House of Commons has a capacity of 423 (officially at least). Bearing in mind that the largest HoC elected to date was 1918 (707) and the crush was somewhat relieved by 73 Sinn Fein members deciding to set up the Dail instead (not that they did it for that reason, of course) there is no way 900 members could be accommodated. Even in the Lords, it would be a major squash.
I agree, however despite what you say the problem could be eased by abolishing the Lords and having more committees to do the work that the Lords did. The need for a 800 to 900 capacity Commons is then limited. In terms of what is going on we do have TV and most debates are not packed. The virtue of FPTP does need to be accompanied by sensible constituencies.
I'm strongly against the abolition of the House of Lords, it's the only place where the opposition can screw the government, very useful for both the Tories and Labour in the event of them losing elections.
Push comes to shove the Commons can win. Why should the govt any govt be screwed by undemocratically accountable 'Lords'. An old argument I know. The California State Senate has 40 members. The comparison is not exact but if they can elect 40 Senators then why cannot we elect say 100 to 120? Not that I think we need them.
IIRC the UK is unusual in not only having so many members in the upper chamber, but that it actually outnumbers the lower chamber, even though our lower chamber is one of the larger chambers in the world as it is.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.
On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
Not so. The price of oil was and is a world price. The rapid rise in the price of oil far outweighed any small changes in exchange rates and that was what drove the idea of the value of oil to Scotland's economy. Even ignoring the spike in 2008, the price of oil had still risen from $30 a barrel in 2003 to $100 a barrel prior to the latest slump.
British exchange rates did not have a small change; they had a substantial and massive change. The pound lost twenty per cent of its value against the dollar, and thirty per cent versus the euro, in little over a year. The still-famous (infamous?) Wilson devaluation was smaller by far. Imported goods rising in price by one pound in four - not small by any means!
Yeah, 20% against the dollar (which is what oil is priced in so your comment about the Euro is immaterial).
By comparison the international price of oil climbed by more than 300%. I wonder which one had more effect?
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
Not so. The price of oil was and is a world price. The rapid rise in the price of oil far outweighed any small changes in exchange rates and that was what drove the idea of the value of oil to Scotland's economy. Even ignoring the spike in 2008, the price of oil had still risen from $30 a barrel in 2003 to $100 a barrel prior to the latest slump.
British exchange rates did not have a small change; they had a substantial and massive change. The pound lost twenty per cent of its value against the dollar, and thirty per cent versus the euro, in little over a year. The still-famous (infamous?) Wilson devaluation was smaller by far. Imported goods rising in price by one pound in four - not small by any means!
Yeah, 20% against the dollar (which is what oil is priced in so your comment about the Euro is immaterial).
By comparison the international price of oil climbed by more than 300%. I wonder which one had more effect?
Does a 20% devaluation effectively make that 300% rise a 400% rise or have I cocked up my maths?
Dear Lady Bucket - the media reporting is always dire. I take it no questions about the lie told by Miliband at his press conference about the experts who say non-dom bashing is a good thing?
But how many watch this sort of thing. And you are right - it is all about media egos. The BBC advert for their coverage tells you that.
I have just taken a spin round the Golden Triangle area of Norwich South. This area was predominantly Lib Dem at the 2010 election but if posters are anything to go by then they will be decimated come May 7th.
Last week there was a massive preponderance of Labour posters but that has changed radically in recent days. In my survey which covers the Unthank, Earlham and Dereham roads plus most side streets I have counted 0 UKIP, 2 Conservative, 11 Lib Dem, 89 Labour and 137 Green party posters.
I had a visit from Clive Lewis (Lab) yesterday, nice chap but he won't be getting my vote. However I expect him to win comfortably despite the heavy Green poster campaign. The Greens will certainly come second and might be worth a few bob to win it if you think the poster count is significant. The Tories will poll fairly well to finish third despite the lack of posters. It's safer to keep you head down if you are a Tory in this constituency.
For Lib Dems, I'm sad to say Simon Wright is the deadest of dead ducks and will finish fourth at best.
Why is it sad?
Simon Wright and other LD MP's had 5 years and countless excuses to defect to the Labour party when they had the chance. They didn't and now they are going to pay the price.
I am sure that Mark Senior or OGH will be on soon to tell you why everybody is being ridicolous over theLDs and how incumbency and secret internal polls will show the day being saved.
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
Not so. The price of oil was and is a world price. The rapid rise in the price of oil far outweighed any small changes in exchange rates and that was what drove the idea of the value of oil to Scotland's economy. Even ignoring the spike in 2008, the price of oil had still risen from $30 a barrel in 2003 to $100 a barrel prior to the latest slump.
British exchange rates did not have a small change; they had a substantial and massive change. The pound lost twenty per cent of its value against the dollar, and thirty per cent versus the euro, in little over a year. The still-famous (infamous?) Wilson devaluation was smaller by far. Imported goods rising in price by one pound in four - not small by any means!
Yeah, 20% against the dollar (which is what oil is priced in so your comment about the Euro is immaterial).
By comparison the international price of oil climbed by more than 300%. I wonder which one had more effect?
Let's take some easy examples:
£1 = $ 1.50 Oil price = $50 a barrel.. £ 33.33 a barrel
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
Did she ? She also broke the law in This Week. She is an amateur though.We won't hear from her after the elections.
Comments
Loaded up all the latest candidates from YourNextMP which can be searched here:
http://show.nojam.com/a2sl/search.php
Just noticed that even Yorkshire First has more candidates than the BNP
Portillo moments may be dramatic, but kabuki theatre does not a fair and competitive system make. Put another way, there is a memory selection bias. Everyone remembers the blue moon, not the thousand predictable constituencies that followed it.
Another way of looking at it, I suppose is that if we assume that 265 - 269 is the current spread then what is the variance. Probably about 10 - so 301 upwards is more than 3 SDs (1% chance). So you have a 99% chance of winning £50 and a 1% chance of losing 150.
(In fact on a binomial model if 268 is the mean then p = 268/625 =0.43 so q = 0.57 so SD = 12.5. (sqrt (npq)) 301 is (301-268)/12.5 = 2.64 SDs so (going back to a normal distribution) (1- z) = .0041 so less than one chance in 200.)
Short of a truly seismic event, like the SNP surge at Holyrood four years ago, it makes normal democracy almost impossible and does indeed guarantee a lucky handful (usually the least capable and deserving) safe seats. That's incredibly unhealthy and makes for an even worse disconnection between governors and governed.
Instead of adopting PR, AV or whatever, it would be simpler to impose a ceiling on the size of a constituency: say, 75K as a max. This would increase the number of MPs to ~900 and would decrease the number of safe seats, make MPs more answerable to individuals (and give them the time to cope by reducing their workload), and make Parliament behave in a way that is, if not strictly proportional, at least near-proportional.
This suggestion is conceptually simple, easy to implement and understand, retains the advantages of FPTP whilst reducing its disadvantages. It therefore has zero chance of implementation...:-)
'' Journalism of the Lazy kind. Jaw-dropping indeed.
http://www.nhsla.com/CurrentAc...
The bar chart from 1981 onwards shows that the number of claims have flattened out from 94/95 onwards (this, against an increased number of clinical encounters). However there is bound to be an increase in the amount paid out for similar incidents (inflation).
For the last 2-4 years, it is granted that claims could yet arise in the future, hence the Actuarial estimate . ''
''Total amount paid out for year 2011-12 (last available) is £ 1.33billion, with legal costs of £ 230 million.''
ie 1% not 'more than 20%' of the budget'
1999, 35.4%; 28
2003, 36.6%; 30
2007, 29.6%; 26
2011, 36.9%; 30.
So, the Labour vote has not fluctuated in Wales except in 2007 when they lost 7 per cent of seats by losing 7 per cent of votes, and in so far as they do better on seats than they deserve, it is because of the extreme dominance of the FPTP element in seat allocations (2/3rds).
This is what happened to the SNPs third budget of their minority government in 2009
36% of the vote, they win 50% of the seats.
On 29% of the vote, they win 43% of the seats.
Or to put it another way, in 2007 they lost 20% of their vote, but only 13% of their seats, starting from a base that grossly over-represented their electoral strength in the first place.
No system that was even remotely proportional would let them get that result. Certainly FPTP would not - did not, at Westminster in 2010.
If that does not represent 'substantial voting fluctuations' while only minor variations in the actual seats, I don't know what does.
If you wish to make statistical comparisons, make sure that they are valid ones.
Ergo, a PM could either try to reconstitute his own government, or resign and pass the government to the Opposition. Doing neither seems not to be an option.
Although the SNP might be able to hold on to power with GRN MSP's, in Wales a traffic light coalition might be needed for Labour to hold on.
I have just taken a spin round the Golden Triangle area of Norwich South. This area was predominantly Lib Dem at the 2010 election but if posters are anything to go by then they will be decimated come May 7th.
Last week there was a massive preponderance of Labour posters but that has changed radically in recent days. In my survey which covers the Unthank, Earlham and Dereham roads plus most side streets I have counted 0 UKIP, 2 Conservative, 11 Lib Dem, 89 Labour and 137 Green party posters.
I had a visit from Clive Lewis (Lab) yesterday, nice chap but he won't be getting my vote. However I expect him to win comfortably despite the heavy Green poster campaign. The Greens will certainly come second and might be worth a few bob to win it if you think the poster count is significant. The Tories will poll fairly well to finish third despite the lack of posters. It's safer to keep you head down if you are a Tory in this constituency.
For Lib Dems, I'm sad to say Simon Wright is the deadest of dead ducks and will finish fourth at best.
Simon Wright and other LD MP's had 5 years and countless excuses to defect to the Labour party when they had the chance.
They didn't and now they are going to pay the price.
Glad to see David Cameron standing up to his aggressive interruptions (about time).
Marr still obsessed with proving he is better than Paxman.
Switched over to Murnaghan and see the usual 'soft' interview with EdBalls. Every question was answered with 'tory bashing.' Why do commentators let him get away with this time and time again?
Then Andrew Neil spent the first ten minutes (with his team of spiinners) talking about the tories and 'how well EdM was doing.
Whilst the GE campaign is not setting everyone alight (which is nothing new) I think the quality of reporting has been dire. It seems more about the egos' of the commentators. I switchon to watch a speech and most of the time it is the commentator giving us their 'narrative', I'm sick to death of it.
I see Marr asked David Cameron about fox-hunting and immediately after, Norman Smith and Carole Walker were tweeting the same. Just another BBC stitch up.
Welcome LadyBucket.
I assume an offer of membership to the Pragmatic Communist Party will be rebuffed?
The California State Senate has 40 members. The comparison is not exact but if they can elect 40 Senators then why cannot we elect say 100 to 120? Not that I think we need them.
On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
By comparison the international price of oil climbed by more than 300%. I wonder which one had more effect?
I take it no questions about the lie told by Miliband at his press conference about the experts who say non-dom bashing is a good thing?
But how many watch this sort of thing.
And you are right - it is all about media egos. The BBC advert for their coverage tells you that.
£1 = $ 1.50 Oil price = $50 a barrel.. £ 33.33 a barrel
20% devaluation:
£1 = $ 1.20. Oil price = $50 a barrel.. £ 41.66a barrel
Oil price increase in sterling = 25% [ 1 / 0.8 ]
300% / 400% had nothing to do with our exchange rate.