May is Net (+16) ahead of Sturgeon (+14) who is down 22 points from April.
How about doing your day job hen?
Hasn't May resigned yet?
Maybe sturgeon is down because she hasn't called a referendum yet?
Probably the opposite, she keeps banging on about a referendum despite the people having voted independence down quite recently.
my idea was she might have lost favourability among SNP members who want another ref
Its not broken down by VI, but Yes supporters give her a huge ney positive rating so its more likely that No supporters are losing patience and want her to get on with running the country instead of banging on about independence.
This article seems a bit misleading: Joff is letting his dislike for Corbyn's leadership carry him away, mainly based on one new NEC member's comments which Corbyn's office immediately rejected. Corbyn has definitely not, as the article claims, "made similar noises in the recent past" about "getting rid of MPs who have not shown sufficient loyalty to the leader". It's not a matter for him who members choose, and he's well aware that the system (which he's not tried to change) benefits the incumbents.
Clearly there's a problem if most of the PLP disapprove of their leader, and conversely the release of the list of particularly abusive MPs - accurate in content though it was - was provocative and unwise. It's a difficult hand to play for both sides, but the boundary issue isn't a particularly good example.
First Past The Post is supposed to achieve community representation at a national level. The latest round of proposals will need polishing but against that test they aren't gerrymandering.
But it doesn't, really. For in a city like Liverpool or Newcastle we are led to believe that the entire community supports Labour, in the Home Counties almost all Tory, and next to no-one in our communities supports the Liberals, Greens or UKIP?
Don't get me wrong: I favour STV. But within its own logic First Past The Post is not being abused by these proposals.
Your support for STV is welcome.
Despite being a critic of the current system I am not hugely exercised about the current review, since the problems it throws up are largely unavoidable as hard-wired flaws of the system. I do feel the 5% limit is unnecessarily tight and has clearly thrown up many constituencies determined more by the maths than the geography. And the Tories have been a bit sharp by introducing a new registration system and then using the very fiirst year's data for the review, when there is evidence that this data is a lot less complete than usual.
But the two million aee spread across every seat, and the geographical variations in non-registration would only ever make a very small difference at the margins, probably no more than one or two fewer losses for Labour.
More than anything I am disgusted at Labour's hypocrisy in complaining to a small unfairness in a system build on gross injustice that they promised to replace and then did the dirty once in power. Particularly as their vote will probably be not much above 20% next time yet they will walk away with a hundred seats on a vote that gave the LibDems only 20-odd in 1983 and not much more than got UKIP just one MP last time.
To win a majority post boundary review Labour will have to win seats like City of London and Westminster, Chingford and Woodford Green and Beckenham which is highly unlikely to happen, especially with the party in its present state. The hard left will ensure the likes of Corbyn and Abbott get a seat but it may only be as part of a parliamentary party with even fewer MPs than Ed Miliband won
No doubt that's true, but what about winning a majority in a coalition with the SNP? That must be much easier. Of course it would need a leader with the cojones to write off the prospect of a Labour recovery in Scotland, but given that they only have one seat there, that would not be much of an issue.
And the other huge problem for the Socialists under that scenario would be a likely resurgence of English nationalism, and maybe the English Parliament that our current, asymmetric devolution settlement cries out for.
Oh, and the SNP would probably want a new referendum, if and when they thought they could win it.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
It is always better to have the Tory party with 100% of the power rather than Labour. The MPs are more stubborn and likely to rebel against the party line than the Labour MPs who have a dreadful tendency to follow the party line, excluding the oddballs and fruitcakes on the extreme left over the last 40 years.
They won just over 325 contests, a true observation.
Compared to, was it 30% for Labour? That put the Tory vote 7% higher than Labour. For Labour to increase its vote share from 30% to equal the Tory vote of 37% they need to have an increase of 23.33%. Think about that, Labour may only be 7% in arrears in 2015, but they need to increase voter numbers by 23% to reach the number that the Tory party had in 2015. That is a huge task and a massive number of voters. First Past the Post allocates all the goodies to the Gold Medal position, there are no silver or bronze, some like that system, some don't, it has served us for many years with its imperfections and features.
With a turnout of 66% there were 34% who exercised a democratic choice to have no input into the election. With low turnout come low levels of total support for all parties.
Is it just possible that yesterday at PMQs was a harbinger of things to come and not a one off? That the perceived gap in competence between a May led government and a Corbyn led Labour party might be considerably smaller than is currently thought by the next election? That the UK may find itself in a similar position to the US, choosing between 2 truly dreadful candidates and trying to work out which one is the less dangerous?
I hope not, but the hubris of many Tory supporters seems to me to be increasingly poorly founded.
If May consistently struggles against Corbyn at PMQs then the likelihood must be that she will not be leading the Tories into the next general election.
Corbyn has all the persistence of a floating turd. I think it quite likely that he will outlast May, who has been deeply unimpressive over the summer. It is like having Brown back.
We always said Cameron was a lucky politician.....well maybe Corbyn is luckier.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
It is always better to have the Tory party with 100% of the power rather than Labour. The MPs are more stubborn and likely to rebel against the party line than the Labour MPs who have a dreadful tendency to follow the party line, excluding the oddballs and fruitcakes on the extreme left over the last 40 years.
They won just over 325 contests, a true observation.
Compared to, was it 30% for Labour? That put the Tory vote 7% higher than Labour. For Labour to increase its vote share from 30% to equal the Tory vote of 37% they need to have an increase of 23.33%. Think about that, Labour may only be 7% in arrears in 2015, but they need to increase voter numbers by 23% to reach the number that the Tory party had in 2015. That is a huge task and a massive number of voters. First Past the Post allocates all the goodies to the Gold Medal position, there are no silver or bronze, some like that system, some don't, it has served us for many years with its imperfections and features.
With a turnout of 66% there were 34% who exercised a democratic choice to have no input into the election. With low turnout come low levels of total support for all parties.
There is nothing that guarantees the Gold Medal to the most popular party.
Is it just possible that yesterday at PMQs was a harbinger of things to come and not a one off? That the perceived gap in competence between a May led government and a Corbyn led Labour party might be considerably smaller than is currently thought by the next election? That the UK may find itself in a similar position to the US, choosing between 2 truly dreadful candidates and trying to work out which one is the less dangerous?
I hope not, but the hubris of many Tory supporters seems to me to be increasingly poorly founded.
If May consistently struggles against Corbyn at PMQs then the likelihood must be that she will not be leading the Tories into the next general election.
Corbyn has all the persistence of a floating turd. I think it quite likely that he will outlast May, who has been deeply unimpressive over the summer. It is like having Brown back.
We always said Cameron was a lucky politician.....well maybe Corbyn is luckier.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Yet May now has a larger poll lead than Cameron and a new policy popular with a majority of Tory voters. I expect her to outlast Cameron and be PM until 2025. Even Brown would have beaten Bill Cash which is all May has to do to defeat Corbyn
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Wrong, he bailed out two failing (Scottish) banks, and we've been paying for it ever since.
To win a majority post boundary review Labour will have to win seats like City of London and Westminster, Chingford and Woodford Green and Beckenham which is highly unlikely to happen, especially with the party in its present state. The hard left will ensure the likes of Corbyn and Abbott get a seat but it may only be as part of a parliamentary party with even fewer MPs than Ed Miliband won
No doubt that's true, but what about winning a majority in a coalition with the SNP? That must be much easier. Of course it would need a leader with the cojones to write off the prospect of a Labour recovery in Scotland, but given that they only have one seat there, that would not be much of an issue.
And the other huge problem for the Socialists under that scenario would be a likely resurgence of English nationalism, and maybe the English Parliament that our current, asymmetric devolution settlement cries out for.
Oh, and the SNP would probably want a new referendum, if and when they thought they could win it.
First problem with that is May is now more popular in Scotland than Sturgeon, let alone Corbyn and the SNP may not do a deal and even if it looked possible like 2015 it would just increase the Tory majority in England
May has given in, I see. We now see what Therisa is made of; apply enough pressure and she crumbles. Despite her tough exterior she's a cream puff inside. Woe is Brexit!
Any PM would have done the same, given where we are. Her fault was not having the judgement to realise she would have to climb down.
Is it just possible that yesterday at PMQs was a harbinger of things to come and not a one off? That the perceived gap in competence between a May led government and a Corbyn led Labour party might be considerably smaller than is currently thought by the next election? That the UK may find itself in a similar position to the US, choosing between 2 truly dreadful candidates and trying to work out which one is the less dangerous?
I hope not, but the hubris of many Tory supporters seems to me to be increasingly poorly founded.
If May consistently struggles against Corbyn at PMQs then the likelihood must be that she will not be leading the Tories into the next general election.
Corbyn has all the persistence of a floating turd. I think it quite likely that he will outlast May, who has been deeply unimpressive over the summer. It is like having Brown back.
We always said Cameron was a lucky politician.....well maybe Corbyn is luckier.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Yet May now has a larger poll lead than Cameron and a new policy popular with a majority of Tory voters. I expect her to outlast Cameron and be PM until 2025. Even Brown would have beaten Bill Cash which is all May has to do to defeat Corbyn
I'd imagine Mays downfall will come at the hands of her own side rather than Corbyn's. With Johnson, Davis and Patel lurking behind her, she shouldn't get too comfortable.
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
SO says that Corbyn will inevitably fail. I hope that occurs not asymptotically but in a cross-over. If the latter, my request to the Black Goddess of politics is :could you please make that sooner rather than later?
Concerning the Wednesday parliamentary debates, does the public pay any attention to them and is there any polling information to find out??
Is it just possible that yesterday at PMQs was a harbinger of things to come and not a one off? That the perceived gap in competence between a May led government and a Corbyn led Labour party might be considerably smaller than is currently thought by the next election? That the UK may find itself in a similar position to the US, choosing between 2 truly dreadful candidates and trying to work out which one is the less dangerous?
I hope not, but the hubris of many Tory supporters seems to me to be increasingly poorly founded.
If May consistently struggles against Corbyn at PMQs then the likelihood must be that she will not be leading the Tories into the next general election.
Corbyn has all the persistence of a floating turd. I think it quite likely that he will outlast May, who has been deeply unimpressive over the summer. It is like having Brown back.
We always said Cameron was a lucky politician.....well maybe Corbyn is luckier.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Yet May now has a larger poll lead than Cameron and a new policy popular with a majority of Tory voters. I expect her to outlast Cameron and be PM until 2025. Even Brown would have beaten Bill Cash which is all May has to do to defeat Corbyn
I'd imagine Mays downfall will come at the hands of her own side rather than Corbyn's. With Johnson, Davis and Patel lurking behind her, she shouldn't get too comfortable.
Johnson has said he is not up to the job and backbenchers loathe him, Davis is already having problems and many Tory MPs loathe him too and Patel is more like a UKIP leader than a Tory one
Unless Corbyn can prove that he would protect the population and if the time comes make the difficult decisions that are necessary then I don't see how he could possibly win.
His blatantly soft stance on terrorism, and all round pacifist nature is a deal breaker I would imagine for a lot of people especially with the ever increasing 'grey vote' (not a term i particular like).
Ask yourself would he do everything in his power to protect your loved ones and the answer should be a clear no.
Is it just possible that yesterday at PMQs was a harbinger of things to come and not a one off? That the perceived gap in competence between a May led government and a Corbyn led Labour party might be considerably smaller than is currently thought by the next election? That the UK may find itself in a similar position to the US, choosing between 2 truly dreadful candidates and trying to work out which one is the less dangerous?
I hope not, but the hubris of many Tory supporters seems to me to be increasingly poorly founded.
If May consistently struggles against Corbyn at PMQs then the likelihood must be that she will not be leading the Tories into the next general election.
Corbyn has all the persistence of a floating turd. I think it quite likely that he will outlast May, who has been deeply unimpressive over the summer. It is like having Brown back.
We always said Cameron was a lucky politician.....well maybe Corbyn is luckier.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Yet May now has a larger poll lead than Cameron and a new policy popular with a majority of Tory voters. I expect her to outlast Cameron and be PM until 2025. Even Brown would have beaten Bill Cash which is all May has to do to defeat Corbyn
It's May's honeymoon period, she's saved us from Leadsome for God's sake! But it won't last long.
May has given in, I see. We now see what Therisa is made of; apply enough pressure and she crumbles. Despite her tough exterior she's a cream puff inside. Woe is Brexit!
Any PM would have done the same, given where we are. Her fault was not having the judgement to realise she would have to climb down.
A smarter PM would have blamed it on the French rather than Chinese security concerns. EDF have been looking for a way out for a while, having a public falling out and having them cancel it would have worked.
May has given in, I see. We now see what Therisa is made of; apply enough pressure and she crumbles. Despite her tough exterior she's a cream puff inside. Woe is Brexit!
Any PM would have done the same, given where we are. Her fault was not having the judgement to realise she would have to climb down.
As CEO of UK PLC, it would have been cheaper for her to negotiate a reasonable offer of settlement to those who thought they had been offered a deal and were now being asked to walk away.
I get particularly fed up of those who mistakenly think that Hinkley will provide 7% of our energy. (Probably encouraged by the nuclear lobby.) It's 7% of our electricity, 1-2% of energy delivered to consumers.
Of course, if it turns out like Okliluoto, it may provide 0% and will mainly provide a fat living to the lawyers who are hired by each party to sue and counter-sue the other side.
Solid retail sales growth figures. Another dataset, another upside surprise. I think the City is going to have to stop listening to the BoE and start doing their own maths again. The Bank is trying to sell a gloomy picture to weaken the currency, or at least hold it down below $1.34. Without the interventions of Carney and the other MPC members talking up further stimulus and rate cuts we'd already be heading towards $1.36 IMO, a level that may see the economy begin to slow down as export order growth slows and overseas investors worry more about Brexit than looking for bargains.
Good points in the OP. In the past Labour were very pro-active in dealing with boundary reviews, with considerable success, but at the last review Greg Cook cut quite a pathetic figure, fiddling while Rome burned.
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
1) The strike price is still there I presume 2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment. 3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
1) The strike price is still there I presume 2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment. 3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
They won't back out.
So basically either Theresa has boxed them into a corner where they rather than we pull the plug or has boxed them into a better deal ?
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
1) The strike price is still there I presume 2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment. 3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
They won't back out.
No, but we've added golden stakes, penalties and taken out some contingency funds which will now have to be covered by EDF. Overall EDF will find it much tougher to make this deal work for them. China have also lost the gentlemen's agreement on building Bradwell with their own technology, which is most of the reason they were involved with HPC. Both sides now have tangible reasons to back out of their own accord, one of them probably will, my money is on EDF since any penalties and contingency funding could bankrupt them or require another round of state financing.
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
Is the 2 million figure real or urban myth?
I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong.
In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review.
It is a change in the system, one which will cause an initial spike in the graph and then will even out over time relatively quickly. Any change will cause a spike. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that over time the Boundary Commission will produce a larger range of marginal constituencies, which we would all appreciate. In the past (92 - 97 era) Labour were very smart in representations to the Boundary Commission, much wiser than the Tories - that is one reason there was an increased advantage to them post 2000.
It is hard to have a coherent argument against regular reviews and constituencies of roughly equal numbers. It has always referenced Voters, not population, as that is far easier to quantify (and I thought the last census was the final one?).
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
Our ancestors fought for our democratic rights and freedoms. It would be an insult to this great British tradition if we now remained silent while a political party stitched up the rules in an attempt to keep itself in power forever
Does Own Jones realise what a hypocrite he is? I don't remember Labour complaining as they tried to re-write the constitution and the electoral system to entrench Labour government in Scotland for ever.
Setting aside the PR discussion, this isn't an attempt to stitch up anything
1. Register not population - like it has been done since universal suffrage was introduced 2. Individual Registration - asking people to register themselves is not onerous and introduces an important fraud protection measure 3. "The missing 2 million" - you need a cut off somewhere, but (a) delaying the process by a year would mean it is unlikely the boundary review would be completed before 2020; and (b) in any event the effect will wash out in the next boundary review so hardly "for ever" 4. The 5% criteria - that's just trying to make constituencies roughly equal. That's not a priori unfair, although it might be seen as "unfair" to level the playing field 5. Regular boundary reviews - probably a net benefit to the Tories, but can you really argue that updating boundaries every 5 years is a bad thing? 6. Reduction to 600 MPs - hardly relevant to anything; the only impact is that it makes the boundary review more comprehensive. Not really a matter of a "stitch up" though
The fact is that the Remain team knew (a) there were large numbers of excluded voters who (b) leant Labour. They knew this because this was precisely what, wearing their Conservative Party hats, they had engineered.
Get them to register then, and actively participate in the democratic process.
Jezza walked the walk (nice fitting suit, etc) and talked the talk (Grammars, etc).
He then showed a bit of leadership in slapping down dissenters.
Does he have the discipline, commitment, stamina, and desire to build on that? A couple of Hamas-related mea culpas, u-turn on Trident, row back on most (not all) of the nationalisation plan,
Formulate a PLP policy group and listen to it (does Lab have a 1922 equivalent?), chuck out Momentum.
Our ancestors fought for our democratic rights and freedoms. It would be an insult to this great British tradition if we now remained silent while a political party stitched up the rules in an attempt to keep itself in power forever
Does Own Jones realise what a hypocrite he is? I don't remember Labour complaining as they tried to re-write the constitution and the electoral system to entrench Labour government in Scotland for ever.
Setting aside the PR discussion, this isn't an attempt to stitch up anything
1. Register not population - like it has been done since universal suffrage was introduced 2. Individual Registration - asking people to register themselves is not onerous and introduces an important fraud protection measure 3. "The missing 2 million" - you need a cut off somewhere, but (a) delaying the process by a year would mean it is unlikely the boundary review would be completed before 2020; and (b) in any event the effect will wash out in the next boundary review so hardly "for ever" 4. The 5% criteria - that's just trying to make constituencies roughly equal. That's not a priori unfair, although it might be seen as "unfair" to level the playing field 5. Regular boundary reviews - probably a net benefit to the Tories, but can you really argue that updating boundaries every 5 years is a bad thing? 6. Reduction to 600 MPs - hardly relevant to anything; the only impact is that it makes the boundary review more comprehensive. Not really a matter of a "stitch up" though
I think - as a non aligned voter - that the process has been pretty fair. I would make three changes, if I were to do it again:
1. I'd change it to +/- 10%, as I'd rather keep towns intact as political entities where possible, and 5% is too tight. (It's worth remembering that there was a difference of 3x between the largest and smallest constituencies last time, so this is a pretty major improvement.) 2. If get rid of geographical exemptions. Why should Orkney and Shetland be exempt? 3. I'd stay at 650 seats. Why? Because the reduction in seat sizes disproportionately affects the smaller parties, and I think it's wrong that ukip and the libdems could garner a quarter of the vote between them, but less than 1% of the seats.
1. I'm not as fussed about that - communities change 2. Practiciality 3. Acknowledged as a problem but there are better ways to fix it
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
I would rather the government was chosen by the voters in an election rather than by the politicians after it.
Solid retail sales growth figures. Another dataset, another upside surprise. I think the City is going to have to stop listening to the BoE and start doing their own maths again. The Bank is trying to sell a gloomy picture to weaken the currency, or at least hold it down below $1.34. Without the interventions of Carney and the other MPC members talking up further stimulus and rate cuts we'd already be heading towards $1.36 IMO, a level that may see the economy begin to slow down as export order growth slows and overseas investors worry more about Brexit than looking for bargains.
So is your logic that Carney is doing a good job at stimulating exports and mitigating Brexit risk.tgen?
Mr. Quidder, precisely. The selection of a government should occur in the polling booth by the voter, not in a darkened chamber of the Palace of Westminster by the political class.
Is it possible that even Corbyn, the master of the lost or pointless cause, has recognised the futility of trying to defend an electoral system based on population distributions of 2000? That the principle of equal value of votes has merit and is democratic? That the Electoral Commission is independent and not "a Tory stitch up"?
600 MPs for 65m people is a lot, arguably too many. The House of Congress manages with 435 for over 324m. The argument that this is going to make these unqualified and frequently unskilled social workers too busy is risible. The fact that FPTP produces majorities for the largest party is a feature, not a bug. It leads to stronger governments.
There is always room for discussion, negotiation and debate on the EC's proposals where they are thought to break up communities. The process allows for this and this is what Labour should be concentrating its efforts on.
800 Lords for 65 million is also way, way too much for an Upper House?
Solid retail sales growth figures. Another dataset, another upside surprise. I think the City is going to have to stop listening to the BoE and start doing their own maths again. The Bank is trying to sell a gloomy picture to weaken the currency, or at least hold it down below $1.34. Without the interventions of Carney and the other MPC members talking up further stimulus and rate cuts we'd already be heading towards $1.36 IMO, a level that may see the economy begin to slow down as export order growth slows and overseas investors worry more about Brexit than looking for bargains.
So is your logic that Carney is doing a good job at stimulating exports and mitigating Brexit risk.tgen?
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
I would rather the government was chosen by the voters in an election rather than by the politicians after it.
Which voters in which election chose the current government?
Jezza walked the walk (nice fitting suit, etc) and talked the talk (Grammars, etc).
He then showed a bit of leadership in slapping down dissenters.
Does he have the discipline, commitment, stamina, and desire to build on that? A couple of Hamas-related mea culpas, u-turn on Trident, row back on most (not all) of the nationalisation plan,
Formulate a PLP policy group and listen to it (does Lab have a 1922 equivalent?), chuck out Momentum.
And it could be PM Jezza in 2020.
OK it's a big ask.
His appeal to Momentum and his supporters comes from the very things you say he should change: his inability and resistance to change. If he was to do that he'd be seen as a traitor by the very people who got him where he is.
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
Is the 2 million figure real or urban myth? I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong. In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review. .........
Why have the Govt failed to inform us on the real position of this 2million missing voters? Is it real or half that or evenly spread? etc etc Are they asleep or just failing to properly address all the issues (eg grammar schools) that sit there festering away?
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
Mr. Quidder, precisely. The selection of a government should occur in the polling booth by the voter, not in a darkened chamber of the Palace of Westminster by the political class.
Dadge's argument is a little silly. A party with one vote won't even win one seat, let alone a Commons majority.
The fundamental problem that advocates of abolishing FPTP have is that it's impossible to legislate a majority into existence in a single constituency, let alone the country. Unless we switch to the Bhutanese two-round system, I guess.
But in any case, this misses the argument that should be being made at this time, which is that even those who would prefer a different voting system on whatever grounds should accept that we have FPTP at the moment, and as long as we do so we should make it the best FPTP we can. The best is the enemy of the good, after all.
Jezza walked the walk (nice fitting suit, etc) and talked the talk (Grammars, etc).
He then showed a bit of leadership in slapping down dissenters.
Does he have the discipline, commitment, stamina, and desire to build on that? A couple of Hamas-related mea culpas, u-turn on Trident, row back on most (not all) of the nationalisation plan,
Formulate a PLP policy group and listen to it (does Lab have a 1922 equivalent?), chuck out Momentum.
And it could be PM Jezza in 2020.
OK it's a big ask.
His appeal to Momentum and his supporters comes from the very things you say he should change: his inability and resistance to change. If he was to do that he'd be seen as a traitor by the very people who got him where he is.
They don't care about electability.
Yes. The leadership election rules might have to be changed but so what? It would only be Momentum that cared. Obvs he would have to structure the rules so that he wasn't instantly dismissed by the PLP.
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
Is the 2 million figure real or urban myth? I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong. In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review. .........
Why have the Govt failed to inform us on the real position of this 2million missing voters? Is it real or half that or evenly spread? etc etc Are they asleep or just failing to properly address all the issues (eg grammar schools) that sit there festering away?
I think it's the new style of government, everything goes through Theresa. She doesn't seem to believe in Cabinet government. I think we're going to miss Dave's chairman of the board style of leadership.
Is it possible that even Corbyn, the master of the lost or pointless cause, has recognised the futility of trying to defend an electoral system based on population distributions of 2000? That the principle of equal value of votes has merit and is democratic? That the Electoral Commission is independent and not "a Tory stitch up"?
600 MPs for 65m people is a lot, arguably too many. The House of Congress manages with 435 for over 324m. The argument that this is going to make these unqualified and frequently unskilled social workers too busy is risible. The fact that FPTP produces majorities for the largest party is a feature, not a bug. It leads to stronger governments.
There is always room for discussion, negotiation and debate on the EC's proposals where they are thought to break up communities. The process allows for this and this is what Labour should be concentrating its efforts on.
800 Lords for 65 million is also way, way too much for an Upper House?
Indeed. But until we can have a constitutional convention to sort out a proper system as a whole, we should make what changes we can.
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
1) The strike price is still there I presume 2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment. 3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
They won't back out.
and taken out some contingency funds
Where are you getting the detail about the deal from>
Surely the winning zone is far smaller - given that, after all, EdM lost, the vertical line should be at ~ 42.5 %. Which leaves Blair and the might-have-been Smith in the winning zone.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
I would rather the government was chosen by the voters in an election rather than by the politicians after it.
Which voters in which election chose the current government?
All the examples I can recall of ex LD MPs fighting the same seat again has resulted in an increase in the majority for the incumbent. So this news is bad news for the LDs. Vince will be 76/77!
Been looking at the detail of the new HPC deal, it does look as though the government have made it much less attractive to EDF and China and are now hoping one or the other will back out of their own accord.
1) The strike price is still there I presume 2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment. 3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
They won't back out.
and taken out some contingency funds
Where are you getting the detail about the deal from>
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
To do it they need to kill off this BC review by (I guess) mid 2017. This is not a quick timescale as you assert. There have to be long periods to allow comments and revised proposals. A proposal tabled in 2016 needed about 9 months number crunching and then 2 years for the consultation. That is almost a 3 year timeframe.
Surely the winning zone is far smaller - given that, after all, EdM lost, the vertical line should be at ~ 42.5 %. Which leaves Blair and the might-have-been Smith in the winning zone.
I think you may have misread it (maybe it's badly named). Being in the "winning zone" doesn't guarantee victory but is a prerequisite for it. (apparently, I haven't actually checked!)
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
I've just sent off my registration for this year - I can't remember doing it yearly before I left the UK in ~ 2012.
Surely the winning zone is far smaller - given that, after all, EdM lost, the vertical line should be at ~ 42.5 %. Which leaves Blair and the might-have-been Smith in the winning zone.
I think you may have misread it (maybe it's badly named). Being in the "winning zone" doesn't guarantee victory but is a prerequisite for it. (apparently, I haven't actually checked!)
I merely noted that there were a lot of losers in the winning zone ...
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
Surely the winning zone is far smaller - given that, after all, EdM lost, the vertical line should be at ~ 42.5 %. Which leaves Blair and the might-have-been Smith in the winning zone.
I think you may have misread it (maybe it's badly named). Being in the "winning zone" doesn't guarantee victory but is a prerequisite for it. (apparently, I haven't actually checked!)
I merely noted that there were a lot of losers in the winning zone ...
Well, yes. It's possible to have more than one leader simultaneously in the "winning zone" but only one can win.
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
Is the 2 million figure real or urban myth? I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong. In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review. .........
Why have the Govt failed to inform us on the real position of this 2million missing voters? Is it real or half that or evenly spread? etc etc Are they asleep or just failing to properly address all the issues (eg grammar schools) that sit there festering away?
I think it's the new style of government, everything goes through Theresa. She doesn't seem to believe in Cabinet government. I think we're going to miss Dave's chairman of the board style of leadership.
It does look that way. More Brownite than Cameroon.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
I would rather the government was chosen by the voters in an election rather than by the politicians after it.
Which voters in which election chose the current government?
37% in 2015.
Strange, the house paper for reactionaries everywhere seems to think that's a different one to the one we have now.
'How Theresa May's Government has distanced itself from David Cameron'
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
........ In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021. It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
Why is the Govt so disengaged and ill prepared in the air war?
Anthony Wells estimated that the likely impact of the additional 2m voters would be to remove one seat from each of Northern Ireland, North West and West Midlands and for the South East to gain one and London two.
Is the 2 million figure real or urban myth? I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong. In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review. .........
Why have the Govt failed to inform us on the real position of this 2million missing voters? Is it real or half that or evenly spread? etc etc Are they asleep or just failing to properly address all the issues (eg grammar schools) that sit there festering away?
I think it's the new style of government, everything goes through Theresa. She doesn't seem to believe in Cabinet government. I think we're going to miss Dave's chairman of the board style of leadership.
It does look that way. More Brownite than Cameroon.
The head at my son's primary school made a comment at yesterday's parents evening that normally they receive a cheery email from the SoS for education at the start of every school year wishing them well and exhorting them to greatness but that this year they hadn't heard a thing from Greening. To not do that just seems a basic error in good management.
Toby Young with some interesting observations in the Telegraph today about grammar schools. I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm also glad that the government have kicked off the debate because the lack of support for these specific proposals on Tory benches is heartening. It shows the party is fit to govern for all and not just the elite.
As I said yesterday, I'm a supporter of grammar schools in the abstract and I believe they have a role to play in a reformed education sector, but bolting them onto the existing education system will do more harm than good. It shows in the number of mitigating factors the government are having to impose on their own policy that they realise this as well.
If the government move to a German style primary and secondary education system, grammar schooling, or schooling for academic excellence is a problem that solves itself. Trade, technical and apprenticeship schools are just as important as schools for academic excellence, we should improve and create all of those first before trying to turn A grade students into A* grade students.
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Why would it be better to have a government with the explicit support of 0% of the voters?
This really is a specious argument. The current government is able to foist its will on 100% of voters based on the "explicit support" of 37% of those that voted. Why is 37% enough? How low is enough? Would it, in your mind, be better to have a government with the "explicit support" of one single voter, than a coalition where the country is run on the basis of finding agreement between parties supported by a majority of voters?
I would rather the government was chosen by the voters in an election rather than by the politicians after it.
Which voters in which election chose the current government?
37% in 2015.
Strange, the house paper for reactionaries everywhere seems to think that's a different one to the one we have now.
'How Theresa May's Government has distanced itself from David Cameron'
Because they got 37% support in an election of those that turned out
In total they were supported by 24% of the electorate.
Ah, the old circular argument again. "The result is not proportional therefore it's broken because the only fair system is a proportional system".
No-one has ever satisfactorily explained to me what is wrong with FPTP that doesn't involve that circular argument. On the converse side, advocates of PR seem to be remarkably uninterested in how it actually works in practice in other countries - Ireland being a wonderful example. A near-system system on paper, the practical effect of which is that a load of loony independents and a shifting mosaic of tiny parties end up being able to hold the government to ransom, sometimes indeed (as this year) making it almost impossible to form a government.
Is it possible that even Corbyn, the master of the lost or pointless cause, has recognised the futility of trying to defend an electoral system based on population distributions of 2000? That the principle of equal value of votes has merit and is democratic? That the Electoral Commission is independent and not "a Tory stitch up"?
600 MPs for 65m people is a lot, arguably too many. The House of Congress manages with 435 for over 324m. The argument that this is going to make these unqualified and frequently unskilled social workers too busy is risible. The fact that FPTP produces majorities for the largest party is a feature, not a bug. It leads to stronger governments.
There is always room for discussion, negotiation and debate on the EC's proposals where they are thought to break up communities. The process allows for this and this is what Labour should be concentrating its efforts on.
800 Lords for 65 million is also way, way too much for an Upper House?
Indeed. But until we can have a constitutional convention to sort out a proper system as a whole, we should make what changes we can.
Getting rid of perrages for donors and letting the hereditaries die off would be a start. At present, after a hereditary peer dies, there is an election for a replacement!
Countries with a smaller parliament also tend to have local democracy; we have government from Whitehall.
Is it possible that even Corbyn, the master of the lost or pointless cause, has recognised the futility of trying to defend an electoral system based on population distributions of 2000? That the principle of equal value of votes has merit and is democratic? That the Electoral Commission is independent and not "a Tory stitch up"?
600 MPs for 65m people is a lot, arguably too many. The House of Congress manages with 435 for over 324m. The argument that this is going to make these unqualified and frequently unskilled social workers too busy is risible. The fact that FPTP produces majorities for the largest party is a feature, not a bug. It leads to stronger governments.
There is always room for discussion, negotiation and debate on the EC's proposals where they are thought to break up communities. The process allows for this and this is what Labour should be concentrating its efforts on.
800 Lords for 65 million is also way, way too much for an Upper House?
Indeed. But until we can have a constitutional convention to sort out a proper system as a whole, we should make what changes we can.
we have government from Whitehall.
What decisions are Whitehall making or not making that you think would be made differently at a local level?
The UK is a high density country, I can't see how there is the space for lots of fragmented decision making.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
........ In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021. It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
Why is the Govt so disengaged and ill prepared in the air war?
Complicated case difficult to make vs. Labour screaming 'snot fair!
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
To do it they need to kill off this BC review by (I guess) mid 2017. This is not a quick timescale as you assert. There have to be long periods to allow comments and revised proposals. A proposal tabled in 2016 needed about 9 months number crunching and then 2 years for the consultation. That is almost a 3 year timeframe.
Well submissions for consideration have to be in by November. Just because the Boundary Commission takes bloody ages to act on anything doesn't mean it should. Proposals in 2011 were finalised by 2012 before being ditched. No reason why we can't get detailed revisions in place to vote on sometime in 2017. The public meetings here (NI) are all next month.
I suppose it's beyond the ken of our taxpayer-funded BBC twerps that the good numbers are because of Brexit rather than despite it; http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37372362
Comments
Meanwhile, Labour is laying into the boundary review - see e.g. http://www.labour.org.uk/content/boundary-review?utm_source=Petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1409Petition . It's appropriate for the party, but I don't think that the public would welcome Corbyn personally focusing on the issue (rather than, say, grammars), which they'll see as parties jockeying for advantage.
Clearly there's a problem if most of the PLP disapprove of their leader, and conversely the release of the list of particularly abusive MPs - accurate in content though it was - was provocative and unwise. It's a difficult hand to play for both sides, but the boundary issue isn't a particularly good example.
Despite being a critic of the current system I am not hugely exercised about the current review, since the problems it throws up are largely unavoidable as hard-wired flaws of the system. I do feel the 5% limit is unnecessarily tight and has clearly thrown up many constituencies determined more by the maths than the geography. And the Tories have been a bit sharp by introducing a new registration system and then using the very fiirst year's data for the review, when there is evidence that this data is a lot less complete than usual.
But the two million aee spread across every seat, and the geographical variations in non-registration would only ever make a very small difference at the margins, probably no more than one or two fewer losses for Labour.
More than anything I am disgusted at Labour's hypocrisy in complaining to a small unfairness in a system build on gross injustice that they promised to replace and then did the dirty once in power. Particularly as their vote will probably be not much above 20% next time yet they will walk away with a hundred seats on a vote that gave the LibDems only 20-odd in 1983 and not much more than got UKIP just one MP last time.
And the other huge problem for the Socialists under that scenario would be a likely resurgence of English nationalism, and maybe the English Parliament that our current, asymmetric devolution settlement cries out for.
Oh, and the SNP would probably want a new referendum, if and when they thought they could win it.
They won just over 325 contests, a true observation.
Compared to, was it 30% for Labour? That put the Tory vote 7% higher than Labour. For Labour to increase its vote share from 30% to equal the Tory vote of 37% they need to have an increase of 23.33%. Think about that, Labour may only be 7% in arrears in 2015, but they need to increase voter numbers by 23% to reach the number that the Tory party had in 2015. That is a huge task and a massive number of voters. First Past the Post allocates all the goodies to the Gold Medal position, there are no silver or bronze, some like that system, some don't, it has served us for many years with its imperfections and features.
With a turnout of 66% there were 34% who exercised a democratic choice to have no input into the election. With low turnout come low levels of total support for all parties.
But we have Corbyn.
Besides, as other have pointed out, this supposedly was not a problem with Blair's landslides, when the system was heavily stacked in Labour's favour.
Your comparison is a good one.....If anything like this summer goes to show, it seems that May well turn out to be a female Gordon Brown. Too ambitious, too much of a control freak, paranoid and always over thinking her hand, but worse, because at least Gordon understood economics. Yesterday, she displayed Brown's toe curling lack of confidence at PMQ's, seeking reassurance from behind (which wasn't forthcoming), even displaying IDS's nervous cough. Unfortunately for her no matter how much coaching she gets she will not be able to overcome this. And Corbyn just fed off her nervousness.
That said, whatever one can say about Gordon Brown, history will judge him as the political leader who showed decisiveness at exactly the right time to save the baking system from collapse.
Concerning the Wednesday parliamentary debates, does the public pay any attention to them and is there any polling information to find out??
His blatantly soft stance on terrorism, and all round pacifist nature is a deal breaker I would imagine for a lot of people especially with the ever increasing 'grey vote' (not a term i particular like).
Ask yourself would he do everything in his power to protect your loved ones and the answer should be a clear no.
F1: as Mr. Sandpit suggested the other day, the 5.9 on Rosberg to win in Singapore is likely value. Tricky race to call, though.
But it won't last long.
I get particularly fed up of those who mistakenly think that Hinkley will provide 7% of our energy. (Probably encouraged by the nuclear lobby.) It's 7% of our electricity, 1-2% of energy delivered to consumers.
Of course, if it turns out like Okliluoto, it may provide 0% and will mainly provide a fat living to the lawyers who are hired by each party to sue and counter-sue the other side.
History will likely secure the coalition as one of the most successful and coherent governments of our time.
No system is perfect. FPTP is the least imperfect.
HillaryClinton.com Unsubscribe
9:48 PM (11 hours ago)
to me
Friend --
According to a Bloomberg News poll just released, if this election were held today, we’d lose Ohio to Donald Trump by 5 points.
Could you tell us the equivalent seat/support/electorate percentages for the Labour Party?
Ta!
2) The UK Gov't has never welched on a payment.
3) EDF and the Chinese can use the experience to build/finance stuff in China/France with superior cost efficacy.
They won't back out.
?
I could've sworn I read that here yesterday.
A day late and a bake-off short
I thought it was 2 million registrations - of which many were duplicates of those already on the register, so a gross number without netting off the duplications. However, I may well be wrong.
In general presentational terms I suspect there is a willingness to allow misconceptions to fester by the use of 'Missing 2 Million'. To the less politically aware it infers that the 2 million will be disenfranchised. This is a deception, as they will be eligible to vote if they enroll on the electoral roll, but were not included in the count for the constituency boundary this time, but they will then be a part of the count for the next boundary review.
It is a change in the system, one which will cause an initial spike in the graph and then will even out over time relatively quickly. Any change will cause a spike. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that over time the Boundary Commission will produce a larger range of marginal constituencies, which we would all appreciate. In the past (92 - 97 era) Labour were very smart in representations to the Boundary Commission, much wiser than the Tories - that is one reason there was an increased advantage to them post 2000.
It is hard to have a coherent argument against regular reviews and constituencies of roughly equal numbers. It has always referenced Voters, not population, as that is far easier to quantify (and I thought the last census was the final one?).
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B29GVb5ISrT0VzFQWjFSWGcyeVE
35% supporting A and 25% supporting B does not imply that 60% supports ( A + B ).
He then showed a bit of leadership in slapping down dissenters.
Does he have the discipline, commitment, stamina, and desire to build on that? A couple of Hamas-related mea culpas, u-turn on Trident, row back on most (not all) of the nationalisation plan,
Formulate a PLP policy group and listen to it (does Lab have a 1922 equivalent?), chuck out Momentum.
And it could be PM Jezza in 2020.
OK it's a big ask.
2. Practiciality
3. Acknowledged as a problem but there are better ways to fix it
Has any sitting MP sued their party leader for defamation before?
The acceleration of information, a historical view from @benatipsosmori at @The_IPA https://t.co/C9gX0Oxpq6
They don't care about electability.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
.@paulmasonnews interviews @JohnMcDonnellMP on how we will rebuild and transform Britain. Watch and RT → https://t.co/sTmRJ0YqVj
The fundamental problem that advocates of abolishing FPTP have is that it's impossible to legislate a majority into existence in a single constituency, let alone the country. Unless we switch to the Bhutanese two-round system, I guess.
But in any case, this misses the argument that should be being made at this time, which is that even those who would prefer a different voting system on whatever grounds should accept that we have FPTP at the moment, and as long as we do so we should make it the best FPTP we can. The best is the enemy of the good, after all.
Perhaps embark on some changes first.
https://twitter.com/mattsmithetc/status/776349932739502080
http://www.markpack.org.uk/142288/liberal-democrat-election-candidate-selections/
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/776352279867850752
Mike van Dulken @Accendo_Mike
I guess Carney will be even more serene now
9:32 AM - 15 Sep 2016
Michael Hewson @mhewson_CMC
Notable that this was pre rate cut as well. UK consumers even more serene about Brexit. https://twitter.com/jlawler_CMC/status/776338293000658944 …
9:35 AM - 15 Sep 2016
Skip Licker
It's Battle of Britain Day. So here's a low flying Spitfire https://t.co/swI7PkDE2W
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
Cameron was unusual in his approach to Cabinet. It was one of the better things about him.
'How Theresa May's Government has distanced itself from David Cameron'
http://tinyurl.com/h8ghk9k
As I said yesterday, I'm a supporter of grammar schools in the abstract and I believe they have a role to play in a reformed education sector, but bolting them onto the existing education system will do more harm than good. It shows in the number of mitigating factors the government are having to impose on their own policy that they realise this as well.
If the government move to a German style primary and secondary education system, grammar schooling, or schooling for academic excellence is a problem that solves itself. Trade, technical and apprenticeship schools are just as important as schools for academic excellence, we should improve and create all of those first before trying to turn A grade students into A* grade students.
http://order-order.com/2016/09/15/tory-mp-justin-tomlinson-suspended-commons/
No-one has ever satisfactorily explained to me what is wrong with FPTP that doesn't involve that circular argument. On the converse side, advocates of PR seem to be remarkably uninterested in how it actually works in practice in other countries - Ireland being a wonderful example. A near-system system on paper, the practical effect of which is that a load of loony independents and a shifting mosaic of tiny parties end up being able to hold the government to ransom, sometimes indeed (as this year) making it almost impossible to form a government.
At present, after a hereditary peer dies, there is an election for a replacement!
Countries with a smaller parliament also tend to have local democracy; we have government from Whitehall.
What decisions are Whitehall making or not making that you think would be made differently at a local level?
The UK is a high density country, I can't see how there is the space for lots of fragmented decision making.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37372362