Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Scotland and the LD collapse almost completely reverses

2

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Chameleon said:

    It'll be interesting to see how the european leaders react to Cameron. Either they'll dismiss him out of hand, in which case I could see him doing a volte face and saying 'I wanted a Yes vote, but Europe isn't taking us seriously, so lets vote No' in which case a No vote is a very real probability or they will cede and he will get his wishes which will result in a fairly safe Yes vote with the EU grouchy that it's relinquished so many powers for an easy win.

    They won't do either of those things, they'll work out some helpful, small-bore face-savers.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited May 2015
    I think EFTA is a complete red herring. EFTA is a relic institutional structure, not a free trade agreement between the members of EFTA and the EU. It has just four members: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. EU states, and the EU, are not members.

    Trade between the four EFTA countries and the EU is not governed by EFTA rules. It is governed by either the EEA rules (in the case of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), or in Switzerland's case by the bilateral Swiss-EU treaty.

    There is, therefore, no such thing as the UK joining EFTA and having the same relationship with the EU as EFTA countries have (but distinct from the EEA), as some people seem to think.

    Our choices in the event we left the EU would be either to join the EEA - to my mind the worst of all worlds, giving us less influence but subject to nearly all the same constraints and regulations, and, of course, still subject to the free movement of labour - or to negotiate our own bilateral agreement rather as the Swiss have. In practice I'm pretty certain it would be the latter, simply because we are so large, and our financial services sector is so dominant in Europe, that we'd need a tailored agreement.

    Whether such a tailored agreement would be very different in practical terms compared with what we have now is moot. Clearly we'd sign up to nearly all of the EU package (VAT, product type rules, zero tariffs on goods, government procurement rules, and so on - those would be no-brainers). I think we'd almost certainly end up with something not very different in movement of labour. Who knows, though? The BOOers don't seem interested in fleshing out what they think such a deal would look like.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    I missed that, very funny. I did like the picture of Miranda on the table.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT Just been rewatching a BBC4 Music docu on US 80s rock. It's been most peculiar viewing - there's a very definite bias to the Left, knocking Reagan "the relentless profiteering of music", and most of the popular rock culture [as meaningless drivel], applauding Tom Petty relentlessly [6x so far] and bemoaning the success of MTV vs the hipsters who worked for it/didn't like metal but had to grin and bear it.

    I've seen this quite a lot on BBC Music. They seem to employ a Motorhead fan too since they crop up far too often in TOTP reruns and other docs.

    Does anyone here have a Tom Petty record? He's a very average figure in my memory from the 80s.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    A Conservative Government getting an Out vote in the EU referendum then keeping us in would manna from heaven for UKIP.

    It's interesting. If the government is committed to Yes, and public vote No, what do they do? They have to negotiate something they don't want. How do you negotiate effectively when your heart isn't in it?
    Well here's the thing. If the public vote "No", did they vote for EFTA/EEA or for something else?

    I think the current question is very badly worded, and could well lead to real problems down the road.
    Ah, you've woken up to that at last. As I have said before it may be that leaving the EU means we can remain in the EEA rather than argue our way back in. This would I would have thought encourage a No vote. It would be the best option for us in leaving. If we can avoid Schengen. As ever, leaving the EU is fought with the dangers of then having to renegotiate our relationship back with them. I am not sure I fancy a labour government doing that.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    Yup, and having self-determination at this level is key.

    Our choices in the event we left the EU would be either to join the EEA - to my mind the worst of all worlds, giving us less influence but subject to nearly all the same constraints and regulations, and, of course, still subject to the free movement of labour - or to negotiate our own bilateral agreement rather as the Swiss have. In practice I'm pretty certain it would be the latter, simply because we are so large, and our financial services sector is so dominant in Europe, that we'd need a tailored agreement.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Plato said:

    Exactly. Until that penny drops - I seriously expect the Eurocrats to dismiss this as a hissy-fit.

    taffys said:

    'If we vote out, the European Union will not be too bothered by losing a a bunch of trouble.'

    And the many billions in net contributions that trouble contributes every year.

    And a huge dent in the credibility of "The Project". Be like California leaving the USA.

    Not to mention a dangerous precedent.
    Neither Juncker, nor the Eurocrats get a vote on this. The EU is composed of its member states, and they determine its rules.

    Any deal must be agreed between the heads of government of the EU. And those heads of government are answerable to their own voters.

    With the possible exception of France, no-one in the EU wants to lose the UK - because that increases the financial . Cameron's strongest weapon when talking to Merkel or Renzi or Rajoy is that he can say "I'm sorry, I don't believe what you are offering is enough for me to recommend this referendum to the British people."

    That doesn't mean a deal can be reached (We twenty something heads of state it will be extremely difficult), but it were, this would be the way it would.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    A Conservative Government getting an Out vote in the EU referendum then keeping us in would manna from heaven for UKIP.

    It's interesting. If the government is committed to Yes, and public vote No, what do they do? They have to negotiate something they don't want. How do you negotiate effectively when your heart isn't in it?
    Well here's the thing. If the public vote "No", did they vote for EFTA/EEA or for something else?

    I think the current question is very badly worded, and could well lead to real problems down the road.
    Ah, you've woken up to that at last. As I have said before it may be that leaving the EU means we can remain in the EEA rather than argue our way back in. This would I would have thought encourage a No vote. It would be the best option for us in leaving. If we can avoid Schengen. As ever, leaving the EU is fought with the dangers of then having to renegotiate our relationship back with them. I am not sure I fancy a labour government doing that.
    I love Schengen. I dearly wish we could join.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Chameleon said:

    It'll be interesting to see how the european leaders react to Cameron. Either they'll dismiss him out of hand, in which case I could see him doing a volte face and saying 'I wanted a Yes vote, but Europe isn't taking us seriously, so lets vote No' in which case a No vote is a very real probability or they will cede and he will get his wishes which will result in a fairly safe Yes vote with the EU grouchy that it's relinquished so many powers for an easy win.

    They won't do either of those things, they'll work out some helpful, small-bore face-savers.
    And for the drama to work properly they have to resist at the outset so that Cameron can appear to win his great victory after a titanic struggle.

    The Eurocrats said, "No!, No concessions to Britain!" And Cameron set about them with the Bullingdon Club until their heads were sore, and returned to Britain with much in the way of booty. And the British people were amazed and said unto each other, "See how wrong the Cameron-doubters were! Does not that concession on benefit eligibility glitter in such a fine way?!" And the grateful populace voted for Cameron's referendum in such numbers that would make Kim Jong-un green with envy and... continued on page 94
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    Ooh the UK have got involved with the FIFA allegations...
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015

    Chameleon said:

    It'll be interesting to see how the european leaders react to Cameron. Either they'll dismiss him out of hand, in which case I could see him doing a volte face and saying 'I wanted a Yes vote, but Europe isn't taking us seriously, so lets vote No' in which case a No vote is a very real probability or they will cede and he will get his wishes which will result in a fairly safe Yes vote with the EU grouchy that it's relinquished so many powers for an easy win.

    They won't do either of those things, they'll work out some helpful, small-bore face-savers.
    And for the drama to work properly they have to resist at the outset so that Cameron can appear to win his great victory after a titanic struggle.

    The Eurocrats said, "No!, No concessions to Britain!" And Cameron set about them with the Bullingdon Club until their heads were sore, and returned to Britain with much in the way of booty. And the British people were amazed and said unto each other, "See how wrong the Cameron-doubters were! Does not that concession on benefit eligibility glitter in such a fine way?!" And the grateful populace voted for Cameron's referendum in such numbers that would make Kim Jong-un green with envy and... continued on page 94
    Oh, nicely done! :D
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    The Telegraph is reporting that the 'In' side in the referendum will be allowed to use the Civil Service to lobby for them. I find this jaw-dropping. I had pooh-poohed the claims of UKIP supporters that this referendum would be 'rigged' as some sort of conspiracy theory, but if this goes through, they will be proven right. The Civil Service turning out to lobby for the government side in an election is the sort of thing you expect from African tin pot republics, not the United Kingdom. Why is David Cameron endorsing this sort of dishonesty? Is he so lacking in confident that we can win this in a fair election?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11636916/France-accuses-David-Cameron-of-trying-to-dismantle-European-Union.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. Me, an entirely credible forecast. But it's only a possibility.

    I do wonder what Cameron will do if they offer little. Does he try and spin it, or sigh and recommend Out? I think he's soft pro-EU. He's not a federalist fool like Clegg, but I don't see him as anything but a reluctant/forced sceptic.

    If he did come Out [as it were] and won, it'd be interesting watching rightwing Conservative backbenchers react.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    FPT

    The current nominations for Lab candidate for London Mayor (the most important thing is to secure 5):

    Jowell 31
    Khan 23
    Lammy 8
    Abbott 4
    Wolmar 2
    Thomas 1

    We're at the halfway stage. At least one more CLP nominates tonight, but until they happen they are difficult to find, so there may be many more.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    JEO said:

    The Telegraph is reporting that the 'In' side in the referendum will be allowed to use the Civil Service to lobby for them. I find this jaw-dropping. I had pooh-poohed the claims of UKIP supporters that this referendum would be 'rigged' as some sort of conspiracy theory, but if this goes through, they will be proven right. The Civil Service turning out to lobby for the government side in an election is the sort of thing you expect from African tin pot republics, not the United Kingdom. Why is David Cameron endorsing this sort of dishonesty? Is he so lacking in confident that we can win this in a fair election?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11636916/France-accuses-David-Cameron-of-trying-to-dismantle-European-Union.html

    I take it you protested at this arrangement for the Indy Ref as well?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    The crisis has caused the EU and particularly the Eurozone to become self-obsessed. It has always been quite inward; free trade in the block supported by tariffs for goods to enter it, but it has solely failed to open up. It becomes more and more of a weight on Britain every day.

    But I just can't decide if I want to ally with the "Pull up the drawbridge" brigade. I have relatively little problem with immigration, or a certain level of common goods standards and t pivot to the rest of the world means more of both (at least gross).

    Here's to hoping that the 100/1 shot of Cameron's renegociation actually works...

    I saw Nigel Farage on TV the other day expecting some nonsense about breast-feeding or HIV, but he actually came across as very sensible. He was saying UKIP were a pro-immigration party, but they just wanted skilled immigration rather than unskilled immigration. That is a mindset I can get behind. There was a MigrationWatch report the other day saying how something like 70% of Eastern European immigrants were working in unskilled jobs. I have no issue limiting that immigration, given the need to reduce inequality and improve employment for native Brits. I just want to make sure the very talented professionals that come to the UK are still free to come.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Pulpstar said:

    Putting in 34.5% for both Lab and Con to the GE calculator (And leaving others the same) yields Con 302; Lab 256; LD 12; SNP 57 - which leaves a very well hung parliament.

    On the new boundaries it is:

    Con 271; Lab 255; LD 7; SNP 49.

    New boundaries massively favouring Labour??
    Who knows ?!

    If they have a message which gets out as many voters as the Conservatives (Or more) they'll be in Government I think. The SNP/Plaid/SDLP block is larger than the DUP/UUP (Who knows what the Lib Dems will do) block so Labour can get into Gov't with less seats than the Conservatives still.

    They'll pay a potentially heavy price for it mind, the system as it stands just seems more or less fair to me (So far as the Gov't being Labour or Conservative) - is all ^_~

    The real unfairness is with UKIP, the Greens and yes, even the Lib Dems. Labour would take a huge hit under PR I reckon - the Greens and UKIP benefiting the most.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited May 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
    It means the Civil Service will be using taxpayer resources to produce reports arguing for one side. That is funded by the taxes of millions of people who want to leave the European Union. Their own hard earned wages will be used for the other side in a referendum. I find it shocking.

    If the 1922 Committee or the Electoral Commission are to maintain credibility they must stop this.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. Alistair, depends on how the Westminster/Holyrood situation was set up.

    I do think in a referendum it's important one side doesn't have an unfair advantage [such as by gerrymandering the electorate in their favour ;) ].
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
    It means the Civil Service will be using taxpayer resources to produce reports arguing for one side. That is funded by the taxes of millions of people who want to leave the European Union. Their own hard earned wages will be used for the other side in a referendum. I find it shocking.

    If the 1922 Committee or the Electoral Commission are to maintain credibility they must stop this.
    I personally don't think that the Civil Service should be weighing in on either side.

    The problem comes with them answering questions i.e.:

    Q: According to analyses done by the Cabinet Office, is the UK a net economic benificiary of the UK being a member of the EU?

    I don't know how they would answer that. Would we ban those questions?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Alistair said:

    JEO said:

    The Telegraph is reporting that the 'In' side in the referendum will be allowed to use the Civil Service to lobby for them. I find this jaw-dropping. I had pooh-poohed the claims of UKIP supporters that this referendum would be 'rigged' as some sort of conspiracy theory, but if this goes through, they will be proven right. The Civil Service turning out to lobby for the government side in an election is the sort of thing you expect from African tin pot republics, not the United Kingdom. Why is David Cameron endorsing this sort of dishonesty? Is he so lacking in confident that we can win this in a fair election?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11636916/France-accuses-David-Cameron-of-trying-to-dismantle-European-Union.html

    I take it you protested at this arrangement for the Indy Ref as well?
    If you read the article, this was explicitly banned in the legislation for the Scottish independence referendum.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited May 2015
    ''I have no issue limiting that immigration, given the need to reduce inequality and improve employment for native Brits. ''

    I think this is a red herring. Wages for low skilled people would not rise if the Europeans left. The companies that pay those wages would simply move elsewhere.

    Yesterday a Polish maintenance guy spent four hours at our house mending a wheelchair that we need daily for a disabled person who lives there.

    I know for a fact he could have said 'sorry mate, can;t touch that'. Maybe a British guy would have.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Birmingham Post ‏@birminghampost 4m4 minutes ago

    MEP Sion Simon demands 'disgraceful' Fifa boss steps down http://tinyurl.com/ow2hq6j

    "Shortly there will be an election, in which Sepp Blatter will increase his majority"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    taffys said:

    ''I have no issue limiting that immigration, given the need to reduce inequality and improve employment for native Brits. ''

    I think this is a red herring. Wages for low skilled people would not rise if the Europeans left. The companies that pay those wages would simply move elsewhere.

    Yesterday a Polish maintenance guy spent four hours at our house mending a wheelchair that we need daily for a disabled person who lives there.

    I know for a fact he could have said 'sorry mate, can;t touch that'. Maybe a British guy would have.

    Ultimately, in a gloabalised, free-trade world we will each get paid what our skills command on the world stage.

    And that does not look good - irrespective of the amount of immigration - for low skilled Brits.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000,

    That would depend on whether the report strayed into arguing for one outcome or the other. The Telegraph article states 'During the run up to the referendum on Scottish independence, the government was banned from publishing material that argued "for or against any outcome".' That seems very clear.

    taffys,

    The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, would disagree with you. He stated very clearly that wages were being held down at the low end by low skill immigration. Your example does not quite work, as maintenance technicians count as a skilled job. Most of the unskilled workers are working in leisure and retail, which are obviously jobs that have to be based here to serve the British market. There is absolutely no reason those jobs can not be done by British workers, even at higher wage rates.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
    It means the Civil Service will be using taxpayer resources to produce reports arguing for one side. That is funded by the taxes of millions of people who want to leave the European Union. Their own hard earned wages will be used for the other side in a referendum. I find it shocking.

    If the 1922 Committee or the Electoral Commission are to maintain credibility they must stop this.
    I personally don't think that the Civil Service should be weighing in on either side.

    The problem comes with them answering questions i.e.:

    Q: According to analyses done by the Cabinet Office, is the UK a net economic benificiary of the UK being a member of the EU?

    I don't know how they would answer that. Would we ban those questions?
    Before I left ONS they were very much making it their business to prepare for the EU referendum (which I thought a complete waste of time, how wrong I was!).

    I attended an event where we discussed the role that ONS would play in answering such questions. The easy(ish) bit will be describing the situation as it is now in regards to trade. I pointed out that where it gets difficult is working out what effect leaving might have on such things.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    rcs1000 said:

    Plato said:

    Exactly. Until that penny drops - I seriously expect the Eurocrats to dismiss this as a hissy-fit.

    taffys said:

    'If we vote out, the European Union will not be too bothered by losing a a bunch of trouble.'

    And the many billions in net contributions that trouble contributes every year.

    And a huge dent in the credibility of "The Project". Be like California leaving the USA.

    Not to mention a dangerous precedent.
    Neither Juncker, nor the Eurocrats get a vote on this. The EU is composed of its member states, and they determine its rules.

    Any deal must be agreed between the heads of government of the EU. And those heads of government are answerable to their own voters.
    .
    That is true, but many of those heads of government are in eager alignment with the Eurocrats on most issues, even if some will have larger concerns with them than others. Juncker and the Eurocrats won't get a vote, but they still influence and help set the agenda for the process, and what they do behind the scenes will impact all heads of government to some degree, even if it is not the criticial factor.

    It's why when I refer to EU leaders I mean the heads of government and the heads of the bureaucratic machine. Their influence may be overstated at times as all-encompassing, but it is still very significant in its potentiality.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Indeed, Mr. Taffys. The Germans would lose an economically rational ally and at the same time have to shoulder even more of the financial burden.

    The UK leaving the EU wouldn't just mean it's somewhat smaller, it'd be a huge change, for both sides [the EU more than the UK].

    There is an element of Europhobia that not just wants to leave but also wish ill on the remainder of the EU.

    The Germans and a few others may need to cough up more, but they would soon get the money back as Frankfurt became the Financial services centre of Europe, gaining from a waning London.

    The EU could cope very well with out us, just as rUK would post Scottish independence. The biggest losers in each case would be the companies trading across the borders.

    Leaving the EU would not be a disaster for either side. It would just be mildly injurious to both.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Plato said:

    Exactly. Until that penny drops - I seriously expect the Eurocrats to dismiss this as a hissy-fit.

    taffys said:

    'If we vote out, the European Union will not be too bothered by losing a a bunch of trouble.'

    And the many billions in net contributions that trouble contributes every year.

    And a huge dent in the credibility of "The Project". Be like California leaving the USA.

    Not to mention a dangerous precedent.
    Neither Juncker, nor the Eurocrats get a vote on this. The EU is composed of its member states, and they determine its rules.

    Any deal must be agreed between the heads of government of the EU. And those heads of government are answerable to their own voters.
    .
    That is true, but many of those heads of government are in eager alignment with the Eurocrats on most issues, even if some will have larger concerns with them than others. Juncker and the Eurocrats won't get a vote, but they still influence and help set the agenda for the process, and what they do behind the scenes will impact all heads of government to some degree, even if it is not the criticial factor.

    It's why when I refer to EU leaders I mean the heads of government and the heads of the bureaucratic machine. Their influence may be overstated at times as all-encompassing, but it is still very significant in its potentiality.
    The other heads of government care most about being re-elected.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952

    Mr. Mark, I'd still be very, very surprised if Out wins.

    We need a series of polls giving NO a healthy lead. Get the Eurocrats' attention.

    If only our opinion pollsters could come up with polls that were massively wide of the mark from time to time....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    edited May 2015
    Mr. Foxinsox, EU-phobia. Europe is not the EU, and the EU is not Europe.

    I'm not convinced financial services would leap to Germany. But, for me, the major issue is sovereignty. The ideological zealots will drive the eurozone over the cliff sooner or later, and I'd prefer we weren't tethered to that steam train when it's plummeting to its doom.

    Edited extra bit: you bounder, you.

    It'll make the run-up to the vote rather uncertain, given how badly polling did in the General Election.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Indeed, Mr. Taffys. The Germans would lose an economically rational ally and at the same time have to shoulder even more of the financial burden.

    The UK leaving the EU wouldn't just mean it's somewhat smaller, it'd be a huge change, for both sides [the EU more than the UK].

    There is an element of Europhobia that not just wants to leave but also wish ill on the remainder of the EU.

    The Germans and a few others may need to cough up more, but they would soon get the money back as Frankfurt became the Financial services centre of Europe, gaining from a waning London.

    The EU could cope very well with out us, just as rUK would post Scottish independence. The biggest losers in each case would be the companies trading across the borders.

    Leaving the EU would not be a disaster for either side. It would just be mildly injurious to both.
    I remain unconvinced that the charms of Frankfurt would woo large swathes of the financial services sector away from London. There are only so many times you can go and look at the Palm House.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    Mr. Foxinsox, EU-phobia. Europe is not the EU, and the EU is not Europe.

    I'm not convinced financial services would leap to Germany. But, for me, the major issue is sovereignty. The ideological zealots will drive the eurozone over the cliff sooner or later, and I'd prefer we weren't tethered to that steam train when it's plummeting to its doom.

    Edited extra bit: you bounder, you.

    It'll make the run-up to the vote rather uncertain, given how badly polling did in the General Election.

    Sovereignty means you get power over me simply because you were born on the same island.

    Down to governments. Down to sovereignty.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    Indeed, Mr. Taffys. The Germans would lose an economically rational ally and at the same time have to shoulder even more of the financial burden.

    The UK leaving the EU wouldn't just mean it's somewhat smaller, it'd be a huge change, for both sides [the EU more than the UK].

    There is an element of Europhobia that not just wants to leave but also wish ill on the remainder of the EU.

    The Germans and a few others may need to cough up more, but they would soon get the money back as Frankfurt became the Financial services centre of Europe, gaining from a waning London.

    The EU could cope very well with out us, just as rUK would post Scottish independence. The biggest losers in each case would be the companies trading across the borders.

    Leaving the EU would not be a disaster for either side. It would just be mildly injurious to both.
    I remain unconvinced that the charms of Frankfurt would woo large swathes of the financial services sector away from London. There are only so many times you can go and look at the Palm House.
    Singapore's success as a financial hub for China, despite not being in any political union with the People's Republic, suggests London could certainly remain competitive.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. 1000, I have power over you?

    Go buy me some Tunes at once. I've got a dreadful cold.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:


    This idea about it all being different in London is turning into a bit of a myth. A lot of the London results were as disappointing as elsewhere. It's simply that they didn't perform as catastrophically in the capital, and they made a few gains, though where they were up against the tories as opposed to the LDs, those few gains came with extremely narrow majorities.

    Possibly - but remember they were starting from a very high base in London anyway. It was one of the very few places were the Labour vote held steady in 2010, and helped mask the scale of their defeat. So that they gained any seats at all is quite noteworthy. Bear in mind the only seats they took from the Tories outside London were Dewsbury, Chester, Lancaster, Wolverhampton SW and Wirral West, while losing no fewer than 8 non-London seats to them - Telford, Derby North, Plymouth Moor View, Morley and Outwood, Vale of Clwyd, Gower, Bolton West (plus Corby).

    Indeed, this is a point I tried to make to all my lefty friends in the Smoke last year when they were shrieking about how well they did in EU and council elections in London. There were very few seats Labour could realistically hope to take from the Tories in London, so doing well there was basically a distraction. Outside London and Scotland, they were coming a poor third to the Tories and UKIP. That's a pattern you can see quite easily on the map on the previous thread.

    So I think there is evidence of a disconnection between London and the rest of the country. Mind you, that's hardly new. That was true under John Major and even Stanley Baldwin as well!
    Labour also won Hove outside London.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    antifrank said:
    "They were joined by representatives from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party.."
    The SNP certainly wouldn't have benefited from PR this time round, so they deserve praise for sticking to their principles on this.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,303
    JEO said:


    Singapore's success as a financial hub for China, despite not being in any political union with the People's Republic, suggests London could certainly remain competitive.

    The difference is that Singapore is in no danger of having a left-wing government. :)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
    It means the Civil Service will be using taxpayer resources to produce reports arguing for one side. That is funded by the taxes of millions of people who want to leave the European Union. Their own hard earned wages will be used for the other side in a referendum. I find it shocking.

    .
    This also happened for the 1975 Referendum.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Surely the whole point of the Civil Service is to advise ministers of what they believe to be the best course of action for the country. Ministers are, of course, free to ignore this advice and instruct them to proceed otherwise.

    If the Civil Service believe that staying in the EU is Britain's best interests, then they are simply doing their job advising them of this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    antifrank said:
    "They were joined by representatives from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party.."
    The SNP certainly wouldn't have benefited from PR this time round, so they deserve praise for sticking to their principles on this.
    Very true, the Greens would get more though so the seats in their "progressive alliance" would remain...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    antifrank said:

    So far as the choice on the EU referendum is concerned, it looks like a choice between backing the appallingly self-satisfied and arrogant and backing the barking nutjobs.
    ...
    Not an attractive choice at all.

    I agree. Your analysis sums up my position quite accurately.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, if that's true and the Out side does not have the same opportunity it's a disgrace.

    What exactly is meant by "the civil service lobbying"? Will they be on the street distributing leaflets?
    It means the Civil Service will be using taxpayer resources to produce reports arguing for one side. That is funded by the taxes of millions of people who want to leave the European Union. Their own hard earned wages will be used for the other side in a referendum. I find it shocking.

    If the 1922 Committee or the Electoral Commission are to maintain credibility they must stop this.
    Taxpayer resources are being used to fund a referendum that is only occurring due to the No campaign.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Plato said:

    Exactly. Until that penny drops - I seriously expect the Eurocrats to dismiss this as a hissy-fit.

    taffys said:

    'If we vote out, the European Union will not be too bothered by losing a a bunch of trouble.'

    And the many billions in net contributions that trouble contributes every year.

    And a huge dent in the credibility of "The Project". Be like California leaving the USA.

    Not to mention a dangerous precedent.
    Neither Juncker, nor the Eurocrats get a vote on this. The EU is composed of its member states, and they determine its rules.

    Any deal must be agreed between the heads of government of the EU. And those heads of government are answerable to their own voters.
    .
    That is true, but many of those heads of government are in eager alignment with the Eurocrats on most issues, even if some will have larger concerns with them than others. Juncker and the Eurocrats won't get a vote, but they still influence and help set the agenda for the process, and what they do behind the scenes will impact all heads of government to some degree, even if it is not the criticial factor.

    It's why when I refer to EU leaders I mean the heads of government and the heads of the bureaucratic machine. Their influence may be overstated at times as all-encompassing, but it is still very significant in its potentiality.
    The other heads of government care most about being re-elected.
    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. Fire, it's only occurring because a party with a referendum in the manifesto won the election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:


    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?

    It's nothing to do with Eurocrats or Eurosceptics or anything like that, we're talking about specific issues that affect their voters.

    Want to stop paying benefits to foreigners while still making them pay in? Polish voters are miffed, Polish politicians pay a price if they agree.

    Want to give Britain a veto on financial regulation that affects London, while letting British banks operate in other countries whose governments are banned by the EU from regulating them? Voters everywhere blame these banks for the financial crisis, politicians everywhere pay a price if they agree.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Surely the whole point of the Civil Service is to advise ministers of what they believe to be the best course of action for the country. Ministers are, of course, free to ignore this advice and instruct them to proceed otherwise.

    If the Civil Service believe that staying in the EU is Britain's best interests, then they are simply doing their job advising them of this.

    The Civil Service exist to serve the Government of the day, which also means implementing government policy when they believe it is not the best course of action for the country.

    The existence of purdah for elections exists so that the Civil Service does not compromise its impartiality by being used by the incumbent government to campaign against the opposition.

    The referendum exists in a sort of grey zone between these two, if it is clear and unambiguous government policy to campaign in favour of EU membership then one could accuse the civil service of showing partiality by not supporting government policy.

    In general I would prefer that the Civil Service err on the side of demonstrating impartiality by observing purdah for referenda, but I can see why the politicians in charge believe that it should implement government policy.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited May 2015
    What I'm a bit baffled by is why we aren't voting to stay in or not on the current terms, with the proviso that if it's a No the referendum must be re-run within say 2 years and the second result implemented.

    One could then campaign for a No vote to equip Cameron with some leverage: give me what I want, or the repeat referendum will be another Out, which means we leave. He either gets something during that 2-year post-Out window and the second vote is In; or he gets nothing, and the second Out vote reaffirms the first.

    It seems to be very poor tactics to have one vote in which whether he's gained anything at all is a matter of spin, and anyway easily unpicked by some later treaty.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    Interesting article.

    Not sure why it follows that "of course, that new boundaries would make the system even more favourable to the Conservatives."

    I don't know how that can be said with any certainty at all. If urban, Labour seats are expanded to take in a few surrounding villages this could favour the tories, but this cannot possibly be the whole story. Safe labour seats like this might become a bit less safe but still very much labour, possibly at the expense of adjoining tory held marginals.

    The principle of making seats of equal size is surely unarguable, we will have to wait and see what it means in practice. The swing in marginals this time is a large contributor to the vote efficiency, but that tory success from 2015 is not a given in 2020. What constitutes a marginal will be less clear by virtue of the large shake-up of boundaries.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:


    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?


    Want to stop paying benefits to foreigners while still making them pay in?

    No.

    The idea is to stop paying benefits to foreigners who haven't paid in.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32928391

    interesting article on Labour/UKIP in Wales
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Interesting article.

    Not sure why it follows that "of course, that new boundaries would make the system even more favourable to the Conservatives."

    I don't know how that can be said with any certainty at all. If urban, Labour seats are expanded to take in a few surrounding villages this could favour the tories, but this cannot possibly be the whole story. Safe labour seats like this might become a bit less safe but still very much labour, possibly at the expense of adjoining tory held marginals.

    Yup, has anyone run the numbers on the current boundaries? I guess some of the drop was from Scotland, which won't happen any more because:
    1) Labour have lost most of their seats.
    2) Scots had a massive, pre-referendum voter registration binge.


    The principle of making seats of equal size is surely unarguable, we will have to wait and see what it means in practice. The swing in marginals this time is a large contributor to the vote efficiency, but that tory success from 2015 is not a given in 2020. What constitutes a marginal will be less clear by virtue of the large shake-up of boundaries.

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5847/gaza-blockade

    Since the beginning of this year, the Egyptians have opened the Rafah border crossing for five days only. The international community and media often talk about Israel's responsibility for the ongoing blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, while ignoring that the Egyptians have been imposing severe travel restrictions on the 1.7 million Palestinians living there.

    "We understand Egypt's security concerns in Sinai, but it's time for the Egyptians to reopen the border crossing on a permanent basis, especially in light of the historic relations between Egypt and Palestine." — Salah Abdel Ati, Palestinian human rights activist

    It is shameful for the Egyptians and other Arabs that, while they are imposing various restrictions on Palestinians, Israel is helping patients from the Gaza Strip undergo surgery in Jerusalem. Ironically, the frustration and bitterness eventually translate into violence against Israel, not Egypt. The Palestinians are well aware that attacking Egypt would draw a very strong response from the Egyptian military.

    Instead of pointing the finger of blame at Israel, it is time for the international media and community to put pressure on Egypt and other Arab countries to help their Palestinian brethren and to stop torturing and humiliating them.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    watford30 said:

    kle4 said:


    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?


    Want to stop paying benefits to foreigners while still making them pay in?

    No.

    The idea is to stop paying benefits to foreigners who haven't paid in.

    And presumably we'll be happy if other countries implement the same rules.

    The problem only comes from the EU who don't want the concept of "foreigners" to exist anymore within Europe.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:


    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?

    It's nothing to do with Eurocrats or Eurosceptics or anything like that, we're talking about specific issues that affect their voters.

    Want to stop paying benefits to foreigners while still making them pay in? Polish voters are miffed, Polish politicians pay a price if they agree.

    Want to give Britain a veto on financial regulation that affects London, while letting British banks operate in other countries whose governments are banned by the EU from regulating them? Voters everywhere blame these banks for the financial crisis, politicians everywhere pay a price if they agree.
    I disagree with the assertion it has nothing to do with Eurocrats - my point is that people have problems with the EU to verying degrees, but the UK population has shown itself to have the most problems. That being the case, governments in other parts of the EU have greater leeway to agree with and be directly influenced by the Eurocrats either because they and their voters agree with the Eurocrats on the specific issues, or becuase there is not as much danger in them getting punished electorally by their voters by doing so, because there is not as much anger from those voters at the same things that make UK voters angry.

    The voters are important. But if those voters are happy with things, or dislike the sorts of things the UK wants to do, or just plain doesn't see the benefit to themselves of acquiescing (even at the potential cost of the UK leaving), then their leaders have even less incentive to side with the UK against the Eurocrats, particular as many of them are fully aligned with them. As such, the views and actions of the Eurocrats have power because governments and voters elsewhere in Europe agree with them that they as a country should not agree to anything substantial, or don't hate them enough to disagree with them in not giving the UK concessions.

    It's the difference between not having a vote in a decision to change the rules, and not having a voice. The Eurocrats certainly have the latter, and if heads of government will not be punished electorally for listening to that voice, they would be silly not to listen to it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The SNP govern only in the interests of the SNP, not Scotland...
    How many other inconvenient or distracting principles have been ditched to better persuade Scots to back independence? And if senior members of the party have cheerfully sacrificed their own estimate of good governance in the past might they not happily do so again if it is reckoned that failing to do so might jeopardise the drive for independence?

    In other words, what principle actually governs the SNP? The national interest or a party interest conveniently reinterpreted as the national interest? By MacAskill’s own admission, after all, good policy must sometimes be sacrificed for fear that not doing so might complicate the pursuit of independence.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/the-snp-is-a-party-happy-to-pursue-the-wrong-policies-for-the-right-reasons/
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    taffys said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32928391

    interesting article on Labour/UKIP in Wales

    I like the complacency:

    [Carwyn Jones, Labour FM] says: "All the opinion polls seem to suggest that the seats would come from other parties not from us, bearing in mind we have 30 out of the 60 seats and 28 of them are first past the post.

    "In terms of losing seats in the proportional representation section, actually it's other parties that would lose the seats other than ourselves."
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited May 2015

    The principle of making seats of equal size is surely unarguable, we will have to wait and see what it means in practice. The swing in marginals this time is a large contributor to the vote efficiency, but that tory success from 2015 is not a given in 2020. What constitutes a marginal will be less clear by virtue of the large shake-up of boundaries.

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
    The current boundaries were drawn with a tolerance of +/- 10% and the change to the law reduces that tolerance to +/- 5% (with provision for exceptions such as islands in both cases and for Welsh over-representation in the current boundaries).

    There is little scope for the Tories to loosen the tolerance without losing all the change that they have implemented in law.

    I do find all this pious nonsense about the "principle of equal constituencies" to be so much claptrap when the argument is whether to have a tolerance of 5% in place of 10%. As the last boundary review demonstrated, you cannot meet the tighter tolerance without creating more absurd boundaries and splitting of wards. It was a poor, and un-British, sort of change.

    Edit: I love my final paragraph, above, by the way. It's a fine example of how someone can allow their irritation at other people's arguments to run away with itself to the point of being guilty of that which they accuse others.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T:

    England win toss and bowl. Play about to start:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/32555241
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    taffys said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32928391

    interesting article on Labour/UKIP in Wales

    I like the complacency:

    [Carwyn Jones, Labour FM] says: "All the opinion polls seem to suggest that the seats would come from other parties not from us, bearing in mind we have 30 out of the 60 seats and 28 of them are first past the post.

    "In terms of losing seats in the proportional representation section, actually it's other parties that would lose the seats other than ourselves."
    IIRC, the Conservative leader at the Welsh Assembly lost his seat on the party list because the party broke through under FPTP?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Sandpit said:

    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
    THink of the manhours that went into that decision. The analysis, the realpolitik, the negotiation. Should've just given me a bell: sorted for one crate of Timothy Taylor's Landlord.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited May 2015
    Sandpit said:

    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
    I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    taffys said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32928391

    interesting article on Labour/UKIP in Wales

    I like the complacency:

    [Carwyn Jones, Labour FM] says: "All the opinion polls seem to suggest that the seats would come from other parties not from us, bearing in mind we have 30 out of the 60 seats and 28 of them are first past the post.

    "In terms of losing seats in the proportional representation section, actually it's other parties that would lose the seats other than ourselves."
    IIRC, the Conservative leader at the Welsh Assembly lost his seat on the party list because the party broke through under FPTP?
    On matters Welsh, my thoughts on Plaid Cymru's prospects for 2020:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/2020-plaid-cymru-waiting-for-great-leap.html
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    10% when they were created, but seat size variation could be greater than that now because of population drifts.

    Updating the boundaries with the most recent data is more important for correcting systematic imbalances than having a lower tolerance in my view.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    400 Test wickets for Anderson.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    The far-left CLPD has urged Jon Trickett to stand for the leadership on an anti-austerity platform:

    https://www.facebook.com/events/840850175964775/?ref=6&ref_notif_type=plan_user_invited

    Nomination deadline for MPs is June 15 so they're cutting it fine.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    AndyJS said:

    400 Test wickets for Anderson.

    YES!!!!! NZ 2 runs for 1 wicket. :D
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I had never heard of this 'Periscoping' until I saw the reports of him mentioning it, so maybe it should be ok, maybe not, I do not know - what I do think is Carswell can be a little irritating in that way many reformers can be. He has some great ideas, and some interesting ideas, but in his zeal for modernisation and so on, he occasionally make statements implying little traditions and in-jokes, which I would regard as harmless at worst and charming at best, are symbolic of some terrible distance and lack of engagement from politicians toward the public. His heart is in the right place, but sometimes I think he fights the battle all the time when it isn't necessary, which lessens the impact when identifying a serious example of the sorts of problems he wants to address.

    I mention it because just looking at the link I knew he would get uppity and possibly self righteous about it as if on some moral crusade by doing it. He didn't come across as self righteous, but again he clearly thinks picking petty fights is in itself automatically a good thing, as it is challenging 'tradition'. I suppose he takes the view that every journey begins with the first small step, so the fight goes on at all stages. I'm sure he'll jeep us in headlines.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,401

    Sandpit said:

    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
    I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
    There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited May 2015
    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    Don't have NI to hand, but the rest are:

    GB - average 71,531

    England - average 72,853

    Low: 55,377- Wirral West
    High exc. IOW: 98,435 - Manchester Central

    (Isle of Wight - 108,804, provision for being two seats in new review)

    Scotland - average 69,403

    Low excl. islands: 47,558 - Caithness etc. (has some dispensation in new review based on size)
    High: Linthlithgow & East Falkirk - 86,955

    Na h-Eileanan An Iar (Western Isles) - 21,744
    Orkney and Shetland - 34,551

    Wales - average 57,057

    Low: 40,492 - Arfon
    High: 75,714 - Cardiff South & Penarth


    It's a disgrace that an election was fought on such boundaries.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    One area where a normal boundary review would help the Tories is Northampton where Labour have two of their targets to get back into government:

    Northampton North: Con maj = 3,245; electorate = 59,147
    Northampton South: Con maj = 3,793; electorate = 61,284

    Northamptonshire South: Con maj = 26,416; electorate = 85,092
    Daventry: Con maj = 21,059; electorate = 72,753

    Nothampton North is adjacent to Daventry and Northampton South is next to Northamptonshire South.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    Don't have NI to hand, but the rest are:

    GB - average 71,531

    England - average 72,853

    Low: 55,377- Wirral West
    High exc. IOW: 98,435 - Manchester Central

    (Isle of Wight - 108,804, provision for being two seats in new review)

    Scotland - average 69,403

    Low excl. islands: 47,558 - Caithness etc. (has some dispensation in new review based on size)
    High: Linthlithgow & East Falkirk - 86,955

    Na h-Eileanan An Iar (Western Isles) - 21,744
    Orkney and Shetland - 34,551

    Wales - average 57,057

    Low: 40,492 - Arfon
    High: 75,714 - Cardiff South & Penarth


    It's a disgrace that an election was fought on such boundaries.
    Isn't part of the review going to work with registered electors, not electorate? Not sure how I feel about htis.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
    I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
    There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
    Yes, you obviously couldn't visit the whole constituency each weekend. And branch meetings might be difficult, I suppose, though Skype etc. is surely an option there. Your suggestion may be more sensible - however the basic principle still holds: MPs are representing people not land.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    10% when they were created, but seat size variation could be greater than that now because of population drifts.

    .
    Yes - I was wondering if someone had worked out what that drift resulted in based on the updated electoral roll ???

    2013 is here

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm:77-335135
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    I think it was 10% when the current boundaries were drawn up (based on 2000 electorates). At the previous review in 1995 it was 12.5%.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

    Yes, can't see Blatter losing this vote. Which moves us on to the question of possible boycotts/ withdrwals. The one factor that makes that possible in my view is that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc might lobby for a boycott of Qatar, so that the Champions League and domestic leagues can continue unimpeded that year.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Wales ought to have 29 seats rather than 40. The problem is with the Tories gaining seats there they might not want to reduce the number of seats as they did before.

    TGOHF said:

    What is the current tolerance of the seats fought in the GE May 2015 ?

    Don't have NI to hand, but the rest are:

    GB - average 71,531

    England - average 72,853

    Low: 55,377- Wirral West
    High exc. IOW: 98,435 - Manchester Central

    (Isle of Wight - 108,804, provision for being two seats in new review)

    Scotland - average 69,403

    Low excl. islands: 47,558 - Caithness etc. (has some dispensation in new review based on size)
    High: Linthlithgow & East Falkirk - 86,955

    Na h-Eileanan An Iar (Western Isles) - 21,744
    Orkney and Shetland - 34,551

    Wales - average 57,057

    Low: 40,492 - Arfon
    High: 75,714 - Cardiff South & Penarth


    It's a disgrace that an election was fought on such boundaries.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    i.e. The real power in modern football lies with the big clubs rather than the national federations.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,401

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anorak said:

    The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.

    And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.]
    +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
    The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
    I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
    There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
    Yes, you obviously couldn't visit the whole constituency each weekend. And branch meetings might be difficult, I suppose, though Skype etc. is surely an option there. Your suggestion may be more sensible - however the basic principle still holds: MPs are representing people not land.
    Indeed. But in principle the people too need access to their MP and the MP needs to do the necessary at Westminster. It's already no joke getting around O&S or the Long Isle as it is. Will be interesting to see how this develops - though don't forget a lot of discussion is based on figures pre-indyref registration burst (not that that would make up the difference as it stands).
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Looks like this might not be a very long test match?
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,247
    Regarding the boundaries, the issue is the vast difference in ward sizes. For example Maidenhead is made up of 18 wards with an average of 4k voters. Leeds West is made up of 4 wards with around 15-20k voters.

    They should keep the tight tolerance but make a provision that ward splitting will be allowed in areas with wards over 10k.

    Even better they should get rid of multi-members wards and make all of England single member
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    watford30 said:

    kle4 said:


    I do not doubt - but most other nations are not as eurosceptic as Britain, even if some are increasing in their unhappiness, and aligning with Eurocrats would probably not be decisive in causing them problems in that aim of re-election, and it keeps the EU happy, so not as much harm in doing it, surely?


    Want to stop paying benefits to foreigners while still making them pay in?

    No.

    The idea is to stop paying benefits to foreigners who haven't paid in.
    Cameron's suggesting 4 years, so if you lose your job in year 4 you'll have been paying in for 3 years and still get nothing out.

    In reality it seems unlikely the UK would actually want to go ahead with anything this drastic, because it creates too much incentive to hide your job from the authorities.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    AndyJS said:

    Wales ought to have 29 seats rather than 40. The problem is with the Tories gaining seats there they might not want to reduce the number of seats as they did before.

    The specific Welsh MPs might not want to fight larger seats. But in general the reduction ought to hurt Labour more.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

    Yes, can't see Blatter losing this vote. Which moves us on to the question of possible boycotts/ withdrwals. The one factor that makes that possible in my view is that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc might lobby for a boycott of Qatar, so that the Champions League and domestic leagues can continue unimpeded that year.
    I agree that the whole Qatar summer/winter debarcle is going to add to pressure for a boycott... but it's a long way off and and I still think an idle threat. I think far more likely UEFA will refuse to co-operate in a myriad of smaller ways over the next couple of years, e.g. members not voting/taking their seats... maybe not even paying.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

    Yes, can't see Blatter losing this vote. Which moves us on to the question of possible boycotts/ withdrwals. The one factor that makes that possible in my view is that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc might lobby for a boycott of Qatar, so that the Champions League and domestic leagues can continue unimpeded that year.
    I agree that the whole Qatar summer/winter debarcle is going to add to pressure for a boycott... but it's a long way off and and I still think an idle threat. I think far more likely UEFA will refuse to co-operate in a myriad of smaller ways over the next couple of years, e.g. members not voting/taking their seats... maybe not even paying.
    Scotland are playing Qatar in a friendly next month - opportunity for a demo/boycott by the progressives of Northern Britain ?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

    Yes, can't see Blatter losing this vote. Which moves us on to the question of possible boycotts/ withdrwals. The one factor that makes that possible in my view is that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc might lobby for a boycott of Qatar, so that the Champions League and domestic leagues can continue unimpeded that year.
    I agree that the whole Qatar summer/winter debarcle is going to add to pressure for a boycott... but it's a long way off and and I still think an idle threat. I think far more likely UEFA will refuse to co-operate in a myriad of smaller ways over the next couple of years, e.g. members not voting/taking their seats... maybe not even paying.
    Yes, can't really see a boycott of Russia coming off, but no-one really wants to play in Qatar. Of course, part of the problem is that Platini's credibility is undermined by the fact that he backed the Qatar bid.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Plenty of hats, scarves and gloves at Headingley today.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2015

    AndyJS said:

    Wales ought to have 29 seats rather than 40. The problem is with the Tories gaining seats there they might not want to reduce the number of seats as they did before.

    The specific Welsh MPs might not want to fight larger seats. But in general the reduction ought to hurt Labour more.
    Electorates:

    Aberavon: 49,821
    Cynon Valley: 51,421
    Blaenau Gwent: 51,332
    Rhondda: 51,809
    Ogmore: 55,320
    Islwyn: 55,075
    Neath: 56,099
    Llanelli: 59,314
    Newport East: 56,018
    Swansea East: 58,011
    Swansea West: 58,776
    Cardiff Central: 57,454
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited May 2015
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Wales ought to have 29 seats rather than 40. The problem is with the Tories gaining seats there they might not want to reduce the number of seats as they did before.

    The specific Welsh MPs might not want to fight larger seats. But in general the reduction ought to hurt Labour more.
    Electorates:

    Aberavon: 49,821
    Cynon Valley: 51,421
    Blaenau Gwent: 51,332
    Rhondda: 51,809
    Ogmore: 55,320
    Islwyn: 55,075
    Neath: 56,099
    Llanelli: 59,314
    Newport East: 56,018
    Swansea East: 58,011
    Swansea West: 58,776
    Conservative 11 @ av 58,678
    Labour 25 @ av 57,680
    LD 1 @ 54,215
    PC 3 @ av 46,879

    Edit: but the Labour seats have an average majority of 7,120 compared to the Tories' 4,767.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    edited May 2015
    It would be helpful if some of the boundaries were redrawn completely. Some are very peculiar and helpful to one party (normally the one that is strongest in the area).
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TGOHF said:

    1/7 (1.14) may be an unattractive betting option, but surely Blatter is nailed on to win this.

    The maths just do not suit Ali.

    Africa: 54 votes
    Europe: 53 votes
    Asia: 46 votes
    North & Central America: 35
    Oceania: 11
    South America: 10

    105 needed to win on second round.

    As for Blatter: BBC sources say 50 of 54 African votes "nailed on" (just kidding on the words :P). Even if that were optimistic, 40 would be realistic. Plus a similar proportion of Asia (say 35) and the central part of Central and North America (25). There will be UEFA dissenters - Platini is not particularly well liked - say 10. Oceania and South America will be split, say 10 total. That's 120 at a minimum as I see it. DYOR.

    Yes, can't see Blatter losing this vote. Which moves us on to the question of possible boycotts/ withdrwals. The one factor that makes that possible in my view is that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc might lobby for a boycott of Qatar, so that the Champions League and domestic leagues can continue unimpeded that year.
    I agree that the whole Qatar summer/winter debarcle is going to add to pressure for a boycott... but it's a long way off and and I still think an idle threat. I think far more likely UEFA will refuse to co-operate in a myriad of smaller ways over the next couple of years, e.g. members not voting/taking their seats... maybe not even paying.
    Scotland are playing Qatar in a friendly next month - opportunity for a demo/boycott by the progressives of Northern Britain ?
    I think the SFA has already got a plan to boycott Qatar 2022. Their usual plan.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Time to sack Blatter and hand control of world football to someone in touch with the common fan, like His Royal Highness Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein of Jordan.
This discussion has been closed.