Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Schulze is a mathematically elegant way to count a preferential vote, but it can't (practically) be counted by hand. Which means the UK would either have to use electronic counting machines or, unthinkably, electronic voting machines.
A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
Oh. I wish you hadn't made that last point. Our parliament would never make an irresponsible choice would it?
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
Define absolute carnage.
So, in PV's gets 50-52, and the UK stays in:
NuKIP storms back stronger than ever, resulting in an SNP-eque wave in leave areas. Strikes or large scale protests, potentially leading to widespread civil disorder, 'they've betrayed us' rhetoric becoming common.
and if the UK stays out:
Some pro EU party must surely surge Strikes and protests, not leading to disorder, but a bitterly fragmented nation.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
Given that BT are rapidly replacing the Huawei core network systems with Ericsson replacements are you sure that's a good idea.
Softbank went down today as well, also the Ericsson system apparently.
This is right after the Huawei CFO (and founder's daughter) got arrested in Vancouver for the US over Iranian sanctions - I wonder if we're finally seeing proper corporate-nation-state cyber warfare kicking off.
A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
Are the electorate not allowed to change their minds, two and a half years on when options have become much clearer.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)
Aye but the the establishment elite decided they didn't want PR and got their pet newspapers to kill it.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
I also 'rebelled' from my party in opposing AV. It's fine for options on a specific issue, or if we were to elect a head of state. But it's a lousy way of electing representatives, where a change really has to be to a proportional system of some form.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)
Aye but the the establishment elite decided they didn't want PR and got their pet newspapers to kill it.
AV is still poor, but it is superior to FPTP I think.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
Did anyone point out the sunk cost fallacy on that one ?
UK stocks have been doing rather well in the past 18 months. For many of us investors the highs reached earlier this year will far outweigh any drops.
Only because your money is in reality overseas, and anything abroad is worth a lot more of our pitifully devalued £s than it was before. Ironically, if any sort of solution emerges from the current chaos, the £ will rise and the value of your investments will plummet.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
With all the effort that had been put into planning for coalition Clegg did make rather a mess of his chance. I understand that deep in the LD background coaltion had been discussed quite a lot.
A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
Are the electorate not allowed to change their minds, two and a half years on when options have become much clearer.
Yes they are, but don't pretend that the remaining 48-9% who voted leave would understand that.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
Define absolute carnage.
So, in PV's gets 50-52, and the UK stays in:
NuKIP storms back stronger than ever, resulting in an SNP-eque wave in leave areas. Strikes or large scale protests, potentially leading to widespread civil disorder, 'they've betrayed us' rhetoric becoming common.
and if the UK stays out:
Some pro EU party must surely surge Strikes and protests, not leading to disorder, but a bitterly fragmented nation.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.
Given that BT are rapidly replacing the Huawei core network systems with Ericsson replacements are you sure that's a good idea.
Softbank went down today as well, also the Ericsson system apparently.
This is right after the Huawei CFO (and founder's daughter) got arrested in Vancouver for the US over Iranian sanctions - I wonder if we're finally seeing proper corporate-nation-state cyber warfare kicking off.
China have got some cheek to complain about possible violation of human rights in relation to this.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
I did that poll just this morning.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?
Yep I did it as well. I see my vote swung it for Lincolnshire.
If the government is disseminating something under Privy Council terms, it's usually some pretty serious shit.
May think that means May has decided she will resign when she loses. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd brief under Privy Council terms to minimise the chances of chaos.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Well, it's in the agreement:
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."
Which neatly illustrates the imperative for an AV referendum.
AV is not acceptable in the UK; there was a clear majority against using it in the referendum a few years ago. If there is a 2nd referendum, assuming that A50 can be withdrawn unilaterally (which is likely), it should be FPTP with the 3 options of remain/deal/no deal. This map shows that this would give a clear unequivocal result which would settle the matter.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
With all the effort that had been put into planning for coalition Clegg did make rather a mess of his chance. I understand that deep in the LD background coaltion had been discussed quite a lot.
It had, but - understandably but tragically - the MPs were concerned foremost with their own fate and wanted something that would help them retain their seats (ironic, since when it came to it, AV wouldn't have helped them at all). Whereas, as in Scotland, establishing a fairer more representive voting system for local government across the UK (i.e. harmonising England and Wales with Scotland and NI) wouldn't have required a referendum and would have given the LibDems a solid base in local government, whereas now the LibDems are only significantly active in a handful of seats.
Compare Scotland, where the enhanced profile and finance that came from the SNPs enhanced local government base has played a key role in enabling them to become their nation's principal party.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer. STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
As I recall AV was opposed largely because it was thought that the public would not understand it. And the public agreed, rejecting it by a large margin in a referendum on the matter. That's assuming the public understood what they were voting against of course. Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they didn't understand that AV is too complex for them to understand. But let's say they did. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. The public was clever enough to realize that AV was too sophisticated for them to mess with.
So if adopted for a 2nd EU referendum we would have the prospect of this same public weighing the merits of a 585 page legal text plus a 26 page aspirational but non binding political declaration, as against an undefinable thing called 'no deal' which almost every MP considers would be catastrophic but which half the public thinks means status quo, as against remaining in the European Union, which most of them vaguely remember voting against a couple of years back and which a fair few of them thought we'd already done.
C'mon powers that be. Shape up for heaven's sake. It's make your mind up time. Cancel brexit or implement the wretched thing. Do not turn tragedy into farce.
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats. It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
I did that poll just this morning.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?
No, the map is first preferences. This is the head-to-head map for Remain vs Deal:
Fishermen not getting much traction in Scotland for their Brexit position outside Peterhead. Even Aberdeen is unimpressed.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
It was the way that the Tories fought the AV referendum - using Clegg's concessions to achieve the coalition agreement against him - that poisoned the relationship and opened their eyes to the true nature of their partners. But it was refusal to honour the agreement on Lords reform that led to the boundary changes being abandoned.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer. STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
If you want STV to be in any way proportional you'll need much bigger constituencies than three members. It's all down to droop quotas (stop sniggering at the back).
For example, in a 3-member STV constituency, you need to get 25% of the vote after redistributions to get a seat. This would squeeze small parties *hard*. Whereas in a 6-member constituency is 14.3%. That's a bit fairer to small parties and therefore more representative.
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats. It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Well, it's in the agreement:
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Well, it's in the agreement:
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.
If this is Privy Council, where are all the non-Tories?
I read on Twitter last night (but I can't remember who said it) that the Labour privy councillors all graciously decline to attend as it was transparent political theatre.
so the woman who by her own admission didnt know what she was doing when she nominated Corbyn and wrecked her own party now thinks she fit to advise others
One of the sadnesses of the implosion of the Lib Dems is that a lot of experienced, sensible heads have been lost, which means the never-quite-grown-up student politicians have a greater say.
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.
Which neatly illustrates the imperative for an AV referendum.
AV is not acceptable in the UK; there was a clear majority against using it in the referendum a few years ago. If there is a 2nd referendum, assuming that A50 can be withdrawn unilaterally (which is likely), it should be FPTP with the 3 options of remain/deal/no deal. This map shows that this would give a clear unequivocal result which would settle the matter.
It wouldn't settle anything, as it's entirely possible that remain would win with less than 50% of the vote. As a means of reversing a 52/48 referendum vote, it would lead to many more years of bitter, destructive political conflict.
A decisive second referendum would have to be won by an option a significant majority finds at least tolerable.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
I did that poll just this morning.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?
No, the map is first preferences. This is the head-to-head map for Remain vs Deal:
Fishermen not getting much traction in Scotland for their Brexit position outside Peterhead. Even Aberdeen is unimpressed.
I am not sure there is any fishing out of Aberdeen these days. It is all supply vessels for the rigs. Indeed they are just building a big new port next door to cope with the increased capacity
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Well, it's in the agreement:
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.
Not really. The Tories (and Cameron specificlally) would have been much better off if they had realised the long term opportunity that the coalition presented them with, rather than taking the short term political advantage of exploiting their partner's vulnerability, which has led pretty directly to the current fine mess.
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats. It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.
I disagree.
In which case (assuming the disagreement is with the MPs being interested in what their electors think on this), the entire thing is moot - they'll ignore it.
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.
No, he'll be the Dick Taverne for the 21st century.
I am not sure there is any fishing out of Aberdeen these days. It is all supply vessels for the rigs. Indeed they are just building a big new port next door to cope with the increased capacity
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
The law was written very carefully.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.
No, he'll be the Dick Taverne for the 21st century.
There must be more "independents" in the Commons enforced or otherwise than there's been since days well before Dick Taverne.
I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
The thing is, if they're coming round to the view that No Brexit is better than a Bad Deal, then it's not so much snatching defeat, as coming to their senses.
I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
In what way will they not accept it? Are you suggesting violence?
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
The law was written very carefully.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
Indeed. But surely it would have been cleverer to do the boundary changes first? Did the Government think AV would win?
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
r)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.
So what should the LDs have done? Said "we're sorry our house of Lords proposals weren't good enough for you, we won't do it again" or "we're so angry we are going to abstain on the boundary changes bill now - that'll show you!"
Put it this way, imagine the Lib Dems had voted the boundary changes down in response to the Lords proposals being lost, but ahead of the referendum legislation. Reckon that would have still gone through?
A real sadness that there was so much reforming zeal from across the coalition, but we only ended up with a feeble recall bill to show for it.
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.
I voted for FPTP.
Well at least the baby got her incubator.
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer. STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
If you want STV to be in any way proportional you'll need much bigger constituencies than three members. It's all down to droop quotas (stop sniggering at the back).
For example, in a 3-member STV constituency, you need to get 25% of the vote after redistributions to get a seat. This would squeeze small parties *hard*. Whereas in a 6-member constituency is 14.3%. That's a bit fairer to small parties and therefore more representative.
The details could be argued over, but STV would be much more proportional than FPTP. The problem with having too large constituencies is that the local connection gets diluted, However it would be nice to have the possibility of an MP from the party you support to represent you.
I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
Actually I'd rather our elected representatives chose not to "fuck the country", regardless. Your attitude exemplifies why the country is heading toward disaster.
It is just possible that enough Tory MPs will realise this argument by next week.
Seems highly unlikely, and, indeed, I suspect some ultras would rather lose Brexit and spend years moaning about the stab in the back than vote for May.
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
The law was written very carefully.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
I believe Clegg had a personal understanding with Cameron that the Tories would officially play soft on the AV referendum which Cammo was forced by his people to abandon.
I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
How do you know. For a start 48% will be bloody delighted to have another go.
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
The law was written very carefully.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
Indeed. But surely it would have been cleverer to do the boundary changes first? Did the Government think AV would win?
Yes, in May to August 2010 gold standard ICM had Yes2AV winning around 62% to No2AV's 38%.
They weren't the only pollsters showing Yes2AV winning.
Comments
NuKIP storms back stronger than ever, resulting in an SNP-eque wave in leave areas.
Strikes or large scale protests, potentially leading to widespread civil disorder, 'they've betrayed us' rhetoric becoming common.
and if the UK stays out:
Some pro EU party must surely surge
Strikes and protests, not leading to disorder, but a bitterly fragmented nation.
This is right after the Huawei CFO (and founder's daughter) got arrested in Vancouver for the US over Iranian sanctions - I wonder if we're finally seeing proper corporate-nation-state cyber warfare kicking off.
Even the Norway Deabate only lasted two days!
(PS Just had a thought - we could be having another 'Norway;' debate soon!)
Is this the Privy Council briefings?
Come Christmas, when they are missing their turkey and stuffing, MPs will be wishing they had compressed this piece of theatre a bit.
STV would be easy to introduce because you wouldn't need a boundary review. You'd just clump existing constituencies together in blobs of 6-8.
Yes, there is such an organisation. Controls the Canvey Island Parish Council.
Wow.....
May think that means May has decided she will resign when she loses. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd brief under Privy Council terms to minimise the chances of chaos.
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
Compare Scotland, where the enhanced profile and finance that came from the SNPs enhanced local government base has played a key role in enabling them to become their nation's principal party.
STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
So if adopted for a 2nd EU referendum we would have the prospect of this same public weighing the merits of a 585 page legal text plus a 26 page aspirational but non binding political declaration, as against an undefinable thing called 'no deal' which almost every MP considers would be catastrophic but which half the public thinks means status quo, as against remaining in the European Union, which most of them vaguely remember voting against a couple of years back and which a fair few of them thought we'd already done.
C'mon powers that be. Shape up for heaven's sake. It's make your mind up time. Cancel brexit or implement the wretched thing. Do not turn tragedy into farce.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.
For example, in a 3-member STV constituency, you need to get 25% of the vote after redistributions to get a seat. This would squeeze small parties *hard*. Whereas in a 6-member constituency is 14.3%. That's a bit fairer to small parties and therefore more representative.
Views at either extreme are most often a minority unwilling to compromise - something which AV is a means of achieving.
you couldnt make it up
One of the sadnesses of the implosion of the Lib Dems is that a lot of experienced, sensible heads have been lost, which means the never-quite-grown-up student politicians have a greater say.
AV is not a Condorcet system. It can and frequently does eliminate the Condorcet winner in the transfers.
A decisive second referendum would have to be won by an option a significant majority finds at least tolerable.
If you want enrage voters in safe seats, whose vote hasn't counted since 1974 or earlier, you're doing very well.
Next I'll be accused of liking Hawaiian pizzas.
p17: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742793/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2017.pdf
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
Put it this way, imagine the Lib Dems had voted the boundary changes down in response to the Lords proposals being lost, but ahead of the referendum legislation. Reckon that would have still gone through?
A real sadness that there was so much reforming zeal from across the coalition, but we only ended up with a feeble recall bill to show for it.
Mr. F, most of them do sound immensely stupid. But there can be exceptions. Breivik[sp] stands out as an alarmingly intelligent lunatic.
Seems highly unlikely, and, indeed, I suspect some ultras would rather lose Brexit and spend years moaning about the stab in the back than vote for May.
They weren't the only pollsters showing Yes2AV winning.
WHAT THE FRICK IS WRONG WITH LINCOLNSHIRE?
Anyone from Lincolnshire want to have a stab?