This is a very interesting post, thanks @antifrank. One point that could be made clearer is the distorting effect of the four protected constituencies. They are simply excluded from the review altogether, and do not count towards the United Kingdom electoral quota or the allocation of seats to each part of the United Kingdom (see paragraph 2(3) and 8(5) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986). It is best, therefore, to proceed on the basis that there will be 596 constituencies, divided between England (minus the Isle of Wight), Wales, Scotland (minus the Western Isles, Orkneys and Shetland) and Northern Ireland. That would seem to have the result of increasing the number of seats in England and Scotland, and reducing the number in Wales and Northern Ireland.
There is also some authority for the proposition that the rules set out in the schedule to the 1986 Act are merely guidelines, which the Commission need not strictly obey.
Mr. Calum, a fair point. If the SNP and Conservatives had done worse, the Lib Dems would have more seats.
Agree that these were 2 of the factors - Clegg's answer below:
" He put defeat solely down to Tory scaremongering about SNP and SNP surge in Scotland "
I think there is the minor issue of a backlash by the electorate because of the small matter of them being in coalition with the Tories.
Furthermore the whole attitude towards coalition (with tuition fees being an example) stank of "you can't trust anything anyone ever says before they go into a coalition" - which for a party who only exists to go into coalition translated to "you can't trust anything we ever say".
Antifrank - the 2nd part of Individual Registration happens in December removing everyone from the register who is not matched to the DWP database and has not responded to a letter asking for extra info. The Guardian reckoned earlier this year it could be 7 million
Now this figure will likely have come down by then but will still be substantial. Now some of those may be duplicate registrations (e.g. students) or people who have died. Others may be people from abroad who weren't actually entitled to vote or cases of electoral fraud (cough cough). Could make a big difference if more of the removals are in urban areas.
How many unions have to join the RMT and back BOO before it becomes uncomfortable for the Labour Party to oppose? (I know the RMT isn't affiliated but obviously many others are.)
Why would unions support BOO.
Is it all about immigration affecting their members' jobs?
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP
Yes, congratulations on a thoughtful piece. My understanding is that irrespective of local govt and ward boundaries, parliamentary boundaries have to be within county boundaries. Assuming this correct (and a LG expert told me this) - would it have some effect on seat boundaries? It might throw up some silly anomalies. Local government organisation is a mess. If we could agree 50 sensible 'county' boundaries for the UK we could have a nice 100 seat senate and abolish the House of Lords. As it is the Lords give Cameron a nice get out for unlucky MPs.
Nope, the only constraints, other than in respect of the four protected constituencies, are that a constituency must be wholly within one of the four parts of the United Kingdom, that it must not be greater than 13,000 square kilometres, and that its electorate must not deviate by more than 5% from the electoral quota. Other electoral and geographical boundaries are merely considerations which the Boundary Commission may take into account, so the Commission are free to ignore those factors unless it is irrational to do so, and if the Commission take them into account, they are entitled to give them no weight.
The best boundary review for the Tories was the one that took place between 1976 and 1983. It reduced the number of Labour seats from 269 to 261 and increased the number of Conservative seats from 339 to 359. The Conservative notional majority was 68 instead of 43.
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP
That's interesting company for the people of Godalming!
The article doesn't really live up to its billing because it's really about how the Eurozone would have been better with Britain in it, rather than the benefits for Britain.
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
Edit - Riverside (12.1%) & Gorton (9.8%) had the Greens in 2nd, so discount them. Didn't have a column for them in the sheet I was using.
The article doesn't really live up to its billing because it's really about how the Eurozone would have been better with Britain in it, rather than the benefits for Britain.
Not to mention the huge amount of wishful thinking going on:
"The BoE’s intellectual pole position on monetary matters and its feel for financial markets, honed by centuries in the middle of the City of London, would have made it a leader within the European Central Bank."
Judging by the tenor of Labourlist comments in recent days, I am starting to think Corbyn could do surprisingly well in the contest. Possibly 3rd place (maybe even 2nd?).
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
UKIP came second in the three most-heavily Labour leaning seats in the country??
Judging by the tenor of Labourlist comments in recent days, I am starting to think Corbyn could do surprisingly well in the contest. Possibly 3rd place (maybe even 2nd?).
I did think the 6/1 on him coming second in first preferences was good value.
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
UKIP came second in the three most-heavily Labour leaning seats in the country??
Yes - it puts the "UKIP 2nds" figures being bandied around post-election into some sort of relief - they were second, but by a mile.
The best boundary review for the Tories was the one that took place between 1976 and 1983. It reduced the number of Labour seats from 269 to 261 and increased the number of Conservative seats from 339 to 359. The Conservative notional majority was 68 instead of 43.
How many unions have to join the RMT and back BOO before it becomes uncomfortable for the Labour Party to oppose? (I know the RMT isn't affiliated but obviously many others are.)
Why would unions support BOO.
Is it all about immigration affecting their members' jobs?
The late Bob Crow (God rest him) led a party called "No2EU - Yes to Democracy".
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
UKIP came second in the three most-heavily Labour leaning seats in the country??
Yes - it puts the "UKIP 2nds" figures being bandied around post-election into some sort of relief - they were second, but by a mile.
On twitter shortly after the election, a Kipper activist was pointing out all the second places UKIP had, and it was evidence that the Tories were dying and UKIP were on the rise.
He was crestfallen when someone pointed out to him, the figures were distorted by the fact the Tories had 330 first places, and UKIP had 1 first place.
Just placed my annual bet on Andy Murray, rubbish odds 5/2. Caught his interview this morning on Sky, he's looking and sounding in great shape, I can but hope.
Danny656/WG Given Burnham now leads polls with the public as a whole as well as Labour voters unless something dramatic changes I would expect him to win. I think Kendall and Cooper are in a battle for second but it is not impossible Corbyn could overtake one if not both of them
The best boundary review for the Tories was the one that took place between 1976 and 1983. It reduced the number of Labour seats from 269 to 261 and increased the number of Conservative seats from 339 to 359. The Conservative notional majority was 68 instead of 43.
Surely the review would have been between 1979 and 1983?
No, they started it in 1976. It was almost delayed beyond the 1983 election due to a challenge from Michael Foot who was upset at how many seats Labour were going to lose as a result of the review. In fact Labour were lucky that 1976 electorates were being used because if numbers from the early 1980s had been used the results would have been far worse for the party.
New boundaries were supposed to come into effect for the 1970 election but on that occasion Labour successfully delayed them until 1974, which is slightly ironic since they lost in 1970 and did well in 1974.
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
UKIP came second in the three most-heavily Labour leaning seats in the country??
Yes - it puts the "UKIP 2nds" figures being bandied around post-election into some sort of relief - they were second, but by a mile.
On twitter shortly after the election, a Kipper activist was pointing out all the second places UKIP had, and it was evidence that the Tories were dying and UKIP were on the rise.
He was crestfallen when someone pointed out to him, the figures were distorted by the fact the Tories had 330 first places, and UKIP had 1 first place.
Did that "someone" have a - shall we say - "eclectic" taste in music and footwear?
Just placed my annual bet on Andy Murray, rubbish odds 5/2. Caught his interview this morning on Sky, he's looking and sounding in great shape, I can but hope.
If you want to improve your odds a touch, he is on Betfair at 3.95, which is 2.805-1 after commision.
The best boundary review for the Tories was the one that took place between 1976 and 1983. It reduced the number of Labour seats from 269 to 261 and increased the number of Conservative seats from 339 to 359. The Conservative notional majority was 68 instead of 43.
Surely the review would have been between 1979 and 1983?
No, they started it in 1976. It was almost delayed beyond the 1983 election due to a challenge from Michael Foot who was upset at how many seats Labour were going to lose as a result of the review. In fact Labour were lucky that 1976 electorates were being used because if numbers from the early 1980s had been used the results would have been far worse for the party.
Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?
Otherwise known as the largest percentage majorities? ;-) All Labour. Great strategy from Ed.
Liverpool Walton 72.3% Knowsley 68.3% Liverpool West Derby 66.7% East Ham 65.5% Bootle 63.6% Birmingham Ladywood 60.9% Liverpool Wavertree 59.3% Manchester Gorton 57.3% Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9% Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP</p>
UKIP came second in the three most-heavily Labour leaning seats in the country??
Yes - it puts the "UKIP 2nds" figures being bandied around post-election into some sort of relief - they were second, but by a mile.
On twitter shortly after the election, a Kipper activist was pointing out all the second places UKIP had, and it was evidence that the Tories were dying and UKIP were on the rise.
He was crestfallen when someone pointed out to him, the figures were distorted by the fact the Tories had 330 first places, and UKIP had 1 first place.
Did that "someone" have a - shall we say - "eclectic" taste in music and footwear?
In the words of that well known philosopher Shaggy, "It wasn't me"
The best boundary review for the Tories was the one that took place between 1976 and 1983. It reduced the number of Labour seats from 269 to 261 and increased the number of Conservative seats from 339 to 359. The Conservative notional majority was 68 instead of 43.
Surely the review would have been between 1979 and 1983?
No, they started it in 1976. It was almost delayed beyond the 1983 election due to a challenge from Michael Foot who was upset at how many seats Labour were going to lose as a result of the review. In fact Labour were lucky that 1976 electorates were being used because if numbers from the early 1980s had been used the results would have been far worse for the party.
That wasn't the longest period of time between the start of a review and the first election at which the new boundaries were used. The 2000 electorate review didn't come into effect until 2010, and those are still the boundaries used today in England and Wales. So currently 15 years out of date.
Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.
It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1
So it would look fecking stupid is the answer
Two-member borough constituencies (sometimes even three member constituencies) were the norm for hundreds of years. And, of course, multi-member wards are still the norm in local elections.
Yes, but in multi-member wards you can vote more than once for the same party - I didn't think that was what he was proposing. He was saying winner and runner up from a 1 voter 1 vote contest would be elected.
The vast majority of constituencies would be formalities, and there would be no benefit from er, actually winning. Results for 4 parties of 70%, 20%, 5% and 5% would be the same as 34%, 33%, 32% and 1%
The Isle of Wight situation is annoying for the Tories. If the electorate reached 120,000 it would almost certainly be split into two constituencies but it's been hovering below that figure for a number of years now. The electorate did grow very fast between 1970 and 2000 but has slowed down since then.
Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.
It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1
So it would look fecking stupid is the answer
Two-member borough constituencies (sometimes even three member constituencies) were the norm for hundreds of years. And, of course, multi-member wards are still the norm in local elections.
Yes, but in multi-member wards you can vote more than once for the same party - I didn't think that was what he was proposing. He was saying winner and runner up from a 1 voter 1 vote contest would be elected.
The vast majority of constituencies would be formalities, and there would be no benefit from er, actually winning. Results for 4 parties of 70%, 20%, 5% and 5% would be the same as 34%, 33%, 32% and 1%
Daft idea.
After the 1867 Reform Act, some constituencies returned three MPs with each voter casting only two votes.
" The Calais crisis is being treated almost as a national emergency in Britain, dominating the front pages of newspapers and sparking a debate in parliament. But in France it is being studiously ignored.
There was not a single word on it in the pages of Thursday’s print versions of the national newspapers Libération, Le Figaro or La Parisien.
Wednesday's papers had also ignored it, with the exception of Le Parisien.
It devotes all of 100 words on page 8 that noted that Eurotunnel traffic had partially resumed but singularly failed to mention anything about hundreds of migrants clambering onto trucks in the hope of getting across the Channel to England."
The Isle of Wight situation is annoying for the Tories. If the electorate reached 120,000 it would almost certainly be split into two constituencies but it's been hovering below that figure for a number of years now. The electorate did grow very fast between 1970 and 2000 but has slowed down since then.
Personally I don't really see what the issue is with a cross-Solent seat if needed. If the Boundary Commission have to cross the Tamar, then anything is fair game! ;-)
AndyJS Has there ever been an election where boundary changes affected the result? For example, in 1997 the Tories benefited from boundary changes to little avail, in 2015 the Tories did not benefit from boundary changes they tried to push through but won anyway and in 1970 as you say Labour avoided unfavourable boundary changes but still lost while in 1974 boundary changes were pushed through and Labour won anyway
AndyJS Has there ever been an election where boundary changes affected the result? For example, in 1997 the Tories benefited from boundary changes to little avail, in 2015 the Tories did not benefit from boundary changes they tried to push through but won anyway and in 1970 as you say Labour avoided unfavourable boundary changes but still lost while in 1974 boundary changes were pushed through and Labour won anyway
Interesting question. Labour may have won a small majority in February 1974 under the previous boundaries. They were 17 seats short. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to get hold of the notional 1970 results which David Butler was using on the BBC's Feb 1974 election show.
A Lab/LD coalition in 2010 may have been easier to form under the old boundaries. Labour were calculated to have lost 7 seats in the 2000-2007 review.
Antifrank - the 2nd part of Individual Registration happens in December removing everyone from the register who is not matched to the DWP database and has not responded to a letter asking for extra info. The Guardian reckoned earlier this year it could be 7 million
Now this figure will likely have come down by then but will still be substantial. Now some of those may be duplicate registrations (e.g. students) or people who have died. Others may be people from abroad who weren't actually entitled to vote or cases of electoral fraud (cough cough). Could make a big difference if more of the removals are in urban areas.
Does this include second home owners? If so, stand by for massive Tory losses to the Lib Dems in the South West......
Antifrank - the 2nd part of Individual Registration happens in December removing everyone from the register who is not matched to the DWP database and has not responded to a letter asking for extra info. The Guardian reckoned earlier this year it could be 7 million
Now this figure will likely have come down by then but will still be substantial. Now some of those may be duplicate registrations (e.g. students) or people who have died. Others may be people from abroad who weren't actually entitled to vote or cases of electoral fraud (cough cough). Could make a big difference if more of the removals are in urban areas.
Does this include second home owners? If so, stand by for massive Tory losses to the Lib Dems in the South West......
The situation where someone can be on the electoral register in more than one place (although they can only actually vote once) has got to be dealt with IMO. It means people like students can choose where to cast their ballot, and so they can opt to vote in the most marginal of the seats where they're registered where their vote is more likely to affect the result.
Antifrank - the 2nd part of Individual Registration happens in December removing everyone from the register who is not matched to the DWP database and has not responded to a letter asking for extra info. The Guardian reckoned earlier this year it could be 7 million
Now this figure will likely have come down by then but will still be substantial. Now some of those may be duplicate registrations (e.g. students) or people who have died. Others may be people from abroad who weren't actually entitled to vote or cases of electoral fraud (cough cough). Could make a big difference if more of the removals are in urban areas.
Does this include second home owners? If so, stand by for massive Tory losses to the Lib Dems in the South West......
OK...
I am also standing by for a fall of pig manure onto my head...
Take a look at the Con majorities in former SW LD seats. Cornwall N, Torbay and St Ives about the only ones vulnerable to swings of less than 5%. Devon North, where Nick Harvey's incumbency bonus is gone, needs 6.7% swing for the LDs to get it back. This is thousands of voters - can't ALL be 2nd home owners!
To get "massive Tory losses" you are looking at 15+% swings. Good luck with that, especially if Farron wins...
Day after I saw a piece about Madagascan tortoises being driven extinct by pet- and trinket-collectors in the Far East, deforestation threatens the lemurs there: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33096260
The extent of the LD collapse in the SW is actually quiet extraordinary. In the seats where the incumbent was standing down, the tories did not just take the seat, but racked up stonking majorities e.g. Taunton Deane (!5K), Somerton and Frome (22K). There was a 16.6% swing in Bath to overturn a massive majority for Don Foster.
If we get a 600 seat Parliament then Labour would start on 209 seats, almost exactly the same as the 210 seats Cameron started on following the boundary changes before the 2010 election (although Howard actually only won 198 seats at the 2005 election)
No. Not Greece. Venezuela is attempting to get the Russian and Chinese governments to buy $1.6bn of Yuan denominated bonds. The yield on Venezuelan debt is now north of 20% (against just 10.5% for Greek 10 years). Absent a 50% leap in the oil price, a Venezuelan default is only a matter of time.
Bear in mind that Venezuela is a much larger debtor than Greece, with over $400bn owing to private sector creditors.
The coming Venezuelan (and Ecuadoran) defaults are undoubtedly a major part of why the IMF has played hardball over Greece. You don't want to have been a soft touch when it comes to negotiating with another bunch of left wingers.
Judging by the tenor of Labourlist comments in recent days, I am starting to think Corbyn could do surprisingly well in the contest. Possibly 3rd place (maybe even 2nd?).
Lol - even coming second would be damaging for the party. Go Corbyn!
Vladimir Putin could try to fund anti-EU efforts in Britain in an attempt to weaken Europe, a key ally of Angela Merkel warns.
When asked if the Russian President would be happy if Britain left the EU he said: "No doubt about that: yes he would be happy about that, no doubt about this, because everything which weakens the West and the Europeans is very much appreciated by Russia and Putin."
The extent of the LD collapse in the SW is actually quiet extraordinary. In the seats where the incumbent was standing down, the tories did not just take the seat, but racked up stonking majorities e.g. Taunton Deane (!5K), Somerton and Frome (22K). There was a 16.6% swing in Bath to overturn a massive majority for Don Foster.
Wow. Long road back
One of the lesser-noticed aspects of the election was that Labour (narrowly) beat the Lib Dems in voteshare in the South West: the first time that's happened since 1979.
Vladimir Putin could try to fund anti-EU efforts in Britain in an attempt to weaken Europe, a key ally of Angela Merkel warns.
When asked if the Russian President would be happy if Britain left the EU he said: "No doubt about that: yes he would be happy about that, no doubt about this, because everything which weakens the West and the Europeans is very much appreciated by Russia and Putin."
It's like the heady days of the Zinoviev letter all over again! :-)
That sounds like a pretty underhand tactic from the Germans. It's literally one man's say-so, from a country that has a vested interest for us to stay in.
JonCisBack Farron is more likely to win back Labour tactical voters in the SW than Lamb in my view
Yeah, I'm still not understanding the view that the way for the Lib Dems to win in the south is with an "Orange Book" Tory-leaning leader. It doesn't tally with the fact that the unapologetically leftie Charlie Kennedy did much better even in Con/LD marginals than Clegg did (lest we forget, the Lib Dems already suffered quite a few losses to the Tories in 2010).
Danny565 Indeed, the LDs won most of those seats because of Labour tactical votes, Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg's parliamentary private secretary and a junior minister in the Coalition Government, may not be the best choice to win them back!
Mr. Felix, reference to 'We cannot be killed', the infamous 2007 Sion Simon piece extolling the invincibility of Labour's young guns. Like the Milibands. And Balls.
AF "David Cameron has accepted it may not be possible to change the EU's treaties before the UK's in/out referendum on the EU, the BBC understands. The PM has argued instead for an "irreversible lock" and "legally binding" guarantees that EU law will at some point in the future be changed to accommodate Britain's aims. As recently as January Mr Cameron said he would be demanding "proper, full-on treaty change."
The odds on a convincing Yes vote have just receded a little
Danny565 Indeed, the LDs won most of those seats because of Labour tactical votes, Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg's parliamentary private secretary and a junior minister in the Coalition Government, may not be the best choice to win them back!
Maybe the SW is just moving to the right and the LDs will just have to suck it up.
felix I don't think, the Tory vote in the South West was no higher than 1992, if anything a littlle lower, just many who voted tactically LD, especially from 1997-2010, returned to Labour
Calum Congratulations to Mhairi Black, obviously of use in her present career in answer to that joke post and of course she has previously worked in the real world in a fish and chip shop. If she ever loses her seat I am sure an academic post at Edinburgh or Glasgow University awaits
I suspect 650 instead of 600 will be the will of the House, regardless of Conservative strategising along your lines. In fact, if they play their cards right, they might be able to get away with sticking the blame on Labour.
But how is that will actually going to be exercised?
To go back to 650, the law has to be changed - and it has to be done within approx the next 6 months - otherwise the Commissions will start work on 600. And they need 2 years to do the job - they can't change midway through.
All I can think of is an amendment to the Votes for Life Act - like the last review was stopped by an amendment to the Electoral Registration Act.
But who is actually going to do this? Lab may well prefer to keep quiet, keep the law at 600 and gamble on voting the final reports down in 2018 - because they know there will be Con rebels if it's 600.
Somebody has to actually initiate action very soon or the review will be done on 600 and it's then probably the toss of a coin whether the reports get voted down in 2018.
"French taxi drivers have blocked the roads to Paris airports and the main ring road around the city in a protest against Uber, prompting riot police to fire tear gas at some."
I suspect 650 instead of 600 will be the will of the House, regardless of Conservative strategising along your lines. In fact, if they play their cards right, they might be able to get away with sticking the blame on Labour.
But how is that will actually going to be exercised?
To go back to 650, the law has to be changed - and it has to be done within approx the next 6 months - otherwise the Commissions will start work on 600. And they need 2 years to do the job - they can't change midway through.
All I can think of is an amendment to the Votes for Life Act - like the last review was stopped by an amendment to the Electoral Registration Act.
But who is actually going to do this? Lab may well prefer to keep quiet, keep the law at 600 and gamble on voting the final reports down in 2018 - because they know there will be Con rebels if it's 600.
Somebody has to actually initiate action very soon or the review will be done on 600 and it's then probably the toss of a coin whether the reports get voted down in 2018.
That's a very good point. But it's a very risky strategy for Labour to rely on winning that vote in 2018; Cameron can probably buy off enough backbenchers and/or Ulstermen if it's 600 or bust.
It's not always true in politics that if there's a will, there's a way. But I suspect on this one the Opposition will find a way through the usual channels to help the Government save a little face. The SNP MPs - very few of whom will be looking to retire - are surely concerned about a reduction to 600 too.
AF "David Cameron has accepted it may not be possible to change the EU's treaties before the UK's in/out referendum on the EU, the BBC understands. The PM has argued instead for an "irreversible lock" and "legally binding" guarantees that EU law will at some point in the future be changed to accommodate Britain's aims. As recently as January Mr Cameron said he would be demanding "proper, full-on treaty change."
The odds on a convincing Yes vote have just receded a little
There is certainly a possibility that Cameron is starting to back himself into a corner, as it's looking increasingly likely that he's not going to get much of substance from the EU and no doubt a timetable for changes stretching well beyond 2020:
Any ideas what has happened to the poster known as @Neil?
Not a peep from him since May 12 and not a penny of the money owed either after his GE bets w me
Apologies if he is ill or something traumatic has happened to explain it
I sent him an email a few days ago asking how he was. No reply yet. I sent him message a few weeks prior on vanilla. No reply to that.
Before the election, He did say he was going to be busy after the election but he'd be back.
I think he's owed more a lot more money than he owes after the election from PBers.
So I am a little concerned about how he is. He's been on PB since 2005.
He emailed me on May 12 to ask for my bank details and also said that you and Mark Senior owed him so maybe one of you would pay. Failing that he said he would go to the bank and transfer the dosh that day, but as I say, nothing has arrived.
Any ideas what has happened to the poster known as @Neil?
Not a peep from him since May 12 and not a penny of the money owed either after his GE bets w me
Apologies if he is ill or something traumatic has happened to explain it
I sent him an email a few days ago asking how he was. No reply yet. I sent him message a few weeks prior on vanilla. No reply to that.
Before the election, He did say he was going to be busy after the election but he'd be back.
I think he's owed more a lot more money than he owes after the election from PBers.
So I am a little concerned about how he is. He's been on PB since 2005.
He emailed me on May 12 to ask for my bank details and also said that you and Mark Senior owed him so maybe one of you would pay. Failing that he said he would go to the bank and transfer the dosh that day, but as I say, nothing has arrived.
Not a kings ransom anyway, lets hope he is ok
How much does he owe you ? He and I had a small bet of £20. I can send that to you as a part payment.
Any ideas what has happened to the poster known as @Neil?
Not a peep from him since May 12 and not a penny of the money owed either after his GE bets w me
Apologies if he is ill or something traumatic has happened to explain it
I sent him an email a few days ago asking how he was. No reply yet. I sent him message a few weeks prior on vanilla. No reply to that.
Before the election, He did say he was going to be busy after the election but he'd be back.
I think he's owed more a lot more money than he owes after the election from PBers.
So I am a little concerned about how he is. He's been on PB since 2005.
He emailed me on May 12 to ask for my bank details and also said that you and Mark Senior owed him so maybe one of you would pay. Failing that he said he would go to the bank and transfer the dosh that day, but as I say, nothing has arrived.
Not a kings ransom anyway, lets hope he is ok
How much does he owe you ? He and I had a small bet of £20. I can send that to you as a part payment.
£150.
It's ok, thanks for the offer but let's see if he turns up in the next month or so. I assumed it was for roughly the same amount
JonCisBack Farron is more likely to win back Labour tactical voters in the SW than Lamb in my view
I suppose the point is that Kennedy was leader when Labour were in government and had undertaken the Iraq war, as well as the Tories still looking a little bit prehistoric. There were buckets of left-wing protest and tactical votes to be scooped up. Bridges were burned with those voters due to the nature of the coalition and they won't be back in a hurry - plus they'll have a Labour opposition to vote for relatively untainted by government.
Now there are two paths open to the Lib Dems, each with their own problems. The first is most obvious if Liz Kendall becomes Labour leader, trying to go for the left-wing votes that she may shed (those who are currently calling her a Tory). This is extremely problematic as a) As Ed Miliband's loss showed when being accused of being a 'Red Tory' despite gently shifting to the left as much as could sanely be expected, they tend to to demand an ideological purity which is impossible for a serious national party and don't tend to turn out anyway. The SNP of course can get away with it due to the peculiarities of devolved government and nationalism's status as something hopes can be projected on to. In fact, trying to replace Labour on the left whoever is leader may be daft, because the Libs defeat was so catastrophic that even if Labour mess up utterly and is in a doomsday scenario, the Owen Joneses of this world would probably think they might as well dust off their 'UKIP of the left' idea.
The other path might be a bit more promising. The Lib Dems current problem is that whatever else Cameron may be (and I'm no fan) he's relatively socially liberal. So he doesn't put off the likes of David Laws who'd probably have been Tories if at certain times in the 1980s & 90s it didn't appear that the Tory party rather enjoyed being deeply unpleasant to certain groups of people as a sport. That's by no means certain to last however - so far Cameron has managed to vacillate cleverly on Europe and immigration by saying and doing quite different things. Fear of SNP-Lab finally sealed the deal and brought those voters he'd put off by that back into the Tory fold. At some point that will have to stop, not least because of the EU referendum and him stepping down. There seems a reasonable chance if the EU campaign is a bitter one and like the last parliament the Tories are at their nadir at that point that the party won't be the well oiled machine it currently is and tears into itself or veers to the right. In that case, there would clearly be space for a pro-EU economically liberal party. In fact, for all Labour's troubles it may be a better bet than trying to win back voters who aren't the most reliable, actively despise your party and whose primary aim might be to kick out the Tories rather than vote for you.
They're delaying starting production till 2017, no doubt hoping for an increase in oil prices. Although the price of oil and its impact on the Scottish economy has died down in the MSM. The Cyberunionists and SLAB keep banging on about it, other than political nerds like me, there's no one paying attention other than themselves.
Given how unstable the world is at the moment with Middle East turmoil and problems with Russia and now Venezuela, any significant reduction in supply could impact oil prices, leaving much of these guys analysis open to attack.
Comments
One point that could be made clearer is the distorting effect of the four protected constituencies. They are simply excluded from the review altogether, and do not count towards the United Kingdom electoral quota or the allocation of seats to each part of the United Kingdom (see paragraph 2(3) and 8(5) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986). It is best, therefore, to proceed on the basis that there will be 596 constituencies, divided between England (minus the Isle of Wight), Wales, Scotland (minus the Western Isles, Orkneys and Shetland) and Northern Ireland. That would seem to have the result of increasing the number of seats in England and Scotland, and reducing the number in Wales and Northern Ireland.
There is also some authority for the proposition that the rules set out in the schedule to the 1986 Act are merely guidelines, which the Commission need not strictly obey.
IMF = Persia
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster
Now this figure will likely have come down by then but will still be substantial. Now some of those may be duplicate registrations (e.g. students) or people who have died. Others may be people from abroad who weren't actually entitled to vote or cases of electoral fraud (cough cough). Could make a big difference if more of the removals are in urban areas.
Why would unions support BOO.
Is it all about immigration affecting their members' jobs?
Liverpool Walton 72.3%
Knowsley 68.3%
Liverpool West Derby 66.7%
East Ham 65.5%
Bootle 63.6%
Birmingham Ladywood 60.9%
Liverpool Wavertree 59.3%
Manchester Gorton 57.3%
Birmingham Hodge Hill 56.9%
Walthamstow 55.5%
In raw vote terms, the 2nd place finisher had <10% in all of these:
Liverpool West Derby 8.5% - UKIP
Liverpool Walton 9.0% - UKIP
Liverpool Riverside 9.6% - Con
Manchester Gorton 9.7% - Con
Knowsley 9.8% - UKIP
Surrey South West 9.9% - UKIP
https://twitter.com/montie/status/614078818609971201
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983#Notional_election.2C_1979
How big an issue will this be in the London mayoral race?
Alright
Everything's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright
Everything's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright
Everything's gonna be alright
Alright
Alright
It's really alright
"The BoE’s intellectual pole position on monetary matters and its feel for financial markets, honed by centuries in the middle of the City of London, would have made it a leader within the European Central Bank."
"Voter power" 0.008
Needs updating for 2015 somewhat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No2EU
He was crestfallen when someone pointed out to him, the figures were distorted by the fact the Tories had 330 first places, and UKIP had 1 first place.
http://www.markpack.org.uk/22944/parliamentary-boundary-reviews/
New boundaries were supposed to come into effect for the 1970 election but on that occasion Labour successfully delayed them until 1974, which is slightly ironic since they lost in 1970 and did well in 1974.
The vast majority of constituencies would be formalities, and there would be no benefit from er, actually winning. Results for 4 parties of 70%, 20%, 5% and 5% would be the same as 34%, 33%, 32% and 1%
Daft idea.
The French with their heads in the sand as usual:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11697800/calais-migrant-crisis-live.html
" The Calais crisis is being treated almost as a national emergency in Britain, dominating the front pages of newspapers and sparking a debate in parliament. But in France it is being studiously ignored.
There was not a single word on it in the pages of Thursday’s print versions of the national newspapers Libération, Le Figaro or La Parisien.
Wednesday's papers had also ignored it, with the exception of Le Parisien.
It devotes all of 100 words on page 8 that noted that Eurotunnel traffic had partially resumed but singularly failed to mention anything about hundreds of migrants clambering onto trucks in the hope of getting across the Channel to England."
A Lab/LD coalition in 2010 may have been easier to form under the old boundaries. Labour were calculated to have lost 7 seats in the 2000-2007 review.
I am also standing by for a fall of pig manure onto my head...
Take a look at the Con majorities in former SW LD seats. Cornwall N, Torbay and St Ives about the only ones vulnerable to swings of less than 5%. Devon North, where Nick Harvey's incumbency bonus is gone, needs 6.7% swing for the LDs to get it back. This is thousands of voters - can't ALL be 2nd home owners!
To get "massive Tory losses" you are looking at 15+% swings. Good luck with that, especially if Farron wins...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33096260
Rather sad.
Wow. Long road back
https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/614092717581291520
No. Not Greece. Venezuela is attempting to get the Russian and Chinese governments to buy $1.6bn of Yuan denominated bonds. The yield on Venezuelan debt is now north of 20% (against just 10.5% for Greek 10 years). Absent a 50% leap in the oil price, a Venezuelan default is only a matter of time.
Bear in mind that Venezuela is a much larger debtor than Greece, with over $400bn owing to private sector creditors.
The coming Venezuelan (and Ecuadoran) defaults are undoubtedly a major part of why the IMF has played hardball over Greece. You don't want to have been a soft touch when it comes to negotiating with another bunch of left wingers.
http://news.sky.com/story/1507772/economy-key-to-eu-vote-sky-survey-suggests
Farron = Put whatever remains of our money on number 13, honey! I feel lucky
Vladimir Putin could try to fund anti-EU efforts in Britain in an attempt to weaken Europe, a key ally of Angela Merkel warns.
When asked if the Russian President would be happy if Britain left the EU he said: "No doubt about that: yes he would be happy about that, no doubt about this, because everything which weakens the West and the Europeans is very much appreciated by Russia and Putin."
http://news.sky.com/story/1508208/germany-beware-putins-push-for-brexit
It's like the heady days of the Zinoviev letter all over again! :-)
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/06/is-there-evidence-of-pollsters-herding.html/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33278440?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
That'll be joining "cast iron"...
The PM has argued instead for an "irreversible lock" and "legally binding" guarantees that EU law will at some point in the future be changed to accommodate Britain's aims.
As recently as January Mr Cameron said he would be demanding "proper, full-on treaty change."
The odds on a convincing Yes vote have just receded a little
http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/mhairi-black-graduates-with-first-class-degree-1-3813078
Skimming through the comments I couldn't help but notice:
" Banana Nirvana - 4:55 PM on 25/06/2015 - not wanting to rain on her parade but how does this degree get you a job in the real world? "
What can I say ?
Anyway no doubt at the Scottish Daily Mail they will be choosing a front page headline on Mhairi for tomorrow's addition - options:
(a) Mhairi Black awarded a first class degree in politics by Glasgow University.
(b) Concerns expressed about Glasgow University giving away first class degrees.
(c) Did the SNP and it's army of Cybernats bully Glasgow University into awarding Mhairi Black a first class degree ?
Which option would Andrew Peirce choose for them ?
To go back to 650, the law has to be changed - and it has to be done within approx the next 6 months - otherwise the Commissions will start work on 600. And they need 2 years to do the job - they can't change midway through.
All I can think of is an amendment to the Votes for Life Act - like the last review was stopped by an amendment to the Electoral Registration Act.
But who is actually going to do this? Lab may well prefer to keep quiet, keep the law at 600 and gamble on voting the final reports down in 2018 - because they know there will be Con rebels if it's 600.
Somebody has to actually initiate action very soon or the review will be done on 600 and it's then probably the toss of a coin whether the reports get voted down in 2018.
Not a peep from him since May 12 and not a penny of the money owed either after his GE bets w me
Apologies if he is ill or something traumatic has happened to explain it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33267581
It's not always true in politics that if there's a will, there's a way. But I suspect on this one the Opposition will find a way through the usual channels to help the Government save a little face. The SNP MPs - very few of whom will be looking to retire - are surely concerned about a reduction to 600 too.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/614115258207219713
He seemed v chummy w people on here, and in fact said a couple owed him and he might transfer the debt
Either way, nothing has been paid
Has he been quiet that long? I thought the Irish marriage referendum might have tempted him out to say owt.
Before the election, He did say he was going to be busy after the election but he'd be back.
I think he's owed more a lot more money than he owes after the election from PBers.
So I am a little concerned about how he is. He's been on PB since 2005.
Not a kings ransom anyway, lets hope he is ok
It's ok, thanks for the offer but let's see if he turns up in the next month or so. I assumed it was for roughly the same amount
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/10921-clair-ridge-milestone
They're delaying starting production till 2017, no doubt hoping for an increase in oil prices. Although the price of oil and its impact on the Scottish economy has died down in the MSM. The Cyberunionists and SLAB keep banging on about it, other than political nerds like me, there's no one paying attention other than themselves.
Given how unstable the world is at the moment with Middle East turmoil and problems with Russia and now Venezuela, any significant reduction in supply could impact oil prices, leaving much of these guys analysis open to attack.