politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why a progressive alliance in Stoke Central might be doomed

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why a progressive alliance in Stoke Central might be doomed

2015 general election result under different voting systems by The @electoralreform Society https://t.co/Gyvm8kJbyt pic.twitter.com/iMKpYJA6hd

Read the full story here

Sandpit

First!

CarlottaVance

Second! Like UKIP in Stoke!

tlg86

Yes to AV!

JackW

Go fourth and multiply ....

RobD

Have to laugh that the LDs would get only one more seat under AV than FPTP.

Sunil_Prasannan

tlg86 said:

Yes to AV!

2011 referendum:

No 2 AV: 68%
Yes 2 AV: 32%

Blue_rog

Just had a thought! With the LDs banging on about a second referendum to prevent Brexit, are they also agitating for a second referendum on AV?

Jonathan

May should have that PR result framed. It underlined neatly that the country she governs doesn't look like the HoC.

logical_song

RobD said:

Have to laugh that the LDs would get only one more seat under AV than FPTP.

LibDems are in favour of STV. The Tories only offered AV and AV gives electors more chance of getting the MPs they want.

CarlottaVance

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

RobD

logical_song said:

RobD said:

Have to laugh that the LDs would get only one more seat under AV than FPTP.

LibDems are in favour of STV. The Tories only offered AV and AV gives electors more chance of getting the MPs they want.

Seems like AV does a pretty good job of replicating the best voting system known to man, FPTP!

Sandpit

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

Innocent_Abroad

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

logical_song

US Republicans offer to tax carbon emissions to fight Climate Change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republicans-offer-to-tax-carbon-emissions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScientificAmerican-News+(Content:+News)

logical_song

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

There's a lot in the centre. May has been able to move to the right only because Corbyn is so far to the left.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

May should have that PR result framed. It underlined neatly that the country she governs doesn't look like the HoC.

Both the behaviour of the parties in campaigning, and the voters in voting, would be different under a different electoral system. But, the most likely outcome would still have been a Con-UKIP supply & confidence/coalition, so even more right-wing.

Cameron would have hated it but he simply wouldn't have been able to dance with anyone else.

logical_song

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

MonikerDiCanio

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

Devolution.

daodao

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

There's a lot in the centre. May has been able to move to the right only because Corbyn is so far to the left.

May isn't right-wing. She's more in the Heath mould, without the pro-European baggage.

Re the by-elections: while they won't be about Brexit, pro-Remain candidates are likely to be handicapped by such a view, which might be enough to tip the election. What are the views of the Labour candidates in these 2 seats?

Blue_rog

MonikerDiCanio said:

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

Devolution.

De-evolution

IanB2

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

Indeed. Most experts view AV as potentially less proportional than FPTP, since in a 'good year' for a major party, the swing towards them is exaggerated because the same swing that gives them extra first preference votes also affects the second preferences from other party supporters.

The principal advantages of AV are that all successful candidates are the preferred choice of a majority of the voters in an area (i.e. After transfers they have at least 50% of the remaining votes, as compared to FPTP that has delivered a seat to someone with as low as 27% of votes cast), and that fewer votes are wasted (largely because supporters of 'no hope' candidates have their votes transferred), and that these two advantages are delivered within a single-member constituency system.

The disadvantages are that its outcome is generally like FPTP or worse, producing a parliament that doesn't reflect the country but exaggerates geographically concentrated viewpoints, that a large number of votes are still being wasted and hence a large number of voters remain unrepresented, and that there would still be a lot of safe seats where the result is predictable and any swing irrelevant to the result, with the boundary commission review and the party selection committee effectively deciding who is the MP years before the actual election (i.e. voters have no choice between candidates from the same party) and the MP is able to take his or her residents for granted.

AlastairMeeks

Pacts are normally pointless unless they're permanent.

Paristonda

Why would the LD/Green parties go for this when Labour explicitly refused in Richmond? Also, given that on the most important issue of the day - Brexit, Labour's policy is the complete opposite of LD/Green policy.

No pacts with Labour are likely until Corbyn goes. Clive Lewis has spoken numerous times about working with the other parties, so there may be a basis for it if he takes over.

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

Really depressing. I was at my son's parents night last night. In science they are already answering National 5 level questions in their homework half way through second year.

The article is identifying a problem within the state sector but the relative performance between state and private schools is far wider and getting worse. For several years now the one private school in Dundee submits more children for highers in science than all of state schools put together. All 3 of my son's teachers in science last night had doctorates in their subject.

The difference between what is required in National 5 and what was required for a standard grade 40 years ago is also deeply depressing and a major reason that this differential has occurred. Not nearly enough is being asked of our children by a school system more focussed on everyone passing than rigour. This has major economic implications for Scotland's prosperity and employment.

felix

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

I think that is a pretty accurate summary.

felix

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

For several years now the one private school in Dundee submits more children for highers in science than all of state schools put together.

For perspective, there is one independent school (Dundee High - I remember children in my school in Forfar celebrating after doing their 11-plus) and nine State schools.....

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

For several years now the one private school in Dundee submits more children for highers in science than all of state schools put together.

For perspective, there is one independent school (Dundee High - I remember children in my school in Forfar celebrating after doing their 11-plus) and nine State schools.....

Indeed. Bright kids whose parents cannot afford Dundee High's fees are being deprived of the chance to do many careers that they have the capability for. It is just not good enough.

SouthamObserver

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

View_From_Cumbria

An instructive table. The one column missing but no doubt easily calculated would be the seats by strict division of total votes cast. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would like AV. Blair thought it could be used to kill off the Tories for once and for all but to call it a form of PR is a misuse of the term.

The question with STV is how you select replacement MPs. The AV system used in Scottish local government is perverse and must be a strong inducement for all but the strongest party in a ward to only select candidates who can be reasonably expected to live long enough to serve out the term.

Personally I prefer something based on STV - definitely NO by-elections. Probably the Irish system BUT that does get profoundly difficult to count. An alternative version would perhaps give the elector one vote which the eliminated or over quota candidate could deflect to his/her choice. The objection to that is that it takes the choice from the elector but that doesn't wash logically. If you can't trust a candidate to deflect your vote the way you want then don't vote for the f***er.

Oh, and the constituencies need to elect sufficiently large number of MPs for small parties to have a fighting chance of getting the odd MP in most seats. I would say 8 or 10 MPs. The Oirish ones are far too small.

scotslass

David L/Carlotta

Except of course that any report in The Telegraph has only the vaguest association with the truth.

Talking of health warnings I note that A@E performance in Scotland is now a full 10 per cent better in Scotland than in England - 93 per cent discharge within four hours compared to 82 per cent!

SouthamObserver

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

It depends on what you mean by left and right. In the US, any supporter of socialised medicine - ie the majority of people in the UK - would be classed as a socialist.

JosiasJessop

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

The problem is that AV doesn't really achieve those; or at least they're very much dependant on the implementation.

'Fairness' is a word I would ban from politics; in the same way I would ban 'better' from engineering. It is essentially meaningless.

If you want to promote voter involvement the answer is simple: compulsory voting.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

May should have that PR result framed. It underlined neatly that the country she governs doesn't look like the HoC.

Both the behaviour of the parties in campaigning, and the voters in voting, would be different under a different electoral system. But, the most likely outcome would still have been a Con-UKIP supply & confidence/coalition, so even more right-wing.

Cameron would have hated it but he simply wouldn't have been able to dance with anyone else.

Only if the previous Labour/LibDem administration had failed to deliver, though ;-)

justin124

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

There's a lot in the centre. May has been able to move to the right only because Corbyn is so far to the left.

On economic policy I would say May has moved to the centre - more Hestletinian in her approach and less right wing than any Tory PM since Ted Heath.

CarlottaVance

scotslass said:

David L/Carlotta

Except of course that any report in The Telegraph has only the vaguest association with the truth.

Think tank the Sutton Trust found that there was no area where the brightest Scottish 15-year-olds “really excel”, with their weaknesses including a “pronounced and sustained decline” in their performance at science since 2006.

Its research concluded that the decline was “equivalent to around a year of schooling” and they were “trailing behind the performance of able pupils in England in most subject areas.”

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

For several years now the one private school in Dundee submits more children for highers in science than all of state schools put together.

For perspective, there is one independent school (Dundee High - I remember children in my school in Forfar celebrating after doing their 11-plus) and nine State schools.....

It is just not good enough.

Its good enough for scotslass.......

DavidL

scotslass said:

David L/Carlotta

Except of course that any report in The Telegraph has only the vaguest association with the truth.

Talking of health warnings I note that A@E performance in Scotland is now a full 10 per cent better in Scotland than in England - 93 per cent discharge within four hours compared to 82 per cent!

The article is based upon an analysis of the PISA scores. The analysis has been "welcomed" by the Scottish Government to help them identify where things are going wrong. The comments about "since the SNP came to power" is of course spin and unfair. It takes a long time to change things in education and the cut off points are arbitrary but the direction of travel is a real concern. Scotland's education is in a bad place and getting worse. It is not clear where the future doctors achieving those A&E targets are going to come from.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Good morning everyone.
Always nice to see AV being discussed.
Be still my beating heart.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

"Sad."

Touch of the Donald Trump's there Southam?

logical_song

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

The problem is that AV doesn't really achieve those; or at least they're very much dependant on the implementation.

'Fairness' is a word I would ban from politics; in the same way I would ban 'better' from engineering. It is essentially meaningless.

If you want to promote voter involvement the answer is simple: compulsory voting.

I see that you favour the stick over the carrot. Force people to vote by threatening them with fines rather than encouraging them by making their vote count. I was talking about fairness to the voter, why should they bother to turn out on a wet Thursday in a safe seat?
I tend to agree on AV, STV is the system I favour.

CarlottaVance

Not The Telegraph:

SCOTLAND'S brightest pupils are falling behind their international counterparts, according to an influential study.

A report by the Sutton Trust said recent figures from industrialised countries showed "major weaknesses" in Scotland including a "prolonged and sustained decline in able pupils' performance in science".

The educational charity report, which used figures from tests conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), said Scotland was below the median in reading and mathematics and "trailing behind the performance of able pupils in England in most subject areas".

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15079187.New_report_warns_brightest_pupils_are_being_left_behind/

AlsoIndigo

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

For several years now the one private school in Dundee submits more children for highers in science than all of state schools put together.

For perspective, there is one independent school (Dundee High - I remember children in my school in Forfar celebrating after doing their 11-plus) and nine State schools.....

It is just not good enough.

Its good enough for scotslass.......

When one's first instinct is to look at the colour of the rosette rather than the independent research, it could be suggested one might have left the path of wisdom

kle4

RobD said:

Have to laugh that the LDs would get only one more seat under AV than FPTP.

Who would have been predicted as the lucky individual I wonder?

kle4

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

Ideally I imagine not, but that's the test isn't it? Do you still believe the alternate system is fairer even if currently it work against you?

PlatoSaid

I see Netflix has done an MTV

I watched the trailer last night and thought it looked like divisive nonsense claiming to be satire. It had 15k thumbs down then - it's now... 70k.


Mark Dice
So, your new series Dear White People isn't being very well received @JSim07. We're sick of Social Justice Warrior nonsense bro. https://t.co/ABWUAUMADI

DavidL

justin124 said:

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

There's a lot in the centre. May has been able to move to the right only because Corbyn is so far to the left.

On economic policy I would say May has moved to the centre - more Hestletinian in her approach and less right wing than any Tory PM since Ted Heath.

Osborne was pretty centralist in deed if not in words. But I would agree that both this government's and Cameron's are a long way from the Thatcherite school of let the markets do their work for good or ill. There is much more focus on the role of an activist and interventionist state.

SquareRoot

So is Bercow in trouble or not.. does the MP's letter to the PM mark the start of the inevitable decline and fall of the Emperor?

felix

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

It depends on what you mean by left and right. In the US, any supporter of socialised medicine - ie the majority of people in the UK - would be classed as a socialist.

Indeed, and what was left and right in this country has shifted over time too.

SouthamObserver

I think Labour will have another leadership contest this year.

SouthamObserver

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

You don't trust the people. But that's the establishment for you.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

justin124 said:

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

There's a lot in the centre. May has been able to move to the right only because Corbyn is so far to the left.

On economic policy I would say May has moved to the centre - more Hestletinian in her approach and less right wing than any Tory PM since Ted Heath.

Osborne was pretty centralist in deed if not in words. But I would agree that both this government's and Cameron's are a long way from the Thatcherite school of let the markets do their work for good or ill. There is much more focus on the role of an activist and interventionist state.

The Thatcher government was much more activist (and generous) in deed than in rhetoric. I'd say it's the opposite with this government.

JosiasJessop

logical_song said:

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

The problem is that AV doesn't really achieve those; or at least they're very much dependant on the implementation.

'Fairness' is a word I would ban from politics; in the same way I would ban 'better' from engineering. It is essentially meaningless.

If you want to promote voter involvement the answer is simple: compulsory voting.

I see that you favour the stick over the carrot. Force people to vote by threatening them with fines rather than encouraging them by making their vote count. I was talking about fairness to the voter, why should they bother to turn out on a wet Thursday in a safe seat?
I tend to agree on AV, STV is the system I favour.

AV isn't particularly a carrot when it comes to voter turnout; the reasons people don't vote will be many and varied. It's become increasingly easy to vote, specially with PV, but still large numbers of people do not.

Instead of choosing a system, you need to decide on the fundamentals of the system you want. For instance, I want to vote for a person, not a party, and I want every individual to have one MP, not several to choose from. They're major deal-breakers for me.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

You don't trust the people. But that's the establishment for you.

Whether or not someone feels the people would return the same result -which I do - it is not absurd to ask where it would end? In all honesty it might be a good idea if we had referendums with minimum thresholds as in some countries or a rule about no repeats too soon, but we don't, so people are free to press ahead even if a vote was 50% plus one vote and people change their minds and yes, free to try to ask the people over and over again.

[Deleted User]

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Education, Edukation, Edyoukayshon,

The cleverest Scottish schoolchildren are the equivalent of a year’s worth of schooling behind at science compared to before the SNP took power, according damning research.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/cleverest-scottish-pupils-year-behind-science-compared-snp-taking

All those SNP teachers holding pupils back. Wonder how the previous Labour ones are doing in the Gulags.

SouthamObserver

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

You don't trust the people. But that's the establishment for you.

Whether or not someone feels the people would return the same result -which I do - it is not absurd to ask where it would end? In all honesty it might be a good idea if we had referendums with minimum thresholds as in some countries or a rule about no repeats too soon, but we don't, so people are free to press ahead even if a vote was 50% plus one vote and people change their minds and yes, free to try to ask the people over and over again.

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I really dislike that table. Whilst it's superficially interesting, people would change their behaviour by themselves under a different set of rules, and the political parties would also campaign very differently.

Scott_P

SquareRoot said:

So is Bercow in trouble or not.. does the MP's letter to the PM mark the start of the inevitable decline and fall of the Emperor?

James Duddridge wrote to the prime minister asking for ministers, usually bound by collective responsibility, to be given free rein in any vote of no confidence in Mr Bercow. Downing Street has already said that it was a matter for parliament. Ministers confirmed to The Times that they would vote against Mr Bercow in an unwhipped vote.

While Mr Bercow would be likely to win any vote, the prospect of a significant minority of the House saying they had no confidence in him could be enough to encourage him to quit.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d4215dc8-ee4e-11e6-b160-fe23d6a9b5dd

kle4

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

JosiasJessop

SquareRoot said:

So is Bercow in trouble or not.. does the MP's letter to the PM mark the start of the inevitable decline and fall of the Emperor?

I was thinking about this last night, and I cannot see it happening. He's been there a while, and has had about the average recent length of time in the job. I can see a deal being done whereby he'll stand down sometime in the near future, but with the ability to save face by saying it's *his* choice.

There are certain dangers into trying to usurp him, and the government probably won't want that battle, especially after last time.

He's also done nothing as egregious as his predecessor.

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

More amusing is the people who campaigned for "UK Parliament to be Sovereign" (sic) now want to abolish half of it...

david_herdson

SquareRoot said:

So is Bercow in trouble or not.. does the MP's letter to the PM mark the start of the inevitable decline and fall of the Emperor?

Yes, he's in trouble. No, it doesn't mark an *inevitable* road to his departure.

The letter is a clear shot across (1) Bercow's bows - not that he may be paying attention to the message, and (2) those of May and the govt to pressure them not to protect Bercow if the backbench revolt gets big enough.

I appreciate that the metaphor implies that the govt and Bercow are sailing similar courses, which is not necessarily true.

What the letter does show is that some Tory MPs are less scares of Bercow's reaction to criticism than they are of the fact of his Speakership. The critical questions are how many feel like that, and how far are they prepared to push it?

justin124

I have serious doubts as to whether electoral alliances would work in practice simply because many voters would refuse to do as they were told. A significant number of LibDems would vote Tory in the absence of a LibDem candidate. Similarly where there is no UKIP candidate on the ballot paper many of their working class supporters would vote Labour rather than Tory.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

scotslass said:

David L/Carlotta

Except of course that any report in The Telegraph has only the vaguest association with the truth.

Think tank the Sutton Trust found that there was no area where the brightest Scottish 15-year-olds “really excel”, with their weaknesses including a “pronounced and sustained decline” in their performance at science since 2006.

Its research concluded that the decline was “equivalent to around a year of schooling” and they were “trailing behind the performance of able pupils in England in most subject areas.”

Surprise surprise London Tory think tank trust finds London better than Scotland, who would have imagined it.

HYUFD

A 'progressive' alliance in Stoke Central won't work as Stoke is one of the most unprogressive places in the country. A 'regressive' alliance might have been more successful

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

May should have that PR result framed. It underlined neatly that the country she governs doesn't look like the HoC.

Both the behaviour of the parties in campaigning, and the voters in voting, would be different under a different electoral system. But, the most likely outcome would still have been a Con-UKIP supply & confidence/coalition, so even more right-wing.

Cameron would have hated it but he simply wouldn't have been able to dance with anyone else.

Only if the previous Labour/LibDem administration had failed to deliver, though ;-)

You think there's much scope for debate on that point with PM Gordon Brown?

kle4

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

More amusing is the people who campaigned for "UK Parliament to be Sovereign" (sic) now want to abolish half of it...

As a reaction to the prospect of the ordinary process of parliamentary ping pong, it would be an overreaction to say the least. I find it hard to see how how lords would push things so far that hostile action, e.g. Abolishment, sudden unilateral reform or creation of hundreds more pliant peers, is deemed necessary.

It would be a good idea to sort it out though - as hilarious as the 7 candidate, 3 eligible voter election which returned viscount Thurso was, aren't we still on the temporary arrangements from 1999 re hereditaries?

Scott_P

This is the kinf of decisive leadership Corbyn has demonstrated throughout his tenure

@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn on Trump: "I think it wd be right to meet the President - but wrong for him to come here" Eh...? #trumpwobble

malcolmg

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

More amusing is the people who campaigned for "UK Parliament to be Sovereign" (sic) now want to abolish half of it...

The unelected old boys trougher part mind you.

HYUFD

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

You don't trust the people. But that's the establishment for you.

Whether or not someone feels the people would return the same result -which I do - it is not absurd to ask where it would end? In all honesty it might be a good idea if we had referendums with minimum thresholds as in some countries or a rule about no repeats too soon, but we don't, so people are free to press ahead even if a vote was 50% plus one vote and people change their minds and yes, free to try to ask the people over and over again.

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

They can do that quite easily at the next general election. If they think the deal was too hard and they want another referendum they can vote LD and if they think it too soft they can vote UKIP. We only had a referendum on the EU in the first place because it was a Tory manifesto commitment and the Tories won a majority at the last general election

kle4

HYUFD said:

A 'progressive' alliance in Stoke Central won't work as Stoke is one of the most unprogressive places in the country. A 'regressive' alliance might have been more successful

But it returns MPs of the progressive party

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Those calling for a second referendum need to be clear about what the referendum would be on - what would the options on the ballot be? For some reason, they seem remarkably quiet on this point.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

AlsoIndigo

.

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

So that's why the LDs want a few hundred MPs to ignore the EU referendum result.

Aren't the LDs calling for voters to be given the opportunity of a second referendum? For some reason, Leavers have stopped trusting the British people and believe that they should not be allowed to vote again once the reality of the Brexit deal becomes known. Sad.

Silly - even by your usual standards. what next ? best of 3?

You don't trust the people. But that's the establishment for you.

Whether or not someone feels the people would return the same result -which I do - it is not absurd to ask where it would end? In all honesty it might be a good idea if we had referendums with minimum thresholds as in some countries or a rule about no repeats too soon, but we don't, so people are free to press ahead even if a vote was 50% plus one vote and people change their minds and yes, free to try to ask the people over and over again.

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

You said we didn't need a referendum because we have a representative democracy. That Representative Democracy voted by around 80% to leave last night. Parliament is in control, that is what BrExit was about.

kle4

justin124 said:

I have serious doubts as to whether electoral alliances would work in practice simply because many voters would refuse to do as they were told. A significant number of LibDems would vote Tory in the absence of a LibDem candidate. Similarly where there is no UKIP candidate on the ballot paper many of their working class supporters would vote Labour rather than Tory.

Alistair is probably right it works better when permanent or near permanent, people get into the habit. Plus with our parties leaping about the left right spectrum at times, and ukip in particular trying to straddle both, perhaps things are too ideologically murky for short term informal pacts to be reliable here.

rottenborough

justin124 said:

I have serious doubts as to whether electoral alliances would work in practice simply because many voters would refuse to do as they were told. A significant number of LibDems would vote Tory in the absence of a LibDem candidate. Similarly where there is no UKIP candidate on the ballot paper many of their working class supporters would vote Labour rather than Tory.

Why would a LibDem vote for Corbyn's Labour? There will be precious little liberty in the sort of Soviet aping socialist country he wants.

AlsoIndigo

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

scotslass said:

David L/Carlotta

Except of course that any report in The Telegraph has only the vaguest association with the truth.

Think tank the Sutton Trust found that there was no area where the brightest Scottish 15-year-olds “really excel”, with their weaknesses including a “pronounced and sustained decline” in their performance at science since 2006.

Its research concluded that the decline was “equivalent to around a year of schooling” and they were “trailing behind the performance of able pupils in England in most subject areas.”

Surprise surprise London Tory think tank trust finds London better than Scotland, who would have imagined it.

Tory think tank ?

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

I was anticipating the men in grey suits would not make a move again until it seems the members themselves are turning in him - and I struggke to see how some more won't break if Copeland and stoke are lost. Plus anecdotally many formally enthusiastic corbynustas seem less keen.

HYUFD

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

Actually most polls show left and right pretty evenly divided but given the choice between a right-wing or leftwing party the centre will more often than not choose the right-wing one

rottenborough

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

2018 is my guess. He will have the 12 months that both McDonnell and Abbot gave him at the start of this year to turn it around.

His 70th birthday, however, is May 2019.

kle4

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

More amusing is the people who campaigned for "UK Parliament to be Sovereign" (sic) now want to abolish half of it...

The unelected old boys trougher part mind you.

If you like. But if people didn't have a problem with that bit before, they should be wary of seeking to abolish it now as a kneejerk response. Of course, many did have a problem with it before, which is ok.

It's one reason I sometimes feel longterm proponents of electoral reform probably should get annoyed when crybabies suddenly realise and complain how unfair fptp is...only after their side fails to win. Fair-whether, or rather foul weather friends.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

A 'progressive' alliance in Stoke Central won't work as Stoke is one of the most unprogressive places in the country. A 'regressive' alliance might have been more successful

But it returns MPs of the progressive party

It is highly debateable whether Corbyn's Labour is progressive, certainly less so than the LDs or Greens and if UKIP win the seat even that will no longer be true and Stoke will be represented by the most unprogressive party of all

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

A 'progressive' alliance in Stoke Central won't work as Stoke is one of the most unprogressive places in the country. A 'regressive' alliance might have been more successful

But it returns MPs of the progressive party

It is highly debateable whether Corbyn's Labour is progressive, certainly less so than the LDs or Greens and if UKIP win the seat even that will no longer be true and Stoke will be represented by the most unprogressive party of all

I'll confess I should have added a smiley face to my words on that one to capture my intended tone.

AlsoIndigo

HYUFD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

It doesn't matter what the voting system is. For every two lefties there are three right-wing voters. That is what Blair understood and mot Labour activists don't want to.

Actually most polls show left and right pretty evenly divided but given the choice between a right-wing or leftwing party the centre will more often than not choose the right-wing one

They probably tend to pick the more competent looking one if they are less fussed about ideology, recently the left has had a problem looking competent, when at the end of the 90's the Tories looked incompetent, the centre ground deserted them and they got kicked out.

logical_song

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

So I guess this is why Nick Clegg called AV "A miserable little compromise".

Also amusing that in the above scenarios, the result was either a Con majority or would have most likely been a Con/UKIP coalition, maybe with a few Ulstermen helping out. Is that really what all those of the left arguing for PR would have wanted?

It's not ALL about party advantage, some of it is about good governance, fairness and promoting voter involvement.

The problem is that AV doesn't really achieve those; or at least they're very much dependant on the implementation.

'Fairness' is a word I would ban from politics; in the same way I would ban 'better' from engineering. It is essentially meaningless.

If you want to promote voter involvement the answer is simple: compulsory voting.

I see that you favour the stick over the carrot. Force people to vote by threatening them with fines rather than encouraging them by making their vote count. I was talking about fairness to the voter, why should they bother to turn out on a wet Thursday in a safe seat?
I tend to agree on AV, STV is the system I favour.

AV isn't particularly a carrot when it comes to voter turnout; the reasons people don't vote will be many and varied. It's become increasingly easy to vote, specially with PV, but still large numbers of people do not.

Instead of choosing a system, you need to decide on the fundamentals of the system you want. For instance, I want to vote for a person, not a party, and I want every individual to have one MP, not several to choose from. They're major deal-breakers for me.

Why still talk about AV? We agree on that.
The main reason not to vote would be if your vote had no chance of making any difference, ie if you lived in a safe seat. Why bother?
I also want to vote for a person, but even if I wanted to vote for a party I might prefer a centrist Labour candidate over a Corbynite. Or a One Nation tory over a right winger (or anyone over Owen Patterson). So I have no problem with having a constituency that was as big as four or five current constituencies (say South Hampshire) where I could be pretty sure of having my vote counted and of having an MP that I helped elect.
STV would allow that.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

I was anticipating the men in grey suits would not make a move again until it seems the members themselves are turning in him - and I struggke to see how some more won't break if Copeland and stoke are lost. Plus anecdotally many formally enthusiastic corbynustas seem less keen.

Yet even post Brexit and low Labour poll ratings members backed Corbyn over the Europhile more centrist Owen Smith by more than 60%

rottenborough

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

I was anticipating the men in grey suits would not make a move again until it seems the members themselves are turning in him - and I struggke to see how some more won't break if Copeland and stoke are lost. Plus anecdotally many formally enthusiastic corbynustas seem less keen.

He has lost Owen Jones. Surely one of the Corbynista guiding lights.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, Labour doesn't really have men in grey suits.

Mr. P, interesting line being taken by Number Ten over a potential Bercow vote.

GarethoftheVale2

I can't see another attempt to topple Corbyn this year. It is too soon after the last one and might rally his supporters around him. Better to wait another year and let the members see there is a lack of progress even if the right aren't slagging him off. Also more chance of the party rallying around a Michael Howard figure.

justin124

rottenborough said:

justin124 said:

I have serious doubts as to whether electoral alliances would work in practice simply because many voters would refuse to do as they were told. A significant number of LibDems would vote Tory in the absence of a LibDem candidate. Similarly where there is no UKIP candidate on the ballot paper many of their working class supporters would vote Labour rather than Tory.

Why would a LibDem vote for Corbyn's Labour? There will be precious little liberty in the sort of Soviet aping socialist country he wants.

Some former LibDems are his strong supporters - ie disillusioned Labour people who voted LibDem in 2005 and 2010 because Labour was too right wing.

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

I was anticipating the men in grey suits would not make a move again until it seems the members themselves are turning in him - and I struggke to see how some more won't break if Copeland and stoke are lost. Plus anecdotally many formally enthusiastic corbynustas seem less keen.

Yet even post Brexit and low Labour poll ratings members backed Corbyn over the Europhile more centrist Owen Smith by more than 60%

They did. It was not the right time to move, clearly. But is it true now? In 6 months? I don't know, but unless I'm one of many wrong about labours prospects, how can the membership continue to support a leader taking them to oblivion? What would it take for him to realise he needs to handover? I'm not sure, but I do believe corbyn cares about the party, and despite his stubbornness will have a point he is made to realise he must go.

Scott_P

kle4 said:

I'm not sure, but I do believe corbyn cares about the party, and despite his stubbornness will have a point he is made to realise he must go.

Yes, Corbyn cares about the Party, just not the Labour Party

kle4

Scott_P said:

kle4 said:

I'm not sure, but I do believe corbyn cares about the party, and despite his stubbornness will have a point he is made to realise he must go.

Yes, Corbyn cares about the Party, just not the Labour Party

He stayed with it even when it encapsulated much of what he despises. It seems core to his personal identity.

Essexit

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

I struggle to see why the people should not be given the opportunity to approve the Brexit deal the government concludes. Isn't Brexit supposed to be about taking back control?

More amusing is the people who campaigned for "UK Parliament to be Sovereign" (sic) now want to abolish half of it...

No, to democratise the undemocratic half of it.

What's completely unsurprising is Remainer ultras hoping am unelected body will overrule the people.

felix

Scott_P said:

This is the kinf of decisive leadership Corbyn has demonstrated throughout his tenure

@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn on Trump: "I think it wd be right to meet the President - but wrong for him to come here" Eh...? #trumpwobble

Maybe on an east European cycling tour?

dugarbandier

Sunil_Prasannan said:

tlg86 said:

Yes to AV!

2011 referendum:

No 2 AV: 68%
Yes 2 AV: 32%

you didn't include 2nd preferences

felix

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Patrick said:

Corbyn just confirmed on BBC breakfast TV that he is absolutely going nowhere and will lead Labour through the 2020GE. :-)

Depending on Copeland and stoke it won't be up to him (I think he'll be fine), but I'd class that in the same vein as Cameron and others saying he wouldn't resign as pm - everyone knew it wasn't true, but all played the game of pretending otherwise. And corbyn knows if things don't pick up the men in grey suits will come, and for the party he will stand down.

Why? 170 MPs have already voted against him but he renewed his mandate with the members last September. As long as retains membership support the men in grey suits can say what they want but under Labour leadership rules Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election

I was anticipating the men in grey suits would not make a move again until it seems the members themselves are turning in him - and I struggke to see how some more won't break if Copeland and stoke are lost. Plus anecdotally many formally enthusiastic corbynustas seem less keen.

What colour suit did Clive Lewis buy?

dr_spyn

Corbyn's unreal fightback starts here.

https://order-order.com/2017/02/09/corbyn-tells-bbc-you-are-reporting-fake-news/