What was Root's gesture all about when he was out?
He's not retiring as well is he?
Is he binning the captaincy?
Maybe, although given the events of today's Roses match and Yorkshire's inevitable relegation to Div 2 I can see Root quitting international cricket to focus on Yorkshire.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
What was Root's gesture all about when he was out?
He's not retiring as well is he?
Is he binning the captaincy?
Maybe, although given the events of today's Roses match and Yorkshire's inevitable relegation to Div 2 I can see Root quitting international cricket to focus on Yorkshire.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Yes you (and @DavidL) are right. Sadly. Thing is, Sadiq is a politician and "it" is not particularly broken, so no one will feel a need to fix it. Which is a shame because Shaun is a fantastic guy who can really communicate. Now, no doubt some of that accessibility would and will be rubbed off once he gains high office (if not as mayor then somewhere else) but he would be a real breath of fresh air.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
I should think one Boris is enough
He is perfectly fine for a semi-serious position like Mayor. Not for anything important though.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
I should think one Boris is enough
He is perfectly fine for a semi-serious position like Mayor. Not for anything important though.
You're saying he's ideal for First Minister of Scotland?
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
He definitely doesn't have anything like the profile required at the moment. Assuming he's the candidate, I'm sure he'll make a good shot at it (and certainly run a better campaign than Zac did, although that's not saying much), but it's a long shot all the same.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
I should think one Boris is enough
He is perfectly fine for a semi-serious position like Mayor. Not for anything important though.
You're saying he's ideal for First Minister of Scotland?
Governor of Southern Thule is a semi-serious position. Just sayin’....
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Also, unless I have missed him, the Tories don't have another Boris. A Tory in London, especially post Brexit, really has to have the ability to reach out well beyond natural Tory support. Can Shaun Bailey do that? I don't think he has anything like the profile required.
The boundary changes are helpful to the LibDems in St Albans.
London Colney (the ward with the smallest LD vote) is transferred to Hertsmere, whilst Woodside is gained from Watford and Leavesden and Abbots Langley & Bedmond are gained from Three Rivers district (Bedmond was already part of St Albans constituency).
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
Excellent London poll for the minor parties especially the LDs but with the Greens and UKIP also picking themselves off the floor.
Very early days in terms of 2020 but Sadiq is in a very strong position. Labour are entrenched in Inner London and in truth the Conservatives have been driven back to a few heartlands in the suburbs. The numbers don't stack well for a non-Labour candidate.
Sadiq's tenure so far hasn't been without its problems - the damage done to police numbers and the closure of stations was perpetrated by Boris and the reduction in beat policing in favour of a more mobile approach stems from the Home Secretary in the Coalition years whose name escapes me - but I've heard little positive in response from Sadiq or his advisers.
I do think on housing Sadiq has been woeful - some Boroughs are trying to crank up the house building programme but overall too little has been done to meet the ever-growing demand.
The Conservative Mayoral candidate is going to have to acknowledge the flaws of the Johnson years if he or she is going to reach beyond the core vote.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
97%+
I would have said 95%+, but at least we're at the same order of magnitude.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
97%+
I would have said 95%+, but at least we're at the same order of magnitude.
Unless it's preceded with the words "Tory majority", in which case, 50% exactly.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
More seriously, does Khan really have only a 3% or 5% chance of losing? The election's not for nearly two years, he's lacklustre at best, TfL is in crisis, London knife crime is becoming a national scandal, and the entirely objective and non-partisan editor of the Standard seems to have decided to start laying in to him pretty seriously.
Against that, yes of course he has a massive structural advantage. He's clearly odds-on favourite. On checking the odds I was surprised to see I could get 1.41 on Betfair, which seemed excellent value so I took some. I'd say fair odds would be about 1.15 as things stand.
Having taken a look at the new boundaries, surely it's time to simply abandon any pretence that they all (or even most) signify any meaningful natural communities? Just start at Lands End and cut off constituencies at exactly the right number and name them 1,2,3,4,5 and so on.
I've moved from "The Leftover Bits Of South Oxfordshire That Don't Fit In With Any Cities Or Big Towns" to "A Long Random Squiggle From Drayton To Bicester That Skims Oxford Just Because"
Yes, well. I nearly managed to move to Henley, apparently. Somehow.
Having taken a look at the new boundaries, surely it's time to simply abandon any pretence that they all (or even most) signify any meaningful natural communities? Just start at Lands End and cut off constituencies at exactly the right number and name them 1,2,3,4,5 and so on.
I've moved from "The Leftover Bits Of South Oxfordshire That Don't Fit In With Any Cities Or Big Towns" to "A Long Random Squiggle From Drayton To Bicester That Skims Oxford Just Because"
Yes, well. I nearly managed to move to Henley, apparently. Somehow.
I've been in Hitchin and Harpenden for years. That is two disjointed disconnected blobs in Hertfordshire. No reason except to make use of the leftover bits didn't fit anywhere.
Oddly, it hasn't had a negative effect on anyone or damaged their feeling of belonging or self esteem, as far as I am aware.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
More seriously, does Khan really have only a 3% or 5% chance of losing? The election's not for nearly two years, he's lacklustre at best, TfL is in crisis, London knife crime is becoming a national scandal, and the entirely objective and non-partisan editor of the Standard seems to have decided to start laying in to him pretty seriously.
Against that, yes of course he has a massive structural advantage. He's clearly odds-on favourite. On checking the odds I was surprised to see I could get 1.41 on Betfair, which seemed excellent value so I took some. I'd say fair odds would be about 1.15 as things stand.
A fair part of the doubt in Khan's price must be attributed to national Labour outcomes. Which party would he stand for if Labour split? And might he decide he needs to get back into the HoC asap in some scenarios?
Having taken a look at the new boundaries, surely it's time to simply abandon any pretence that they all (or even most) signify any meaningful natural communities? Just start at Lands End and cut off constituencies at exactly the right number and name them 1,2,3,4,5 and so on.
I've moved from "The Leftover Bits Of South Oxfordshire That Don't Fit In With Any Cities Or Big Towns" to "A Long Random Squiggle From Drayton To Bicester That Skims Oxford Just Because"
Yes, well. I nearly managed to move to Henley, apparently. Somehow.
Have you considered a job at the Boundary Commission?
You might have more fun in the local government version.
A fair part of the doubt in Khan's price must be attributed to national Labour outcomes. Which party would he stand for if Labour split? And might he decide he needs to get back into the HoC asap in some scenarios?
Yes, those certainly need to be considered. The first one is a very interesting question.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
More seriously, does Khan really have only a 3% or 5% chance of losing? The election's not for nearly two years, he's lacklustre at best, TfL is in crisis, London knife crime is becoming a national scandal, and the entirely objective and non-partisan editor of the Standard seems to have decided to start laying in to him pretty seriously.
Against that, yes of course he has a massive structural advantage. He's clearly odds-on favourite. On checking the odds I was surprised to see I could get 1.41 on Betfair, which seemed excellent value so I took some. I'd say fair odds would be about 1.15 as things stand.
A fair part of the doubt in Khan's price must be attributed to national Labour outcomes. Which party would he stand for if Labour split? And might he decide he needs to get back into the HoC asap in some scenarios?
Now that's a good point. That would change the odds materially.
Having taken a look at the new boundaries, surely it's time to simply abandon any pretence that they all (or even most) signify any meaningful natural communities? Just start at Lands End and cut off constituencies at exactly the right number and name them 1,2,3,4,5 and so on.
I've moved from "The Leftover Bits Of South Oxfordshire That Don't Fit In With Any Cities Or Big Towns" to "A Long Random Squiggle From Drayton To Bicester That Skims Oxford Just Because"
Yes, well. I nearly managed to move to Henley, apparently. Somehow.
I've been in Hitchin and Harpenden for years. That is two disjointed disconnected blobs in Hertfordshire. No reason except to make use of the leftover bits didn't fit anywhere.
Oddly, it hasn't had a negative effect on anyone or damaged their feeling of belonging or self esteem, as far as I am aware.
I think the constituency boundaries have been so disconnected from any sense of natural communities for so long that people don't care anymore. Quite a few have no idea what constituency they actually live in, anyway.
To be fair to the Boundaries Commission, the idea of exactly 600 single-seat constituencies of very close electorates is always going to cause this, unless we just happen to have exactly 600 natural communities in the country and all of those with very similar populations.
The entire putative link between parliamentary constituencies and any natural community has long become a fiction; this just exaggerates something that was already strongly there. Thus the only-partly-tongue-in-cheek suggestion that they stop paying even lip service to it and just redraw from left to right based purely on population. Forget counties, regions, towns, whatever. If the border runs down a road in the middle of a village, so be it. As you say, few people care.
(Alternatively, have multi-member constituencies based on, say, counties. Change the number of members for a given county when populations change or the total number of MPs is supposed to change. Job done, actual community link sustained)
Of course the bad polling in London means that the Tories must be done pretty well everywhere else if the national figures are accurate. All depends where the important marginals are.
Kahn looks absolutely nailed on to me. Nearly half the electorate still Labour, the Tories not closing the gap, Brexit, a national government that is staggering forward, second preferences, I just don't see how it gets close.
You are probably right, although the London mayoralty is not necessarily determined by national considerations.
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
Unless the LD and Green second choices are going to go Conservative (which they're not), then Kahn looks nailed on to me.
I'll take the 10,000 to 1 that you're offering!
Oh come, "nailed on" does not mean 10,000-1.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
I believe that the accepted definition of 'nailed on' is that you'll be happy to streak down Whitehall if you're wrong!
More seriously, does Khan really have only a 3% or 5% chance of losing? The election's not for nearly two years, he's lacklustre at best, TfL is in crisis, London knife crime is becoming a national scandal, and the entirely objective and non-partisan editor of the Standard seems to have decided to start laying in to him pretty seriously.
Against that, yes of course he has a massive structural advantage. He's clearly odds-on favourite. On checking the odds I was surprised to see I could get 1.41 on Betfair, which seemed excellent value so I took some. I'd say fair odds would be about 1.15 as things stand.
At some point m/c Londoners will wake up and smell the coffee. A big switch to a centre party is probably more likely here than most other places
I would think "nailed on" must equate to a 40/1 chance of it not happening. So 50/1 chance of Obama becoming US President would be super-nailed on not going to happen.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
If it doesn't the mps will be seen as self serving - mind you, they are anyway
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
The reduction was to force every seat to be re-drawn based on the artificially pro-Conservative registers, as part of the blue team's gerrymandering programme.
Now the interesting thing is that if the reduction does go ahead, it will be welcomed by Labour's entryist trots as forcing reselection in every seat.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I did once suggest (rather tongue-in-cheek, I must admit) a system of having each MPs vote weighted by the size of their electorates. We could have had the previous system, and even loosened it further to align more closely with natural communities. As a fringe benefit, it would encourage arithmetic among the whips.
I’m perfectly happy with the principle of making consituencies equal. But I’m very opposed to reducing the number of MPs, which only serves to entrench the position of the larger parties. If we must have FPTP then the number of MPs should be increased.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
The reduction was to force every seat to be re-drawn based on the artificially pro-Conservative registers, as part of the blue team's gerrymandering programme.
Now the interesting thing is that if the reduction does go ahead, it will be welcomed by Labour's entryist trots as forcing reselection in every seat.
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
Comments
Cheque is in the post, TSE.
(Bet YJB is glad he's not facing the hat trick ball...)
He's not retiring as well is he?
There's no such comfort for the Conservatives: 35% in both 2015 and 2010.
For the LibDems, it's a pretty good recovery from the annus horribilis of 2015, when they sank to a derisory 8%, down from 22% in 2010.
Full figures for the last three GEs here:
https://data.london.gov.uk/apps_and_analysis/the-2017-general-election-the-numbers-behind-the-result/
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/general-election-results-2015
New NI boundaries
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45474526
almost drawn to match ethnic headcount
Sadiq's not doing particularly well. His response on the knife-crime crisis in particular has been lacklustre at best, and he's mismanaged the TfL finances. But he's not doing so badly that he's in danger, unless the narrative changes substantially.
the controversial issue was to take one seat from Belfast. Looks like they have ducked out doing that.
And Londoners might just like that.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1039147470113202178
London Colney (the ward with the smallest LD vote) is transferred to Hertsmere, whilst Woodside is gained from Watford and Leavesden and Abbots Langley & Bedmond are gained from Three Rivers district (Bedmond was already part of St Albans constituency).
All three additional wards have LD councillors.
"I'll eat my hat", "We must respect the vote" etc.
Excellent London poll for the minor parties especially the LDs but with the Greens and UKIP also picking themselves off the floor.
Very early days in terms of 2020 but Sadiq is in a very strong position. Labour are entrenched in Inner London and in truth the Conservatives have been driven back to a few heartlands in the suburbs. The numbers don't stack well for a non-Labour candidate.
Sadiq's tenure so far hasn't been without its problems - the damage done to police numbers and the closure of stations was perpetrated by Boris and the reduction in beat policing in favour of a more mobile approach stems from the Home Secretary in the Coalition years whose name escapes me - but I've heard little positive in response from Sadiq or his advisers.
I do think on housing Sadiq has been woeful - some Boroughs are trying to crank up the house building programme but overall too little has been done to meet the ever-growing demand.
The Conservative Mayoral candidate is going to have to acknowledge the flaws of the Johnson years if he or she is going to reach beyond the core vote.
In fact PBers, what would you reckon the odds or implied percentage for "nailed on" is?
Against that, yes of course he has a massive structural advantage. He's clearly odds-on favourite. On checking the odds I was surprised to see I could get 1.41 on Betfair, which seemed excellent value so I took some. I'd say fair odds would be about 1.15 as things stand.
I've moved from "The Leftover Bits Of South Oxfordshire That Don't Fit In With Any Cities Or Big Towns" to "A Long Random Squiggle From Drayton To Bicester That Skims Oxford Just Because"
Yes, well. I nearly managed to move to Henley, apparently. Somehow.
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696
Oddly, it hasn't had a negative effect on anyone or damaged their feeling of belonging or self esteem, as far as I am aware.
You might have more fun in the local government version.
To be fair to the Boundaries Commission, the idea of exactly 600 single-seat constituencies of very close electorates is always going to cause this, unless we just happen to have exactly 600 natural communities in the country and all of those with very similar populations.
The entire putative link between parliamentary constituencies and any natural community has long become a fiction; this just exaggerates something that was already strongly there. Thus the only-partly-tongue-in-cheek suggestion that they stop paying even lip service to it and just redraw from left to right based purely on population. Forget counties, regions, towns, whatever. If the border runs down a road in the middle of a village, so be it. As you say, few people care.
(Alternatively, have multi-member constituencies based on, say, counties. Change the number of members for a given county when populations change or the total number of MPs is supposed to change. Job done, actual community link sustained)
Doubt the PLP will split at all, but if it does, that could be the key moment.
#purgecontinues
https://twitter.com/Rajdeep1/status/1039167505221275649
Not that he'll stand again.
I would think "nailed on" must equate to a 40/1 chance of it not happening. So 50/1 chance of Obama becoming US President would be super-nailed on not going to happen.
Oh.
I'll eat a pizza with pineapple and banana on it if India pull this off.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
https://twitter.com/mikelovestweets/status/1039138961317421056
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
Now the interesting thing is that if the reduction does go ahead, it will be welcomed by Labour's entryist trots as forcing reselection in every seat.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
We could have had the previous system, and even loosened it further to align more closely with natural communities.
As a fringe benefit, it would encourage arithmetic among the whips.
Last 5 minutes. Do those grade A shits in the ERG want Corbyn to be PM ?