politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON-LAB polling misery continues
So how's that fence-sitting playing out in London, Mr Corbyn?Well, according to @youGov/@QMUL poll, if there was a general election tomorrow, Londoners would vote:
FPT > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @TOPPING said: > > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis. > > > > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs. > > > > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE. > > > > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties. > > > > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation. > > What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
> > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like: > > > > TBP - 26% > > Cons - 13% > > UKIP - 3% > > CHUK - 2% > > Lab - 19% > > LDs - 21% > > Greens - 8% > > Others - 8% > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% >
It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
> @RobD said: > To the D’Hont boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > FPT > > > > > > > TBP - 26% > > > Cons - 13% ... > > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% > > > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling.
Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > FPT > > > > > > > > > > TBP - 26% > > > > Cons - 13% > ... > > > > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% > > > > > > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures. > > If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling. > > Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16%
> @MikeSmithson said: > > @RobD said: > > To the D’Hont boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional? > > It is certainly not fully proportional
Can you link to the bookies pages for the Euros please Mike? Oddschecker doesnt seem to show the full set of markets
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > FPT > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBP - 26% > > > > > Cons - 13% > > ... > > > > > > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% > > > > > > > > > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures. > > > > If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling. > > > > Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come. > > Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16%
What's the state of play in Wales Mr G; can't find anything recent.
@RobD said: > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
As an aside, I love this line, from a BBC article: "F1 is now working on a second proposal in a less aesthetically dramatic location near the Miami Dolphins NFL stadium but this will not happen for 2020."
> To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
Here's a scenario where two parties overperform in a four seat region
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
I wonder if Labour coming third in the European Elections, losing Peterborough and starting to regularly poll in the 20s would be enough to put some pressure on Corbyn. Probably not.
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
> @Gallowgate said: > FPT > > Keir Starmer is right. > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on? > > Corbyn is fighting the last war.
The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other.
The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
One thing is certain, the Brexit party aren’t going to lose the election.
Is it even possible to lose (or win) a Euro election? It's a EU wide poll contested by a multitude of parties, none of which stand in all seats.
Don’t worry, ChUK will demonstrate how to lose the election.
I don't think it's possible to lose it (or win it), as I say.
I dare say most normal people couldn't give a toss about the election either, nor care much about the latest incarnation of the clown Farage and his birdbrained reactionary buddies.
Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
One thing is certain, the Brexit party aren’t going to lose the election.
Is it even possible to lose (or win) a Euro election? It's a EU wide poll contested by a multitude of parties, none of which stand in all seats.
Don’t worry, ChUK will demonstrate how to lose the election.
I don't think it's possible to lose it (or win it), as I say.
I dare say most normal people couldn't give a toss about the election either, nor care much about the latest incarnation of the clown Farage and his birdbrained reactionary buddies.
Getting most seats and votes seems like winning to me, while getting no seats seems like losing.
And we ain’t normal on here, in case you hadn’t noticed.
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
Who'd have thought the Conservatives would end up being destroyed by insurgents copying Michael Foot's policies and rhetoric?
Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
> @RobD said: > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples:
If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
If on the other hand the parties all come very close, and there are the same number of contending parties as seats, then they all get one seat each - and so the one with the most votes is actually slightly underrepresented. If however in the same scenario there is one fewer party than seats (i.e. one more seat than party), the top party gets two seats and all the others get one, so is significantly over-represented.
Edit/ the other critical factor is that the seats are broken down into regions (doing the whole thing nationally would be a lot more proportional, if less ideal for other reasons). The SNP for example will get a good batch of seats in Scotland, but would probably come away with nothing were the same number of votes spread evenly across all the UK regions.
> @RobD said: > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
It's not fully proportional but it's not easy to define who it helps best, and when.
By some back-of-an-envelope workings, I reckon that parties outperform most in two main scenarios: if they win big, or if they finish a strong third or fourth - in both circumstances, the smaller the constituency, the bigger the possible discrepancy.
So, for example, in a 5-seat constituency,
Party A - 41 (3 seats) Party B - 26 (1 seat) Party C - 17 (1 seat) Party D - 10 (0 seats) Others - 6 (0 seats)
Or
Party A - 23 (1 seat) Party B - 22 (1 seat) Party C - 20 (1 seat) Party D - 16 (1 seat) Party E - 14 (1 seat) Others - 5 (0 seats)
As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
> @williamglenn said: > > @Gallowgate said: > > FPT > > > > Keir Starmer is right. > > > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on? > > > > Corbyn is fighting the last war. > > The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other. > > The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
> @RobD said: > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
Without wasting the back of another envelope (and too many brain cells), I can't imagine you'd benefit by more than <1 seat. D'Hondt is basically just a way of dealing with the rounding inherent in trying to allocate a small integer number of seats between parties polling hundreds of thousands of votes.
As Mike suggests, that effect can be marked in a small region or on the cusp of a boundary.. but within those limitations it's broadly proportional.
In the London figs above (if they were the only parties.. which they're not as it only totals 85%)... D'Hondt gives Lab, Brexit and LibDems 2 seats each and Con/Green 1 each.
If, among those 85 'votes', you awarded one seat for every 10.7 (to make 8 London seats), then the percentages above rounded up or down to the nearest multiple, would work the same AFAICS. But there could be cases when that produced too many or two few seats, hence D'Hondt.
It is becoming clear to me how difficult it is to counter the appeal of a No Deal Brexit. Nigel Farage is selling it as 'independence' and therefore further detail is tedious and unnecessary - trade deals, tariffs, Irish borders, bla bla bla, none of it matters, because when we are independent, when we are calling the shots, we will without a doubt succeed magnificently just so long as we have sufficient 'backbone and confidence'. Object to this and the clear inference is you do not believe that Britain and Britons have a copious supply of backbone and confidence and, arguably worse, that you yourself are sorely lacking in these qualities. Meaning that what you are is a weak, knock-kneed specimen who lacks faith in Britain. Now as it happens this is a reasonably accurate description of yours truly, but it is decidedly NOT how most people see (or wish to see) themselves, and therein lies its power.
> @blueblue said: > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing.
However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting.
A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
> @_Anazina_ said: > Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00! > > £20,000. Not bad!
I saw a grand total of 1 policeman the whole day and he was escorting someone with a UKIP Rosette through the crowd. Not sure why as nobody was taking any notice so I assume something had happened elsewhere.
> @_Anazina_ said: > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
> @TOPPING said: > I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him. > > Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy. > > These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
I think that you will find that the PM at the time was a certain D Cameron and shortly thereafter a Mrs T May. It was the latter's job to deliver Brexit and she has failed, partly because of muppets like JRM.
> @Harris_Tweed said: > > @RobD said: > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional? > > Without wasting the back of another envelope (and too many brain cells), I can't imagine you'd benefit by more than <1 seat. D'Hondt is basically just a way of dealing with the rounding inherent in trying to allocate a small integer number of seats between parties polling hundreds of thousands of votes. > > As Mike suggests, that effect can be marked in a small region or on the cusp of a boundary.. but within those limitations it's broadly proportional. > > In the London figs above (if they were the only parties.. which they're not as it only totals 85%)... D'Hondt gives Lab, Brexit and LibDems 2 seats each and Con/Green 1 each. > > If, among those 85 'votes', you awarded one seat for every 10.7 (to make 8 London seats), then the percentages above rounded up or down to the nearest multiple, would work the same AFAICS. But there could be cases when that produced too many or two few seats, hence D'Hondt. > > (EDIT TO ADD: Here's the D'Hondt calculation I ran: https://icon.cat/util/elections/DzxJwiGISM)
And here are the 'proportional' results: LAB 24 /10.7 = 2.24, rounded = 2 BRX 20 /10.7 = 1.86, rounded = 2 LD 17 /10.7 = 1.59, rounded = 2 GRN 14 /10.7 = 1.31, rounded = 1 CON 10 / 10.7 = 0.93, rounded = 1
Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
> @blueblue said: > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
> @_Anazina_ said: > Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00! > > £20,000. Not bad!
> @Sean_F said: > > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
That was my line to mock the bewildered views of David Owen and Nigel Lawson...
Europe needs shared political institutions to manage the level of interdependence we enjoy, and integration is more relevant than ever as the world continues to shrink.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more? > > That was my line to mock the bewildered views of David Owen and Nigel Lawson... > > Europe needs shared political institutions to manage the level of interdependence we enjoy, and integration is more relevant than ever as the world continues to shrink.
> @david_herdson said: > > @blueblue said: > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing. > > However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting. > > A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
Welcome to politics Northern Ireland style...
It’s what happens if you allow the entire political debate to be dominated by one binary question.
> @Sean_F said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > FPT > > > > > > Keir Starmer is right. > > > > > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on? > > > > > > Corbyn is fighting the last war. > > > > The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other. > > > > The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed. > > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
We may not have the USSR to contend with but we do have Putin's Russia, Xi's China and Trump's USA. None of which are overflowing with goodwill toward much smaller countries seeking concessions on trade.
Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
> @Gallowgate said: > Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00! > > No one said there was literally no police.
Amongst a million people it would be remarkable if their were none from such a significant national occupation.
> @david_herdson said: > > @_Anazina_ said: > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan. > > You are having a laugh, presumably?
I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation.
*BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote.
I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel.
But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday.
> @david_herdson said: > > @blueblue said: > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing. > > However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting. > > A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
It's like Sinn Fein and the DUP.
At the moment I'll vote Conservative. But, if there were a danger that the Lib Dems would top the poll, I'd vote Brexit.
> Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
>
> No one said there was literally no police.
Amongst a million people it would be remarkable if their were none from such a significant national occupation.
> @Gallowgate said: > FPT > > Keir Starmer is right. > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on? > > Corbyn is fighting the last war.
As Paul Mason brilliantly sloganised it on behalf of Labour "We're an internationalist Party at war with the forces of xenophobia".
Unfortunately he forgot to tell Corbyn which is why the Lib Dems are going to kick Labour into third place.
> @anothernick said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @Gallowgate said: > > > > FPT > > > > > > > > Keir Starmer is right. > > > > > > > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on? > > > > > > > > Corbyn is fighting the last war. > > > > > > The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other. > > > > > > The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed. > > > > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more? > > We may not have the USSR to contend with but we do have Putin's Russia, Xi's China and Trump's USA. None of which are overflowing with goodwill toward much smaller countries seeking concessions on trade.
And not just trade, in the case of Russia and, potentially, China.
We are surely reaching the point where Labour can fence sit no more, and will have no reason to. The votes are already peeling off to Leave and Remain parties. Labour should worry most of all about Lib Dem’s, because I am sure Labour can go no further than Remain via a referendum, and LDs can outflank them via revoke.
> @Dadge said: > Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate. As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
> @IanB2 said: > > @RobD said: > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional? > > No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples: > > If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient.
> @Harris_Tweed said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > @_Anazina_ said: > > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > > > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > > > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan. > > > > You are having a laugh, presumably? > > I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation. > > *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote. > > I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel. > > But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday. > >
Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark.
UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won).
Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
I think that you will find that the PM at the time was a certain D Cameron and shortly thereafter a Mrs T May. It was the latter's job to deliver Brexit and she has failed, partly because of muppets like JRM.
> @Harris_Tweed said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @RobD said: > > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional? > > > > No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples: > > > > If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats. > > But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient. >
It is a PR(ish) system which makes no sense at all for a nationwide election split between multiple regions.
> @blueblue said: > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
> @david_herdson said: > Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark. > > UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won). > > Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
They'll also need candidates for the secondary elections, and are likely to attract the same sorts of issues that UKIP did with that.
Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow.
I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
> @TOPPING said: > > @blueblue said: > > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > > > I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out... > > I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
Good point, the better the Brexit Party do the less likely TMay is to soften her Brexit stance. The opposite applies if the LibDems do well.
> @Nemtynakht said: > We are surely reaching the point where Labour can fence sit no more, and will have no reason to. The votes are already peeling off to Leave and Remain parties. Labour should worry most of all about Lib Dem’s, because I am sure Labour can go no further than Remain via a referendum, and LDs can outflank them via revoke. > > The other parties have clearer positions.
What is the Conservative Party's clearer position please?
> @Tissue_Price said: > > @blueblue said: > > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in... > > I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
I may well stick with the Conservatives because, well, somebody has to. But I really don't want my vote to be taken as an endorsement of the Bakerish tendency if May is finally toppled in the next few weeks.
> @david_herdson said: > > @Harris_Tweed said: > > > @david_herdson said: > > > > @_Anazina_ said: > > > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > > > > > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > > > > > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan. > > > > > > You are having a laugh, presumably? > > > > I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation. > > > > *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote. > > > > I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel. > > > > But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday. > > > > > > Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark. > > UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won). > > Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
> @Harris_Tweed said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @RobD said: > > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional? > > > > No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples: > > > > If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats. > > But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient. >
As a rule of thumb, if your preferred party is likely to score less than 1/(2*n) of the vote, where n is the number of seats in your region, you risk your vote being "wasted" (not really as you're expressing a preference anyway, just not getting any seats). It's far from a reliable rule since what matters is the proportion relating to other parties, but if your region has say 6 seats and your preferred party has less than 1/12 of the vote, it looks unpromising.
> Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow.
If there was one lesson to be drawn from the 2017GE, which should also be reinforced by the swings we've seen thus far for these EU elections, it is that opinion polls are a snapshot of opinion, and people are much more likely to change their vote than they were in the past.
This volatility should be great for political betting.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Tissue_Price said: > > > Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow. > > If there was one lesson to be drawn from the 2017GE, which should also be reinforced by the swings we've seen thus far for these EU elections, it is that opinion polls are a snapshot of opinion, and people are much more likely to change their vote than they were in the past. > > This volatility should be great for political betting.
As Mike quoted one of the pollsters the other day - massive bucket of salt with all Westminster VI polls until we're the other side of the EU one.
> @OldKingCole said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > > FPT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBP - 26% > > > > > > Cons - 13% > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures. > > > > > > If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling. > > > > > > Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come. > > > > Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16% > > What's the state of play in Wales Mr G; can't find anything recent.
We are a bit in the sticks here and I haven't seen a Welsh poll
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @Nemtynakht said: > > We are surely reaching the point where Labour can fence sit no more, and will have no reason to. The votes are already peeling off to Leave and Remain parties. Labour should worry most of all about Lib Dem’s, because I am sure Labour can go no further than Remain via a referendum, and LDs can outflank them via revoke. > > > > The other parties have clearer positions. > > What is the Conservative Party's clearer position please?
Well the Party position is to deliver Brexit and being in Government has shown they can’t do that - it’s not really the sitting on the fence position Labour have had for ages
I may well stick with the Conservatives because, well, somebody has to. But I really don't want my vote to be taken as an endorsement of the Bakerish tendency if May is finally toppled in the next few weeks.
I'll put you down as a P then. I don't think the Bakerish tendency amongst our membership will be voting Conservative...
I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
A vote for the LDs will be seen as a vote for Remain. I think the Conservatives' position needs as much support as it can get. Regardless of views about May.
Completely off topic but it must be comforting for MUFC fans to know that even after a disappointing season that the Premiership trophy is still in Manchester
> @blueblue said: > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling,
I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
6% or less = no seats 7% = an eighth chance of a seat 8% = a quarter chance of a seat 9% = seven eights chance of a seat 10% = almost always one seat 11%-13% = one seat 14% = one seat, very occasionally two 15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second 16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second 17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each 18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one 19%-26% = two seats
At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%.
The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed.
I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation.
What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region.
In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > I still don't know how I'm going to vote. I may simply write down a recommendation to read Polybius' account of the Second Punic War.
> @_Anazina_ said: > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB. > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy. > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan. > > You couldn’t be more wrong > > We'll see. > > > Sugar rush. > > > Then the wilderness.
UKIP got high percentages in the last euro elections prompting Cameron to offer a referendum... so hardly an irrelevance to the current political environment.
> @TudorRose said: > > UKIP got high percentages in the last euro elections prompting Cameron to offer a referendum... so hardly an irrelevance to the current political environment.
Why do so many people believe this? Cameron offered the referendum over a year before the European elections, which had the effect of legitimising UKIP.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON-LAB polling misery continues
Comments
> @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > @TOPPING said:
> > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
> >
> > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
> >
> > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE.
> >
> > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
> >
> > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
>
> What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
> > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
> >
> > TBP - 26%
> > Cons - 13%
> > UKIP - 3%
> > CHUK - 2%
> > Lab - 19%
> > LDs - 21%
> > Greens - 8%
> > Others - 8%
>
> What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
>
It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
For reference, the last three turnouts have all been in the 30s.
> To the D’Hont boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
It is certainly not fully proportional
> FPT
>
> > >
> > > TBP - 26%
> > > Cons - 13%
...
> >
> > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
> >
>
> It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling.
Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > FPT
> >
> > > >
> > > > TBP - 26%
> > > > Cons - 13%
> ...
> > >
> > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
> > >
> >
> > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
>
> If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling.
>
> Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16%
> > @RobD said:
> > To the D’Hont boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
>
> It is certainly not fully proportional
Can you link to the bookies pages for the Euros please Mike? Oddschecker doesnt seem to show the full set of markets
https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1126076252685778944
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > FPT
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TBP - 26%
> > > > > Cons - 13%
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
> > > >
> > >
> > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
> >
> > If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling.
> >
> > Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
>
> Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16%
What's the state of play in Wales Mr G; can't find anything recent.
> To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
Here's a scenario where two parties overperform in a four seat region
https://icon.cat/util/elections/CxxJfGGIgr
As an aside, I love this line, from a BBC article:
"F1 is now working on a second proposal in a less aesthetically dramatic location near the Miami Dolphins NFL stadium but this will not happen for 2020."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48254427
No country should have two races.
Keir Starmer is right.
It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
Corbyn is fighting the last war.
> Turns out two dire leaders don't lead very well.
Alternatively, the two parties that are trying to manage an internal Leave-Remain coalition are struggling.
> FPT
>
> Keir Starmer is right.
>
> It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
>
> Corbyn is fighting the last war.
The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other.
The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
"Frank!"
"You're both right."
I dare say most normal people couldn't give a toss about the election either, nor care much about the latest incarnation of the clown Farage and his birdbrained reactionary buddies.
And we ain’t normal on here, in case you hadn’t noticed.
> To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples:
If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
If on the other hand the parties all come very close, and there are the same number of contending parties as seats, then they all get one seat each - and so the one with the most votes is actually slightly underrepresented. If however in the same scenario there is one fewer party than seats (i.e. one more seat than party), the top party gets two seats and all the others get one, so is significantly over-represented.
Edit/ the other critical factor is that the seats are broken down into regions (doing the whole thing nationally would be a lot more proportional, if less ideal for other reasons). The SNP for example will get a good batch of seats in Scotland, but would probably come away with nothing were the same number of votes spread evenly across all the UK regions.
> To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
It's not fully proportional but it's not easy to define who it helps best, and when.
By some back-of-an-envelope workings, I reckon that parties outperform most in two main scenarios: if they win big, or if they finish a strong third or fourth - in both circumstances, the smaller the constituency, the bigger the possible discrepancy.
So, for example, in a 5-seat constituency,
Party A - 41 (3 seats)
Party B - 26 (1 seat)
Party C - 17 (1 seat)
Party D - 10 (0 seats)
Others - 6 (0 seats)
Or
Party A - 23 (1 seat)
Party B - 22 (1 seat)
Party C - 20 (1 seat)
Party D - 16 (1 seat)
Party E - 14 (1 seat)
Others - 5 (0 seats)
> > @Gallowgate said:
> > FPT
> >
> > Keir Starmer is right.
> >
> > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
> >
> > Corbyn is fighting the last war.
>
> The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other.
>
> The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
> To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
Without wasting the back of another envelope (and too many brain cells), I can't imagine you'd benefit by more than <1 seat. D'Hondt is basically just a way of dealing with the rounding inherent in trying to allocate a small integer number of seats between parties polling hundreds of thousands of votes.
As Mike suggests, that effect can be marked in a small region or on the cusp of a boundary.. but within those limitations it's broadly proportional.
In the London figs above (if they were the only parties.. which they're not as it only totals 85%)... D'Hondt gives Lab, Brexit and LibDems 2 seats each and Con/Green 1 each.
If, among those 85 'votes', you awarded one seat for every 10.7 (to make 8 London seats), then the percentages above rounded up or down to the nearest multiple, would work the same AFAICS. But there could be cases when that produced too many or two few seats, hence D'Hondt.
(EDIT TO ADD: Here's the D'Hondt calculation I ran: https://icon.cat/util/elections/DzxJwiGISM)
The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
> As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing.
However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting.
A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
> Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
>
> £20,000. Not bad!
I saw a grand total of 1 policeman the whole day and he was escorting someone with a UKIP Rosette through the crowd. Not sure why as nobody was taking any notice so I assume something had happened elsewhere.
> Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
>
> The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
>
> I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
You are having a laugh, presumably?
> I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
>
> Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
>
> These are the people David you voted to give ascendancy to in June 2016.
I think that you will find that the PM at the time was a certain D Cameron and shortly thereafter a Mrs T May. It was the latter's job to deliver Brexit and she has failed, partly because of muppets like JRM.
> > @RobD said:
> > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
>
> Without wasting the back of another envelope (and too many brain cells), I can't imagine you'd benefit by more than <1 seat. D'Hondt is basically just a way of dealing with the rounding inherent in trying to allocate a small integer number of seats between parties polling hundreds of thousands of votes.
>
> As Mike suggests, that effect can be marked in a small region or on the cusp of a boundary.. but within those limitations it's broadly proportional.
>
> In the London figs above (if they were the only parties.. which they're not as it only totals 85%)... D'Hondt gives Lab, Brexit and LibDems 2 seats each and Con/Green 1 each.
>
> If, among those 85 'votes', you awarded one seat for every 10.7 (to make 8 London seats), then the percentages above rounded up or down to the nearest multiple, would work the same AFAICS. But there could be cases when that produced too many or two few seats, hence D'Hondt.
>
> (EDIT TO ADD: Here's the D'Hondt calculation I ran: https://icon.cat/util/elections/DzxJwiGISM)
And here are the 'proportional' results:
LAB 24 /10.7 = 2.24, rounded = 2
BRX 20 /10.7 = 1.86, rounded = 2
LD 17 /10.7 = 1.59, rounded = 2
GRN 14 /10.7 = 1.31, rounded = 1
CON 10 / 10.7 = 0.93, rounded = 1
> As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
It's great to be not too tribal @yellowyellow ;-)
> Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
>
> £20,000. Not bad!
I can provide no police for your next event
Cost £200,000.00
#andtheysaidabbottcouldntaddup
>
> Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
That was my line to mock the bewildered views of David Owen and Nigel Lawson...
Europe needs shared political institutions to manage the level of interdependence we enjoy, and integration is more relevant than ever as the world continues to shrink.
> > @Sean_F said:
> >
> > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
>
> That was my line to mock the bewildered views of David Owen and Nigel Lawson...
>
> Europe needs shared political institutions to manage the level of interdependence we enjoy, and integration is more relevant than ever as the world continues to shrink.
Is that due to global warming?
> > @blueblue said:
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
> This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing.
>
> However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting.
>
> A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
Welcome to politics Northern Ireland style...
It’s what happens if you allow the entire political debate to be dominated by one binary question.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > FPT
> > >
> > > Keir Starmer is right.
> > >
> > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
> > >
> > > Corbyn is fighting the last war.
> >
> > The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other.
> >
> > The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
>
> Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
We may not have the USSR to contend with but we do have Putin's Russia, Xi's China and Trump's USA. None of which are overflowing with goodwill toward much smaller countries seeking concessions on trade.
> Hm, I remember people claiming there were zero police on the People’s vote march a while back, which was contrasted with the heavy police prevents at Leave events. Turns out those zero police officers cost the taxpayer £200,00!
>
> No one said there was literally no police.
Amongst a million people it would be remarkable if their were none from such a significant national occupation.
> > @_Anazina_ said:
> > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
> >
> > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
> >
> > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
>
> You are having a laugh, presumably?
I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation.
*BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote.
I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel.
But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday.
> > @blueblue said:
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
> This is precisely the dynamic that drives voters to the extremes. In order to protect against a perceived threat from the 'other' side, voters register support for the more extreme options on their own side, in part to actively support that position but also with the strong intent of stiffening the resolve of more moderate aspects of that wing.
>
> However, the net result is that both wings tend towards the extremes and the centre crumbles - which also has a feedback effect as the hardening of representation on both sides prompts still more 'protective' voting.
>
> A rise in Lib Dem support - all the more so if that rise finally outs the Lib Dems as a 'Revoke' rather than 'EURef2' party - will incentivise Leave voters to head towards the Brexit Party as the strongest voice against resurgent Remain.
It's like Sinn Fein and the DUP.
At the moment I'll vote Conservative. But, if there were a danger that the Lib Dems would top the poll, I'd vote Brexit.
> FPT
>
> Keir Starmer is right.
>
> It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
>
> Corbyn is fighting the last war.
As Paul Mason brilliantly sloganised it on behalf of Labour "We're an internationalist Party at war with the forces of xenophobia".
Unfortunately he forgot to tell Corbyn which is why the Lib Dems are going to kick Labour into third place.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Gallowgate said:
> > > > FPT
> > > >
> > > > Keir Starmer is right.
> > > >
> > > > It’s no longer Social Democracy vs Neo Liberalism. It’s Internationalism vs Nationalism. What side is Labour on?
> > > >
> > > > Corbyn is fighting the last war.
> > >
> > > The new fight is remarkably like the older fight of Old Labour vs Maggie Thatcher between nationalisation, unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC on one side against economic freedom and engagement in western alliances on the other.
> > >
> > > The problem for both Labour and the Conservatives is that they have manoeuvred themselves into the wrong place and both risk being destroyed.
> >
> > Given that the Cold War is thirty years past, what's the relevance of the EU any more?
>
> We may not have the USSR to contend with but we do have Putin's Russia, Xi's China and Trump's USA. None of which are overflowing with goodwill toward much smaller countries seeking concessions on trade.
And not just trade, in the case of Russia and, potentially, China.
The other parties have clearer positions.
> Having lent my vote to Labour for a couple of years, at GE level at least, I'm considering my options. While the Tories are in disarray, I'm concerned now less with "keep the Tories out" than with "get PR in". Is Farage still in favour of PR? If so, I'd seriously consider voting for him tactically to defeat a Labour candidate. The ends justify the means. Or do they?
Farage may well still be in favour of PR, but the only way you will get PR is by electing MPs who are in favour of PR, so probably your best bet at the next GE is the most likely to win where you are of LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid possibly even Tory or Labour depending on the candidate.
As regards the Euros, it doesn't really matter, maybe not Labour or Tory,
> > @RobD said:
> > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
>
> No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples:
>
> If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient.
Not that the Tories are any better.
> > @david_herdson said:
> > > @_Anazina_ said:
> > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
> > >
> > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
> > >
> > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
> >
> > You are having a laugh, presumably?
>
> I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation.
>
> *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote.
>
> I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel.
>
> But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday.
>
>
Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark.
UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won).
Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/1127943314488078341?s=21
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
> >
> > No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples:
> >
> > If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
>
> But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient.
>
It is a PR(ish) system which makes no sense at all for a nationwide election split between multiple regions.
https://order-order.com/2019/05/13/seumas-milne-defended-right-resist-jihadi-terrorist-group-beheaded-hostage/
They're a shit Ciudadanos.
Ok, ok, an even shitter Ciudadanos.
> As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
> Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark.
>
> UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won).
>
> Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
They'll also need candidates for the secondary elections, and are likely to attract the same sorts of issues that UKIP did with that.
Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow.
> > @blueblue said:
>
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
>
>
> I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
>
> I agree....but...a vote for the LDs could also be seen as a reminder to TMay to keep it soft.
Good point, the better the Brexit Party do the less likely TMay is to soften her Brexit stance. The opposite applies if the LibDems do well.
> We are surely reaching the point where Labour can fence sit no more, and will have no reason to. The votes are already peeling off to Leave and Remain parties. Labour should worry most of all about Lib Dem’s, because I am sure Labour can go no further than Remain via a referendum, and LDs can outflank them via revoke.
>
> The other parties have clearer positions.
What is the Conservative Party's clearer position please?
> > @blueblue said:
> > As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
>
> I would imagine votes for the Conservatives will be seen as endorsing the deal, or at the very least the concept of exit-with-a-deal. I would have thought your best option is to vote Tory. But compromise is out of fashion, as others have pointed out...
I may well stick with the Conservatives because, well, somebody has to. But I really don't want my vote to be taken as an endorsement of the Bakerish tendency if May is finally toppled in the next few weeks.
> > @Harris_Tweed said:
> > > @david_herdson said:
> > > > @_Anazina_ said:
> > > > Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
> > > >
> > > > The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
> > > >
> > > > I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
> > >
> > > You are having a laugh, presumably?
> >
> > I agree that's a rather simplistic calculation.
> >
> > *BUT* I think there's undoubtedly a chunk of TBP's share which can be identified as the Screw You vote.
> >
> > I'm sure many people ARE richly pissed off at the failure to deliver Brexit, and I'm sure they'll turn out for Nigel.
> >
> > But I wonder if there are more who, for example, voted Lab in 2017.. who'll turn to TBP just to give Con & Lab a good kicking because it's Thursday.
> >
> >
>
> Even if the Brexit Party does fade into nothing, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll do so without leaving a permanent mark.
>
> UKIP is more-or-less a spent force now, and has been for some years but while their 'flash in the pan' lasted only five years or so (2012-17, plus a flash-forward in 2009), their influence in that time delivered a Brexit referendum and contributed significantly to Leave winning (though was far from the only reason Leave won).
>
> Certainly, the Brexit party are well-placed to pick up protest votes in secondary elections like the EP, locals and by-elections; they'll struggle to match these shares in a GE, where the NHS, economy and like issues are at stake.
Especially the NHS given Mr Farage's views.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > To the D’Hondt boffs on here (I know you are out there), is there a point when a party starts winning more seats than votes, or is it fully proportional?
> >
> > No, because it depends on how your rivals perform. The bigger your margin over the other parties, the more overrepresented you are. To consider some examples:
> >
> > If a party gets all the votes, it obviously gets all the seats. If it gets say half the votes, but the remaining half are spread between a whole host of parties each of which does very badly, the big party could still get all the seats.
>
> But that's still true with a straight proportional system once you've rounded. The test, wherever you come in the rankings, is how close you are to the boundary of the next win. If you fall just short, you've wasted votes.. if you just tip over, you're hyper-efficient.
>
As a rule of thumb, if your preferred party is likely to score less than 1/(2*n) of the vote, where n is the number of seats in your region, you risk your vote being "wasted" (not really as you're expressing a preference anyway, just not getting any seats). It's far from a reliable rule since what matters is the proportion relating to other parties, but if your region has say 6 seats and your preferred party has less than 1/12 of the vote, it looks unpromising.
> Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow.
If there was one lesson to be drawn from the 2017GE, which should also be reinforced by the swings we've seen thus far for these EU elections, it is that opinion polls are a snapshot of opinion, and people are much more likely to change their vote than they were in the past.
This volatility should be great for political betting.
> > @Tissue_Price said:
>
> > Right now it's very difficult to see exactly how this will all play out - or even what would <i>actually</i> happen in the pollsters' hypothetical General Election Tomorrow.
>
> If there was one lesson to be drawn from the 2017GE, which should also be reinforced by the swings we've seen thus far for these EU elections, it is that opinion polls are a snapshot of opinion, and people are much more likely to change their vote than they were in the past.
>
> This volatility should be great for political betting.
As Mike quoted one of the pollsters the other day - massive bucket of salt with all Westminster VI polls until we're the other side of the EU one.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > > FPT
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TBP - 26%
> > > > > > Cons - 13%
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
> > >
> > > If Brexit underperform their polling it follows from experience (2014 EU elections) and logic (most Brexit Party voters are ex-Conservative voters) that the Conservatives will outperform their polling.
> > >
> > > Mid-teens, even high-teens, is still on for the Tories - though I acknowledge that their position could deteriorate further with another ten days of not campaigning to come.
> >
> > Todays you gov has Conservative and Labour on 24% each Brexit 18% and Lib Dems 16%
>
> What's the state of play in Wales Mr G; can't find anything recent.
We are a bit in the sticks here and I haven't seen a Welsh poll
> > @Nemtynakht said:
> > We are surely reaching the point where Labour can fence sit no more, and will have no reason to. The votes are already peeling off to Leave and Remain parties. Labour should worry most of all about Lib Dem’s, because I am sure Labour can go no further than Remain via a referendum, and LDs can outflank them via revoke.
> >
> > The other parties have clearer positions.
>
> What is the Conservative Party's clearer position please?
Well the Party position is to deliver Brexit and being in Government has shown they can’t do that - it’s not really the sitting on the fence position Labour have had for ages
Sugar rush.
Then the wilderness.
> As a tribal Tory who doesn't want a Hard Brexit, I'm facing up to the reality that my best option might be to vote ... Lib Dem?! The times we live in...
I too don't wish for a no deal Brexit, but I also want the referendum result to be delivered, thus I shall vote for The Brexit Party in the hope it will focus minds and move us away from the nonsense of a People's Vote.
I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.
The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):
6% or less = no seats
7% = an eighth chance of a seat
8% = a quarter chance of a seat
9% = seven eights chance of a seat
10% = almost always one seat
11%-13% = one seat
14% = one seat, very occasionally two
15% = one seat, a twelfth chance of a second
16% = one seat, a quarter chance of a second
17% = one seat or two seats about half the time each
18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one
19%-26% = two seats
At 27% and above there was a rising chance for a third seat, which became a certainty at about 33%.
The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 8-9% for winning the first seat, and 16-18% for winning the second, and 27-31% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was a given regardless of how other parties performed.
I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:
Above 30% vote share a party is equally likely to be over or under represented
Between 25-30% a party is mostly underrepresented
Between 20-25% a party is mostly overrepresented
Between 15-20% there is a mix of over or under representation
Between 13-15% a party is mostly underrepresented
Between 9-12% a party is mostly overrepresented
At 8% there is a mix, and at 7% and below mostly underrepresentation.
What this illustrates is that D’Hondt not so much favours the larger parties, as sometimes assumed, but has a series of “steps” or narrow vote share bands, for qualifying for the next seat, and these are obviously driven mathematically by the size of the region.
In terms of tactical voting (in this London example), voters need to work out which parties are most likely to fall into the critical 8-9% and 16-18% bands, and choose the one of those that they prefer the most.
> I still don't know how I'm going to vote. I may simply write down a recommendation to read Polybius' account of the Second Punic War.
Yorkshire party ?
> Lots of Brexit Party supporters on PB.
>
> The kippers got very high percentages in Euro elections in the past. They soon enough faded to complete irrelevancy.
>
> I think people can be forgiven for not getting too sweaty about the latest rightwing flash in the pan.
>
> You couldn’t be more wrong
>
> We'll see.
>
>
> Sugar rush.
>
>
> Then the wilderness.
UKIP got high percentages in the last euro elections prompting Cameron to offer a referendum... so hardly an irrelevance to the current political environment.
One does not approve.
>
> UKIP got high percentages in the last euro elections prompting Cameron to offer a referendum... so hardly an irrelevance to the current political environment.
Why do so many people believe this? Cameron offered the referendum over a year before the European elections, which had the effect of legitimising UKIP.