Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
Only 9 letters in 2 years? That's a disgrace. Don't these TORY SCUM care about democracy?
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
I'm totally bewildered as to HOW the Govt won this vote.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
RCP doesn't list any postBiden Dem polls, which I find a little strange. About 15% of those polled will need to find a new allegiance (assuming 2-3% continue to back a candidate who has rule themself out).
Just checked the Republican nominee odds and there appears to be a fair bit of movement. Not sure if the NYT/CBS poll where Carson is leading Trump has been mentioned today:
A huge expense towards just what benefit? 400 'senators' with nothing to do and another series of pointless elections. Who will decide what happens in our country - if anything - a bogus senate or a house of commons? If the HoC has primacy, why bother with the upper chamber? There is some point to a senate in say the USA, where there are 50 separate states forming a continental wide Union, but just what possible point is there to any upper chamber in the UK?
The Tories will probably get an extra 10-20 seats with the boundary review.
Could be more.
Wells says Con Maj 50 at 2015 GE on revised boundaries done in 2013 (which didn't go through) - ie BEFORE taking account of deleting names due to Individual Voter registration.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
That is a big win for the Govt having expected to lose the vote.
Although to put it in perspective, according to the Electoral Commission up to 1.9m out of 46.4m could drop off the register, which is about a maximum of 4%
So before this would give 600 seats with an average electorate of 77k. This would now reduce to 600 seats with an average electorate of 74k. This is actually fairly close to the average seat size at the last abandoned review (75K I think), which suggests it may slightly favour the Tories but not make such a huge difference
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
Only 9 letters in 2 years? That's a disgrace. Don't these TORY SCUM care about democracy?
We have received two personal visits in the space of 2 weeks from council officials checking the register. At least the knocks on the door were not at midnight. Since the whole point of these boundary changes is to be comprehensive and to reduce the number of seats, then there would have to be a strict cut off point to enable the process to start. There remains 4 years for people to get on the register when it comes to voting.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
That is a big win for the Govt having expected to lose the vote.
Although to put it in perspective, according to the Electoral Commission up to 1.9m out of 46.4m could drop off the register, which is about a maximum of 4%
So before this would give 600 seats with an average electorate of 77k. This would now reduce to 600 seats with an average electorate of 74k. This is actually fairly close to the average seat size at the last abandoned review (75K I think), which suggests it may slightly favour the Tories but not make such a huge difference
Yes - agree - but it will all depend where the 1.9m people are located - if eg 1.5m in Lab seats and 400k in Con seats then major impact - but probably not that skewed - but still could be skewed quite a bit.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Why should there be more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones?
Why shouldn't there be? There are already far more unelected public servants than elected ones. Why should this particular facility be any different?
So why maximise the number of the unelected?
Why obsess about the ratio at all? Does it do the job? Allocate the appropriate number to do the job. Aiming for a particular number or ratio without making any case for that number is less an argument, more numerology.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
I'm totally bewildered as to HOW the Govt won this vote.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
What reason could the Lords have for voting down the Parliamentary boundaries, given that the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600 is a clear manifesto commitment and the current boundaries will be 15 years out of date by 2020?
Scott will be devastated that he could not tweet this first, no doubt he will make up for it with volume.
Presumably the Rev Sewer Rat will be writing something vitriolic.
Dear Dear , the cockroaches just cannot help themselves. Chill out , hatred like that just increases your blood pressure and ensures an early grave. Make something of yourself rather than being eaten up with envy.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
I'm totally bewildered as to HOW the Govt won this vote.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
What reason could the Lords have for voting down the Parliamentary boundaries, given that the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600 is a clear manifesto commitment and the current boundaries will be 15 years out of date by 2020?
They should be reducing the number of unelected "Lords" dammit! NOT elected MPs!
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Why should there be more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones?
Why shouldn't there be? There are already far more unelected public servants than elected ones. Why should this particular facility be any different?
So why maximise the number of the unelected?
Why obsess about the ratio at all? Does it do the job? Allocate the appropriate number to do the job. Aiming for a particular number or ratio without making any case for that number is less an argument, more numerology.
"How is that word “democracy” to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.”
It's a fair bet that London will be particularly hard hit by the changes to voter registration. London's population, particularly in inner London, is much more mobile than in most of the country and voters are much more likely to fall through the cracks.
The consequences will be twofold. First, there will be fewer seats in London than there otherwise would be. Though London's population is now at an all-time record, we could absurdly see its relative seat count decline. Secondly, if we take it that those slipping between the cracks are disproportionately likely to be poorer, Labour will then be at a disadvantage in 2020 in an area which is otherwise trending to it.
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
This is an opportunity for us to resolve the Union question by turning the House of Lords into the Federal Parliment as an elected body and the House of Commons into the English Parliment.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
I'm totally bewildered as to HOW the Govt won this vote.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
What reason could the Lords have for voting down the Parliamentary boundaries, given that the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600 is a clear manifesto commitment and the current boundaries will be 15 years out of date by 2020?
I agree but Lab / LD won't need a reason - they will just try to do it.
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
A huge expense towards just what benefit? 400 'senators' with nothing to do and another series of pointless elections. Who will decide what happens in our country - if anything - a bogus senate or a house of commons? If the HoC has primacy, why bother with the upper chamber? There is some point to a senate in say the USA, where there are 50 separate states forming a continental wide Union, but just what possible point is there to any upper chamber in the UK?
So that there is some restraint on the power of the Commons between elections.
This is an opportunity for us to resolve the Union question by turning the House of Lords into the Federal Parliment as an elected body and the House of Commons into the English Parliment.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
The Tories will probably get an extra 10-20 seats with the boundary review.
Worth pointing out that much of that would have happened anyway: people continue to move out of cities and suburbs into satellite towns, new towns and semi-rural areas in England, where most new house building is concentrated.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
I'm very surprised the Govt has just lost by less than yesterday - given that yesterday had the added aspect of being a financial measure.
Votes this close mean that the Govt will be able to get stuff through the Lords in about 18 to 24 months time through "normalish" levels of appointments / natural wastage.
House of Lords composition:
2011: Lab 243 Con 218
Today: Con 249 Lab 212
So Con has gone from 25 behind Lab to 37 in front of Lab in 4 years - a net movement of +62.
Another couple of years they should get another net +30.
Which they can accelerate with reforms to retirement of peers.
It's a fair bet that London will be particularly hard hit by the changes to voter registration. London's population, particularly in inner London, is much more mobile than in most of the country and voters are much more likely to fall through the cracks.
The consequences will be twofold. First, there will be fewer seats in London than there otherwise would be. Though London's population is now at an all-time record, we could absurdly see its relative seat count decline. Secondly, if we take it that those slipping between the cracks are disproportionately likely to be poorer, Labour will then be at a disadvantage in 2020 in an area which is otherwise trending to it.
One advantage of people slipping through the cracks and dropping out of the system is that it will be much easier to get away with filleting their children for barbecuing over braziers in Trafalgar Square.
This is an opportunity for us to resolve the Union question by turning the House of Lords into the Federal Parliment as an elected body and the House of Commons into the English Parliment.
Not bad a suggestion at all.
Really? A 'federal' parliament with one of the 4 states massively massively bigger than the other 3?
Just had an offer through by e-mail... When the risk and marketing department collide:
Simply place a bet on the Capital One Cup this week and if it doesn't win, you'll get 20% of your stake back as a free bet up to £0!
Ha ha, you bad customer you. You must be PUNISHED for your winning ways!
Seriously, how many of us here get shut down or restricted to pennies by the high street bookies? Spending half my life abroad I generally use Betfair, although friends with accounts or close to shops can be useful. Do others here work the same way?
Re IG, the sports part was rebranded 'extrabet' from about 2008 onwards I think... It was quite innovative, offering binary, fixed odds and spread betting earlier than anyone else... Closed down in 2011 I think... The financial spreads were a much better ROI for the shareholders even though the sports desk won a decent %... Spreadexians have more or less cloned the business I think
It's a fair bet that London will be particularly hard hit by the changes to voter registration. London's population, particularly in inner London, is much more mobile than in most of the country and voters are much more likely to fall through the cracks.
The consequences will be twofold. First, there will be fewer seats in London than there otherwise would be. Though London's population is now at an all-time record, we could absurdly see its relative seat count decline. Secondly, if we take it that those slipping between the cracks are disproportionately likely to be poorer, Labour will then be at a disadvantage in 2020 in an area which is otherwise trending to it.
One advantage of people slipping through the cracks and dropping out of the system is that it will be much easier to get away with filleting their children for barbecuing over braziers in Trafalgar Square.
Parliament Square surely? That way the evil Tories can watch from the offices and bars of Parliament as their banquet is prepared...
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Most of these objections can be boiled down to: I don't agree with the General Election result.
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
Not surprising in the least. I've come to realise that the Tories care nothing about democracy, only the pursuit of power. We can expect at least 30 more years of Conservative governments with fewer and fewer people bothering to vote. Only a tiny sliver of swing voters in Tory marginals will be listened to. Corruption will flourish in the absence of democracy and the gap between rich and poor will become a yawning chasm of inequality. By the time they lose again Britain will be damaged beyond repair.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
I'm totally bewildered as to HOW the Govt won this vote.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
What reason could the Lords have for voting down the Parliamentary boundaries, given that the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600 is a clear manifesto commitment and the current boundaries will be 15 years out of date by 2020?
I agree but Lab / LD won't need a reason - they will just try to do it.
The LibDems have a few lords thanks to the coalition and are desperate to do something with them? Sadly the reality is that there is no real point to the Lords, so they are heading for a fall.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I think that reflects Labour being rubbish, rather than Conservatives being any good - 370 is only 30 odd seats above that required for a nominal majority and no-one would bat an eyelid at 370 vs 230 ish.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
They couldn't care less. Democracy's strength is its ability to self-correct. The Tories are systematically removing that ability from Britain's version. Soon it will not be worth the name. For those of us who have always supported PR it is unsurprising that FPTP would end like this.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Blair had a majority of 169 in 2001 with only a 9% lead, and fewer votes than Cameron got this year.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Most of these objections can be boiled down to: I don't agree with the General Election result.
Lets say the result is Con 24% Lab 43%, Labour would still not be able to form a majority government, on Con 31%, Lab 38% (the reverse of 2015) the Tories will still have a majority.
Now a government that loses the popular vote by 7 points would be so unpopular that it doesn't have democratic legitimacy if it stays in power, there will be riots on election night (what would have happened in 1997 in case that despite the result the Tories still had a majority).
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
What do you mean cannot be held accountable. If Labour had any direction or common sense a sensible leader and less loony policies they would be ripping the Tories to shreds right now but they can't because they are utterly useless. You are a protest party and little more really. It's Labour failing to provide sensible opposition not the Tories fulfilling manifestos so it's really little use spitting out the dummy....
You just have to win more seats on a level playing field rather than the one you were used to playing on. You also have to persuade the voters that you are a competent government in waiting.
Oh? My bad ?.. Yes..... Now I can see why you are upset.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
20%? Where did you get that number from?
The 2020 swingometer using the implied new boundaries and changes to the register.
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
Not surprising in the least. I've come to realise that the Tories care nothing about democracy, only the pursuit of power. We can expect at least 30 more years of Conservative governments with fewer and fewer people bothering to vote. Only a tiny sliver of swing voters in Tory marginals will be listened to. Corruption will flourish in the absence of democracy and the gap between rich and poor will become a yawning chasm of inequality. By the time they lose again Britain will be damaged beyond repair.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
Not surprising in the least. I've come to realise that the Tories care nothing about democracy, only the pursuit of power. We can expect at least 30 more years of Conservative governments with fewer and fewer people bothering to vote. Only a tiny sliver of swing voters in Tory marginals will be listened to. Corruption will flourish in the absence of democracy and the gap between rich and poor will become a yawning chasm of inequality. By the time they lose again Britain will be damaged beyond repair.
Not a Tory as most know on here I am ABL. :-)
Nah, you just don't like people voting because you are afraid they might not vote for you.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Most of these objections can be boiled down to: I don't agree with the General Election result.
Lets say the result is Con 24% Lab 43%, Labour would still not be able to form a majority government, on Con 31%, Lab 38% (the reverse of 2015) the Tories will still have a majority.
Now a government that loses the popular vote by 7 points would be so unpopular that it doesn't have democratic legitimacy if it stays in power, there will be riots on election night (what would have happened in 1997 in case that despite the result the Tories still had a majority).
Are those hypothetical examples or do you have some reason to believe that as a result of IVR and/or boundary changes the Tories could be 7 points down on Lab and still win a majority?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
I like reading Bush's articles but these figures look very suspect.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Most of these objections can be boiled down to: I don't agree with the General Election result.
Lets say the result is Con 24% Lab 43%, Labour would still not be able to form a majority government, on Con 31%, Lab 38% (the reverse of 2015) the Tories will still have a majority.
Now a government that loses the popular vote by 7 points would be so unpopular that it doesn't have democratic legitimacy if it stays in power, there will be riots on election night (what would have happened in 1997 in case that despite the result the Tories still had a majority).
I agree, if that were the outcome.
But I think your numbers are a lot of nonsense - on the former figures Labour would have a huge majority under FPTP, even on the new boundaries, and a clear one on the latter.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Most of these objections can be boiled down to: I don't agree with the General Election result.
Lets say the result is Con 24% Lab 43%, Labour would still not be able to form a majority government, on Con 31%, Lab 38% (the reverse of 2015) the Tories will still have a majority.
Now a government that loses the popular vote by 7 points would be so unpopular that it doesn't have democratic legitimacy if it stays in power, there will be riots on election night (what would have happened in 1997 in case that despite the result the Tories still had a majority).
Are those hypothetical examples or do you have some reason to believe that as a result of IVR and/or boundary changes the Tories could be 7 points down on Lab and still win a majority?
Seeing as they only bother fighting in 80 seats anyway it seems very plausible. I can see Labour stacking up large majorities in safe seats and narrowly losing enough marginals. The Tories are now experts at exploiting FPTP and will continue to hone their tactics.
Why obsess about the ratio at all? Does it do the job? Allocate the appropriate number to do the job. Aiming for a particular number or ratio without making any case for that number is less an argument, more numerology.
"How is that word “democracy” to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.”
—W. Churchill, 8 December 1944
I fully agree. It still doesn't give any indication of the appropriate size of the revising chamber, any more than it indicates the appropriate size of the Foreign Office.
If you wish a different number in that Chamber, make the case. Pointing at other numbers for other nations merely informs us that different countries with different constitutions and different needs have different answers at this time.
It may well be that 100, as per the US, is more appropriate. That the US have this number is no reason to assume it's right, though, any more than we should assume a writren Constitution is automatically superior because they have one, or free access to guns is correct because they have that.
Make the case. Don't just point to others doing things differently. Even if they cluster around a different figure to us is no guarantee of accuracy. We learned that clustering around a given figure isn't a reliable indicator on May 7th.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
I have no idea how you find the time.
That would be a time-consuming exercise. It would involve some number-crunching off the back of some assumptions that I would need to research with care.
The article above was largely composed in a lunch hour yesterday, with some topping and tailing yesterday evening and first thing this morning to take account of the vote itself and post-vote developments before I started work (that's my excuse for the slightly awkward structure and the typos). The hardest part was smuggling in an 80s pop reference that even TSE didn't immediately get.
I don't think anyone has a breakdown of where the 1.9m names are located. Without that, you can't do a calculation of the effect on boundaries of moving to IVR.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
I have no idea how you find the time.
That would be a time-consuming exercise. It would involve some number-crunching off the back of some assumptions that I would need to research with care.
The article above was largely composed in a lunch hour yesterday, with some topping and tailing yesterday evening and first thing this morning to take account of the vote itself and post-vote developments before I started work (that's my excuse for the slightly awkward structure and the typos). The hardest part was smuggling in an 80s pop reference that even TSE didn't immediately get.
Very impressive. It takes me several hours to research each of my posts, and I spend ages drafting and redrafting the write up.
It's a fair bet that London will be particularly hard hit by the changes to voter registration. London's population, particularly in inner London, is much more mobile than in most of the country and voters are much more likely to fall through the cracks.
The consequences will be twofold. First, there will be fewer seats in London than there otherwise would be. Though London's population is now at an all-time record, we could absurdly see its relative seat count decline. Secondly, if we take it that those slipping between the cracks are disproportionately likely to be poorer, Labour will then be at a disadvantage in 2020 in an area which is otherwise trending to it.
It raises a good question as to whether districts should be based on population, registered voters or voters. The United States uses population, the UK uses registered voters, and European countries with list PR systems implicitly use voters.
Ironic that it was Lord Strathclyde, as Conservative Leader of the House of Lords in 1999, who destroyed the convention that the Lords would always allow secondary legislation through.
Why obsess about the ratio at all? Does it do the job? Allocate the appropriate number to do the job. Aiming for a particular number or ratio without making any case for that number is less an argument, more numerology.
"How is that word “democracy” to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament—that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is also essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimization. He marks his ballot paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives and together decide what government, or even in times of stress, what form of government they wish to have in their country. If that is democracy, I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it.”
—W. Churchill, 8 December 1944
I fully agree. It still doesn't give any indication of the appropriate size of the revising chamber, any more than it indicates the appropriate size of the Foreign Office.
If you wish a different number in that Chamber, make the case. Pointing at other numbers for other nations merely informs us that different countries with different constitutions and different needs have different answers at this time.
It may well be that 100, as per the US, is more appropriate. That the US have this number is no reason to assume it's right, though, any more than we should assume a writren Constitution is automatically superior because they have one, or free access to guns is correct because they have that.
Make the case. Don't just point to others doing things differently. Even if they cluster around a different figure to us is no guarantee of accuracy. We learned that clustering around a given figure isn't a reliable indicator on May 7th.
I never said it "should" be 100! Or any other figure! But let's just use the global average for "bicamerality" (might just have invented a new word there, but hey
44% of 650 = 286 44% of 600 (after gerrymandering fairer boundaries) = 264.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
A majority of 140, that's gerrymandering to a supreme scale, Thatcher needed to be 15% ahead for that, Cameron will now get it with just 7%. The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
Didn't the Tories / have to be a minimum of 6 or 7 % ahead in the polls just to be even on seats with Labour. Don't remember you jumping up and down shouting then. Perhaps you did but it must have been very quick. To be honest I see this as levelling the field after years of Labour just having to turn up for a majority and taking the electorate for granted.
This scale is unprecedented, Labour would need to be 20% ahead of the Tories just to get a majority. It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament. It puts loyalty to the state in question.
20%? Where did you get that number from?
The 2020 swingometer using the implied new boundaries and changes to the register.
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
So will we have the Conservatives singing the praises of the House of Lords this evening?
And for a good reason, now the boundary commission will add 40 Tory seats instead of 20, suddenly the Tories will be on course for a majority of 100 if the 2015GE result is replicated in 2020. The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats. And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
Not surprising in the least. I've come to realise that the Tories care nothing about democracy, only the pursuit of power. We can expect at least 30 more years of Conservative governments with fewer and fewer people bothering to vote. Only a tiny sliver of swing voters in Tory marginals will be listened to. Corruption will flourish in the absence of democracy and the gap between rich and poor will become a yawning chasm of inequality. By the time they lose again Britain will be damaged beyond repair.
Not a Tory as most know on here I am ABL. :-)
Nah, you just don't like people voting because you are afraid they might not vote for you.
It must be a wonderful kaleidoscope of pretty colours in your mind.
I posted something similar earlier but didn't really get an explanation but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
BCG vaccine, I had mine in 1990 IIRC.
Sunil, I don't think you quite understand.
JEO's oldest son is SCARRED FOR LIFE.
BY THE AFRICAN MIGRANTS.Ah, I remember queueing up as a 12 year old at school for my BCG (and the dreaded, terrifying-sounding, but innocuous "six needles" beforehand). All the boys leaving the room, by unspoken agreement, held their arm and adopted an expression which spoke of long-lasting trauma and extreme pain. A frisson of fear built up amongst the queuers as child after child left 'the room'.
Turned out not to be that bad, all in all. Bit like a Tory government
I never said it "should" be 100! Or any other figure! But let's just use the global average for "bicamerality" (might just have invented a new word there, but hey
44% of 650 = 286 44% of 600 (after gerrymandering fairer boundaries) = 264.
Okay. So what ARE you trying to say. If you just keep saying numbers meaningfully, I'm just going to ignore the argument from here on. The average number isn't necessarily any use here. Or it might be. Make a case, if you want that number. Other than, "Well, others with different circumstances are around here so it's got to be right", which appears to be your implied case.
Why 286 or 264? Other than it's the average of a bunch of numbers from other countries. Unless you can demonstrate particular wisdom or reasoning on their behalf in choosing this number?
I posted something similar earlier but didn't really get an explanation but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
I posted something similar earlier but didn't really get an explanation but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
BCG vaccine, I had mine in 1990 IIRC.
Sunil, I don't think you quite understand.
JEO's oldest son is SCARRED FOR LIFE.
BY THE AFRICAN MIGRANTS.
Ah, I remember queueing up as a 12 year old at school for my BCG (and the dreaded, terrifying-sounding, but innocuous "six needles" beforehand). All the boys leaving the room, by unspoken agreement, held their arm and adopted an expression which spoke of long-lasting trauma and extreme pain. A frisson of fear built up amongst the queuers as child after child left 'the room'.
Turned out not to be that bad, all in all. Bit like a Tory government
I had my bcg in the mid-60s. My arm swelled up so much it was in a sling and I had to have a chest x-ray. The mark is still visible today.
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
Ahh 1832 - I remember it well
I caught the 18:32 the other day
Presume that was the 1812 delayed due to (insert pitiful excuse here) we apologise for any delay this causes to your journey today.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
I have no idea how you find the time.
That would be a time-consuming exercise. It would involve some number-crunching off the back of some assumptions that I would need to research with care.
The article above was largely composed in a lunch hour yesterday, with some topping and tailing yesterday evening and first thing this morning to take account of the vote itself and post-vote developments before I started work (that's my excuse for the slightly awkward structure and the typos). The hardest part was smuggling in an 80s pop reference that even TSE didn't immediately get.
Very impressive. It takes me several hours to research each of my posts, and I spend ages drafting and redrafting the write up.
The thinking and researching is the time-consuming bit. On this occasion I was ready to go straight away.
Listening to the vapouring here about the electoral roll...
A good few years back, they did a clean out of the Northern Ireland electoral role. Since the peace process was in full swing, the usual fraud and intimidation was much reduced. Among other things, 100,000 (or so) nationalist voters were found to an existence problem.
Gerry Adams started making menacing statements of the I'm-concerned-that-people-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-me-will-take-action kind. The official in charge went on Ulster TV to announce that anyone who had been disenfranchised should get in touch with him. Personally.
The sound of crickets chirping in the silence that followed... :-)
I posted something similar earlier but didn't really get an explanation but I was looking at the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2015", (as you do) and the figure of expenditure for tax credits in 2010/11 was £28,938 million and in 2014/15 it was £29,187...virtually flat. Where is the ballooning tax credit bill?
2004-2011.
Boooooom! Headshot.
So why is Osborne so fixated with this now...he's been there for five years without slashing and burning. By definition the tax credits bill will go down because free childcare is being extended whereas before 70% of it was recoverable through tax credits and 2010 - 2015 pay rises were minimal. As pay goes up tax credits come down so the tax credits bill is going to go down in the next few years anyway
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 3m3 minutes ago If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
What vote shares is he using for that in GE2020?
I've only seen the tweet. Logically he should be using Con 38 Lab 33. Though continuing that extrapolation would result in the Lib Dems being on -7. Which sounds plausible.
I'm struggling to see how Labour would be over 70 seats down on those figures.
Me too. I'd like to see his workings. If I get some free time later in the week, I might put together my own projection of how the boundary changes might work now.
I have no idea how you find the time.
That would be a time-consuming exercise. It would involve some number-crunching off the back of some assumptions that I would need to research with care.
The article above was largely composed in a lunch hour yesterday, with some topping and tailing yesterday evening and first thing this morning to take account of the vote itself and post-vote developments before I started work (that's my excuse for the slightly awkward structure and the typos). The hardest part was smuggling in an 80s pop reference that even TSE didn't immediately get.
Very impressive. It takes me several hours to research each of my posts, and I spend ages drafting and redrafting the write up.
The thinking and researching is the time-consuming bit. On this occasion I was ready to go straight away.
I am a slow writer. Or, to put it another way, my mind can be a confused and funnily wired place and it takes a while for me to be able to clearly and simply articulate to others my thoughts in writing.
Comments
No matter which way you are thinking of voting in the EU referendum you should watch it.
Details of the division will be on the Parliament website later - ie number from each party who voted on each side + full list of names - will review later.
But totally agree - it's arguably the 2nd most important vote of the whole Parliament. The most important is the 2018 vote on the Boundary changes themselves - by when Con should have another net +30 Peers.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/658979859717312512
Mr Antifrank will it have a bearing on the London Mayoral, too? I'm guessing yes.
There is some point to a senate in say the USA, where there are 50 separate states forming a continental wide Union, but just what possible point is there to any upper chamber in the UK?
The Govt can just come back with new proposals re Tax credits / Welfare.
Though last night is much more damaging with the general public re looking incompetent etc.
Wells says Con Maj 50 at 2015 GE on revised boundaries done in 2013 (which didn't go through) - ie BEFORE taking account of deleting names due to Individual Voter registration.
Although to put it in perspective, according to the Electoral Commission up to 1.9m out of 46.4m could drop off the register, which is about a maximum of 4%
So before this would give 600 seats with an average electorate of 77k. This would now reduce to 600 seats with an average electorate of 74k. This is actually fairly close to the average seat size at the last abandoned review (75K I think), which suggests it may slightly favour the Tories but not make such a huge difference
Since the whole point of these boundary changes is to be comprehensive and to reduce the number of seats, then there would have to be a strict cut off point to enable the process to start. There remains 4 years for people to get on the register when it comes to voting.
Does it do the job? Allocate the appropriate number to do the job. Aiming for a particular number or ratio without making any case for that number is less an argument, more numerology.
If government and opposition polling positions have the same trajectory 2015-20 as it did 2010-15, under new boundaries: Con 370 Lab 158.
The Tories can have a majority even if they lose the popular vote by a margin of 5% to Labour. Labour will need a 1997 style victory on the popular vote just to return to the 2010 level of seats.
And all that because the seats are calculated by people who register to vote not the number who live.
—W. Churchill, 8 December 1944
The consequences will be twofold. First, there will be fewer seats in London than there otherwise would be. Though London's population is now at an all-time record, we could absurdly see its relative seat count decline. Secondly, if we take it that those slipping between the cracks are disproportionately likely to be poorer, Labour will then be at a disadvantage in 2020 in an area which is otherwise trending to it.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind heh?
Not good anyway.
My oldest was born in London and had to get a TB vaccine which left a long term scar that his friends do not have. Apparently we eliminated it in the UK but African migrants brought it back.
The Tories will have a majority even if they get fewer votes than John Major in 97, even if the Tories get a massive fewer number of votes than Labour they still get a majority of seats.
People will become very dissatisfied with democracy in a few years time if the party that wins most votes never has a chance to govern.
BCG vaccine, I had mine in 1990 IIRC.
"update your name, address or other details on the electoral register" implies so
By the time they lose again Britain will be damaged beyond repair.
Sadly the reality is that there is no real point to the Lords, so they are heading for a fall.
It makes the American system of elections seem just and functional, this will leave an even greater number of people that are citizens and are taxed but not represented in parliament.
It puts loyalty to the state in question.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1911/aug/10/commons-reasons-for-disagreeing-to#column_1074
For those of us who have always supported PR it is unsurprising that FPTP would end like this.
Did you complain then?
Now a government that loses the popular vote by 7 points would be so unpopular that it doesn't have democratic legitimacy if it stays in power, there will be riots on election night (what would have happened in 1997 in case that despite the result the Tories still had a majority).
You will regret this, a government that cannot be held accountable to voters will make the very existence of it controversial, people will end up hating parliament itself to a scale never seen since before 1832.
What do you mean cannot be held accountable. If Labour had any direction or common sense a sensible leader and less loony policies they would be ripping the Tories to shreds right now but they can't because they are utterly useless. You are a protest party and little more really. It's Labour failing to provide sensible opposition not the Tories fulfilling manifestos so it's really little use spitting out the dummy....
You just have to win more seats on a level playing field rather than the one you were used to playing on. You also have to persuade the voters that you are a competent government in waiting.
Oh? My bad ?.. Yes..... Now I can see why you are upset.
Labour peer Gulam Noon dies aged 79
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/27/gulam-noon-labour-peer-dies-79
But I think your numbers are a lot of nonsense - on the former figures Labour would have a huge majority under FPTP, even on the new boundaries, and a clear one on the latter.
It still doesn't give any indication of the appropriate size of the revising chamber, any more than it indicates the appropriate size of the Foreign Office.
If you wish a different number in that Chamber, make the case. Pointing at other numbers for other nations merely informs us that different countries with different constitutions and different needs have different answers at this time.
It may well be that 100, as per the US, is more appropriate. That the US have this number is no reason to assume it's right, though, any more than we should assume a writren Constitution is automatically superior because they have one, or free access to guns is correct because they have that.
Make the case. Don't just point to others doing things differently. Even if they cluster around a different figure to us is no guarantee of accuracy. We learned that clustering around a given figure isn't a reliable indicator on May 7th.
The article above was largely composed in a lunch hour yesterday, with some topping and tailing yesterday evening and first thing this morning to take account of the vote itself and post-vote developments before I started work (that's my excuse for the slightly awkward structure and the typos). The hardest part was smuggling in an 80s pop reference that even TSE didn't immediately get.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 3m3 minutes ago
The "rapid review" of Lords powers announced by No 10 this evening
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSWMq2dWoAAQWtm.jpg
But let's just use the global average for "bicamerality" (might just have invented a new word there, but hey
44% of 650 = 286
44% of 600 (after
gerrymanderingfairer boundaries) = 264.Not needed. There are no votes in democracy.
Sunil, I don't think you quite understand.
JEO's oldest son is SCARRED FOR LIFE.
BY THE AFRICAN MIGRANTS.
JEO's oldest son is SCARRED FOR LIFE.
BY THE AFRICAN MIGRANTS.Ah, I remember queueing up as a 12 year old at school for my BCG (and the dreaded, terrifying-sounding, but innocuous "six needles" beforehand). All the boys leaving the room, by unspoken agreement, held their arm and adopted an expression which spoke of long-lasting trauma and extreme pain. A frisson of fear built up amongst the queuers as child after child left 'the room'.
Turned out not to be that bad, all in all. Bit like a Tory government
Or it might be.
Make a case, if you want that number. Other than, "Well, others with different circumstances are around here so it's got to be right", which appears to be your implied case.
Why 286 or 264? Other than it's the average of a bunch of numbers from other countries. Unless you can demonstrate particular wisdom or reasoning on their behalf in choosing this number?
Turned out not to be that bad, all in all. Bit like a Tory government
I had my bcg in the mid-60s. My arm swelled up so much it was in a sling and I had to have a chest x-ray. The mark is still visible today.
A good few years back, they did a clean out of the Northern Ireland electoral role. Since the peace process was in full swing, the usual fraud and intimidation was much reduced. Among other things, 100,000 (or so) nationalist voters were found to an existence problem.
Gerry Adams started making menacing statements of the I'm-concerned-that-people-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-me-will-take-action kind. The official in charge went on Ulster TV to announce that anyone who had been disenfranchised should get in touch with him. Personally.
The sound of crickets chirping in the silence that followed... :-)