On most current polling the Tories will pick up more Labour seats than they lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The Boris Deal is also more popular than the May Deal in the polling, especially with Leavers with whom it is now also preferred to No Deal which the May Deal was not so that makes it more likely to be an effective Brexit solution and the Deal will pass with a Tory majority.
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The difference between FPTP and PR would be enough to ensure Bozo would not have an overall majority, or indeed a majority at all.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
I'm very much of the view the Conservatives will win the GE and quite possibly with a landslide and while that's not a prospect I neither want, relish nor think would be good for the country as a whole, it's hard to gainsay those who argue we need to change Parliament to move forward.
That in the end will be, unfortunately, the winning argument. It's the last chance for those still hoping to stop Brexit in its tracks but the Overwithers want Brexit "done" and that means implementing the 2016 referendum result rather than annulling it so whatever reservations they have about Boris Johnson personally or his domestic agenda (and there's plenty to have reservations about) will be set aside just to change the subject.
Defeat as we know also provides opportunities - Corbyn took advantage of that in 2015 and it will be fascinating to see how Labour responds to another failure. Will the response be positive or negative?
Victory as we know also provides challenges - Boris will have no one else to blame if he wins with a big majority. He will have expectations to manage and promises to deliver - on two of the big non-Brexit issues, climate change and the provision of social care, he has been long on platitudes and short on specifics and that won't be possible once he is in Government with his own mandate. I don't see how his pledges of additional funding for the Police, NHS and the Armed Forces square with tax cuts and maintaining the public finances.
Like many Conservatives before him, he is quite keen to spend everyone else's money to look good and I also see him as an interventionist and a centraliser based on his time as Mayor of London. Power will be centralised into No.10 with the Cabinet reduced to even greater impotence.
Wouldn’t it be a blessed relief if the election sees a government elected with a stable majority, promises not to hold any referenda on anything ever and we can all switch off, safe in the knowledge the die is cast for the next 4-5 years no matter what we think or do.
Is Soubry even going to bother running for Change UK in Broxtowe now ?
Is her personal vote enough to save her deposit?
Yes. I'm not an admirer, but she's seen as socially liberal and hard-working and reliably anti-Brexit, all of which appeal to part of the Broxtowe electorate. She has offended loads of people but she definitely has her fans. The question is how many will actually vote for her and what part of the electorate - but I do expect her to at least nudge 10%. Both Tories and Labour are extremely well-organised there and it's genuinely hard to predict who will actually win. The Tories should on current polling be favourites but they rejected local candidates and picked someone with no local connections.
Soubry at least needs the LibDems to stand down surely?
Serious major parties don't stand down. Ever (well hardly ever).
It is the action of a wannabe minnow shrieking for acknowledgement. Big parties need every vote, every one adds to the national vote share, which rather oddly is one of the major indicators of a major party.
Wouldn’t it be a blessed relief if the election sees a government elected with a stable majority, promises not to hold any referenda on anything ever and we can all switch off, safe in the knowledge the die is cast for the next 4-5 years no matter what we think or do.
No. The next government, whichever it is, will almost certainly do great harm if it has a substantial majority. The only question is what harm.
Hammond: “ I am not prepared to give up on my party, just because a bunch of people from Vote Leave have [sic] been parachuted in and are now calling the shots”
No sympathy for him. Many of the 21 voted for the programme motion, he did not knowing that he would not regain the whip
I wonder if all the mps who rebelled against their whips ever thought for a minute they would have to face the consequences so quickly
Perhaps he can go and get a job with George Osborne
Since he has a brain, a spine, principles and is not insane, there is no place for him in this iteration of the Conservative party.
I see no evidence of his sanity from his time in 11 Downing St blocking no deal preparations while spending billions on Trident. No deal was always a more likely risk than global nuclear war.
At that stage the lunatics did not have control of the asylum.
Yes they did.
Sane MPs like Boris who were calling for no deal preparations to be ramped up, or seeking an eminently achievable backstopless deal were being confined to the backbenches. Lunatics like Hammond who parroted "no deal is better than a bad deal" as a matter of government policy but blocked no deal were in control of the asylum.
Can you give me one solitary honest and good reason to have "no deal is better than a bad deal" as your stated and oft-repeated government policy yet block no deal preparations? Even if you were against no deal it makes sense to do preparations as it is a risk that could occur and the government should do work to minimise the harm of risks even if they don't want the risks to happen.
On most current polling the Tories will pick up more Labour seats than they lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The Boris Deal is also more popular than the May Deal in the polling, especially with Leavers with whom it is now also preferred to No Deal which the May Deal was not so that makes it more likely to be an effective Brexit solution and the Deal will pass with a Tory majority.
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The difference between FPTP and PR would be enough to ensure Bozo would not have an overall majority, or indeed a majority at all.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
If you're suggesting that most MPs are popular in their constituencies - or that most voters even know who they are - then you really are bonkers.
OllyT said: "According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)"
This is not comparing apples with apples. May didn`t have BXP to compete with.
HYFUD seems to be believe that Bozo's arrival is akin to the second coming. I am simply pointing out that significantly less people support Bozo's Conservative Party than supported May's Conservative Party.
That's not correct.
Far more people in 2019 support Boris's Conservative Party than supported May's Conservative Party in 2019.
I was discussing GEs. Leaders are generally judged on their GE performances. If Bozo does poll less than 42% in the GE then he has done worse than May.
Anyone bloody seething this morning at the state of our politicians? This tweet sums up my feelings. I have seen some crap from MPs over the years, but this arguing over the date of a GE that "saves face" is a new low.
I am starting to come round to the view that we need to sweep the whole bloody lot of them away, which is most unlike me.
Absolutely not. I think the problem the two biggest parties, which gave too much power to their members, which in turn brought about a crazier members > crazier leader -> crazier members spiral of crazy.
Combine this with FPTP and it has the potential to be totally catastrophic, and long-standing parliamentarians are doing an excellent job of preventing everything going to shit, under extremely difficult circumstances.
Agreed. I think the precedent that Johnson is creating in forcing out so many MPs from his party in order to use FPTP to replace them with ideologically narrower lobby fodder is exceptionally dangerous for our politics.
It's not a problem with PR, where multiple different parties can compete fairly. Nor is it a risk in the US where the Primary system takes the control over selection away from a party leadership. In Britain it creates a real risk of narrowing the debate in the Commons and leaving people unrepresented.
You can just about make the case for FPTP in the UK with broad tent parties. Not otherwise.
Hammond: “ I am not prepared to give up on my party, just because a bunch of people from Vote Leave have [sic] been parachuted in and are now calling the shots”
No sympathy for him. Many of the 21 voted for the programme motion, he did not knowing that he would not regain the whip
I wonder if all the mps who rebelled against their whips ever thought for a minute they would have to face the consequences so quickly
Perhaps he can go and get a job with George Osborne
Since he has a brain, a spine, principles and is not insane, there is no place for him in this iteration of the Conservative party.
I see no evidence of his sanity from his time in 11 Downing St blocking no deal preparations while spending billions on Trident. No deal was always a more likely risk than global nuclear war.
At that stage the lunatics did not have control of the asylum.
Yes they did.
Sane MPs like Boris who were calling for no deal preparations to be ramped up, or seeking an eminently achievable backstopless deal were being confined to the backbenches. Lunatics like Hammond who parroted "no deal is better than a bad deal" as a matter of government policy but blocked no deal were in control of the asylum.
Can you give me one solitary honest and good reason to have "no deal is better than a bad deal" as your stated and oft-repeated government policy yet block no deal preparations? Even if you were against no deal it makes sense to do preparations as it is a risk that could occur and the government should do work to minimise the harm of risks even if they don't want the risks to happen.
Hammond is no better than an anti-vaxxer.
No deal preparations are only necessary if you have nutjobs in government prepared to countenance no deal. Since Theresa May’s government did not, it would have been a waste of money to incur costs on them.
The current nutters had to be muzzled by Parliament. Even now they are dreaming about the chaos they can cause in a year’s time.
Looking on the bright side, it is now entirely possible that we will see the back of Corbyn by the start of 2020.
Happy New Year!
In those circumstances I would expect him to hang on until the new leader was elected. Can't see him resigning and giving his deputy leader the position to gerrymander the selection of the next labour Leader.
[snip] There's also the view that we normally have GE's every 4-5 years. Since 2015 we've had two. When local councils are elected the councillors have to get on with whatever and they're dealt. Why can't/don't MP's?
I have an (admittedly niche) view that May did badly because she went out of the 4-5 year cycle and people went "Why do we need this?" An election now would be when we should have been having one without June 2017, so we are back in synch with when people expect an election.
It is possible some people think like this. It would be extraordinary if it was so widespread and also changed peoples voting preferences.
A sort of political circadian rhythm. Like when people's sleep circadian rhythms get broken, they get crabby with whoever woke them up (May in 2017). The political circadian rhythms are now telling people it is the right time to vote (Boris will benefit in 2019).
Niche, as I said.
I kind of could buy into the expectations of a 4/5 year cycle like a circadian rhythm. Just very confused why it determines which way people vote. Are you suggesting the swing voters main concern is the timing of the election rather than NHS, Brexit, economy?
I'm suggesting that when it's outside the natural rhythm of when an election feels "about right", voters get ornery....and logical arguments around weighing policy are less applicable.
Ornery is a new word for me! I would have thought less weight on logical arguments and policy, and more on emotion would be good not bad for Bluekip though....
OllyT said: "According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)"
This is not comparing apples with apples. May didn`t have BXP to compete with.
HYFUD seems to be believe that Bozo's arrival is akin to the second coming. I am simply pointing out that significantly less people support Bozo's Conservative Party than supported May's Conservative Party.
That's not correct.
Far more people in 2019 support Boris's Conservative Party than supported May's Conservative Party in 2019.
I was discussing GEs. Leaders are generally judged on their GE performances. If Bozo does poll less than 42% in the GE then he has done worse than May.
Depends a bit on other factors such as turnout and total number of votes cast for each party, margins of loss / success and seat count.
On most current polling the Tories will pick up more Labour seats than they lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The Boris Deal is also more popular than the May Deal in the polling, especially with Leavers with whom it is now also preferred to No Deal which the May Deal was not so that makes it more likely to be an effective Brexit solution and the Deal will pass with a Tory majority.
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The difference between FPTP and PR would be enough to ensure Bozo would not have an overall majority, or indeed a majority at all.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
If you're suggesting that most MPs are popular in their constituencies - or that most voters even know who they are - then you really are bonkers.
I'm suggesting that every MP in every constituency got more votes than any alternative candidates in their seat.
If you think most MPs aren't popular, I see no reason to give candidates who get even fewer votes to get seats.
I think that's belatedly smart by Labour. As Lewis Goodall points out anyway, four days into the campaign literally no one will remember this week's arguing about the date or how we got there.
12/12 is incredibly close to Christmas though. Blimey.
Is Soubry even going to bother running for Change UK in Broxtowe now ?
Is her personal vote enough to save her deposit?
Yes. I'm not an admirer, but she's seen as socially liberal and hard-working and reliably anti-Brexit, all of which appeal to part of the Broxtowe electorate. She has offended loads of people but she definitely has her fans. The question is how many will actually vote for her and what part of the electorate - but I do expect her to at least nudge 10%. Both Tories and Labour are extremely well-organised there and it's genuinely hard to predict who will actually win. The Tories should on current polling be favourites but they rejected local candidates and picked someone with no local connections.
I think that's fair. Despite her faults, I quite like her... and the suggestions from some here that she's bonkers have a touch of the pot and kettle about them.
Soubry tells the story in the PMQs book of how she was made a minister.
Occasionally the Prime Minister’s briefing papers for PMQs can come from other sources too. Anna Soubry told us that when she was parliamentary private secretary to health minister Simon Burns in 2012, she took it upon herself to reduce the controversial Health and Social Care Bill down to half a side of A4, ‘one Sunday night in front of the telly on the laptop’.
She also pulled together turnout figures for the various surveys of medical professionals which were showing huge opposition to the government’s plans: ‘I was dead proud of this obviously, and it was on one side of A4 and then all the quotes, and I sent it through.
I did that on the Sunday, and on the Wednesday Des Swayne was still [Cameron’s] PPS, and I was in the Aye lobby, and Des came up to me and said, “Where’s that paper? Where is it? Oh my God, where is it, where is it?” And I went, “I’ve got a copy in my handbag.” “Give it to me now!” So I rushed over to my handbag and brought it out, and he just tore off down the corridor with this piece of paper.
This is government, so this is the Prime Minister, with all the spads, with all the everything, and there’s my piece of paper from the home computer, and a question comes in, and I saw it. There was the piece of paper. And it just made me laugh so much that this middle-aged woman had stayed at home on the Sunday on her laptop in front of the telly and done it, and there it was in PMQs.’
‘And then’, Soubry says, ‘I was made a minister not long after that on the basis that I was the only person in Britain who understood the Health and Social Care Act.’
On most current polling the Tories will pick up more Labour seats than they lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The Boris Deal is also more popular than the May Deal in the polling, especially with Leavers with whom it is now also preferred to No Deal which the May Deal was not so that makes it more likely to be an effective Brexit solution and the Deal will pass with a Tory majority.
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The difference between FPTP and PR would be enough to ensure Bozo would not have an overall majority, or indeed a majority at all.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
A fair electoral system is one that produces a parliament broadly in line with how the electorate voted. Every country in Europe has managed to devise an electoral system that achieves that. We haven't (or more actually won't because the status quo suits the interests of our current duopoly). When we voted under PR for Europe neither of the dinosaurs party were even in the top two.
Wouldn’t it be a blessed relief if the election sees a government elected with a stable majority, promises not to hold any referenda on anything ever and we can all switch off, safe in the knowledge the die is cast for the next 4-5 years no matter what we think or do.
No.
I will be challenging a Conservative or Labour Government from day one and I imagine our good friend @HYUFD will be on the barricades (verbally) if Labour were to win a majority and will be defending a Conservative Government to the hilt from said day.
Politics has a habit of surprising - if you had told a newly elected or re-elected Conservative MP on the night of Thatcher's third GE win in 1987 that not only would she be out within three and a half years but it would be the MPs themselves who would get rid of her, I doubt you'd have been given any credence.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
A fair electoral system is one that produces a parliament broadly in line with how the electorate voted. Every country in Europe has managed to devise an electoral system that achieves that. We haven't (or more actually won't because the status quo suits the interests of our current duopoly). When we voted under PR for Europe neither of the dinosaurs party were even in the top two.
You are implementing circular logic. You define a fair electoral system as a proportional one, therefore a proportional system is a fair one.
I think a fair electoral system is one where only the most popular candidate in each constituency gets elected, therefore under my definition of fair FPTP meets it.
Why is your definition of fair any better than mine?
To take a footballing analogy you seem to be saying the only fair way to determine a match is winner is the team with more possession rather than the team that got the ball in the net more.
Wouldn’t it be a blessed relief if the election sees a government elected with a stable majority, promises not to hold any referenda on anything ever and we can all switch off, safe in the knowledge the die is cast for the next 4-5 years no matter what we think or do.
No. The next government, whichever it is, will almost certainly do great harm if it has a substantial majority. The only question is what harm.
Ill thought out Middle Eastern invasion? Encouraging mass immigration that leads to a a referedum that splits the nation?
I think Tory landslide talk is wildly misplaced and I caution against betting on it. I could cite a host of reasons for being careful.
Were it not for Brexit, this would be nearly a decade of tory Government, albeit with coaltion at one point. It's unusual to put on seats so late in a cycle.
Johnson is always over-estimated in the polls. He underperforms. One of the reasons is that most of us on here realise he's a bullshitter. He has never been put under a General Election spotlight.
I very much doubt the Brexit Party will stand aside for Johnson. They don't trust him and they hate Cummings (it's mutual). They also think Johnson's deal is crap. So if they go all-guns-blazing for a clean break Brexit, which I think will be their pitch, then Johnson's got problems on his right. He already has serious questions to answer over his deal.
Jeremy Corbyn is remarkably teflon-coated. I think he will whip up the Labour core against the elitist poshos in Johnson's cabal (I know, I know) and get some traction on the issues that really matter to Labour voters: like the NHS, transport, schools, jobs.
The LibDems are going to do superbly in Remain areas. A strong third party showing like that makes it even more difficult for the tories to get an outright majority.
There are plenty of counters. The right-wing tabloids will really whip up against Corbyn. But 12 days before Christmas, will they get the influence they once had?
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
This is cretinous beyond belief.
A bare plurality, when even your supporters have no part in picking you, does not equate to "most popular".
The existence of safe seats alone is a disgrace to democracy, let alone the pervasive corrupting effect of most votes going straight in the bin, and the manifest failure to actually represent public opinions.
FPTP = elective dictatorship by plurality, two steaming piles of corruption, and an electorate that is mostly disenfranchised, mostly unrepresented and utterly sidelined.
On most current polling the Tories will pick up more Labour seats than they lose seats to the LDs and SNP. The Boris Deal is also more popular than the May Deal in the polling, especially with Leavers with whom it is now also preferred to No Deal which the May Deal was not so that makes it more likely to be an effective Brexit solution and the Deal will pass with a Tory majority.
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The SNP wouldn't be too pleased with that!
Under the German system there is a 5% or 3 direct mandates threshold, so the SNP would be OK. Other systems are available: eg at least 5% in at least one of England, Scotland, N. Ireland, Wales.
but of course the difference between FPTP and PR is enormous whether you have a 5 % threshold or not
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
This is cretinous beyond belief.
A bare plurality, when even your supporters have no part in picking you, does not equate to "most popular".
The existence of safe seats alone is a disgrace to democracy, let alone the pervasive corrupting effect of most votes going straight in the bin, and the manifest failure to actually represent public opinions.
FPTP = elective dictatorship by plurality, two steaming piles of corruption, and an electorate that is mostly disenfranchised, mostly unrepresented and utterly sidelined.
But it works for most politicians.
"Most" determiner · pronoun determiner: most; pronoun: most
greatest in amount or degree.
"popular" adjective liked, enjoyed, or supported by many people:
Who has the greatest amount of support by many people if not the candidate who has got the most votes?
If the DUP held the balance of power again and with the 21 anti No Deal Tory MPs deselected and replaced by pro Brexit candidates, it would most likely be No Deal
Where's your landslide gone then
Still there with Yougov and Opinium
According to the Britain Elects poll tracker Tories are polling at 35%. That is well behind what May got in 2017 (42%)
Bozo looks good because the opposition is now more split than in 2017 but in reality he is far less popular than May was.
If we had a fair PR voting system Bozo would be looking at far less seats than May would have won in 2017. The only thing that is going to give Bozo a landslide is the fact that we have an electoral system that doesn't reflect how people voted.
Except it does, because while the Tories are down 7%, Labour are down 15%+.....
And the difference in representation between FPTP and PR systems is not so great when under PR you exclude all parties getting under 5% from getting MPs.
The difference between FPTP and PR would be enough to ensure Bozo would not have an overall majority, or indeed a majority at all.
Obviously people who want a government with a majority that is artificially created by the voting system will be happy with our unrepresentative system but at least have the decency to admit it is not really fair or democratic.
It is both fair and democratic.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
If you're suggesting that most MPs are popular in their constituencies - or that most voters even know who they are - then you really are bonkers.
I'm suggesting that every MP in every constituency got more votes than any alternative candidates in their seat.
If you think most MPs aren't popular, I see no reason to give candidates who get even fewer votes to get seats.
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
My guess is that the public are more engaged than they have been for a long time and you can't say about the parties "they're all the same" so turnout will be the highest in decades.
As it stands I'd say a hung parliament is as likely as a Tory majority of 30.
The MPs have arsed around for three years, all tactics and no strategy. Hung parliament has been an embarrassing mess.
MPs from all parties can now get out there and persuade the electorate of their cases.
If it all ends in another hung parliament then the British people deserve what they get and the coalition or minority government can make a positive case for scrapping Brexit.
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
Aren't you a simplistic soul!
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
I think turnout will be relatively high as long as the following two conditions are met. 1. The outcome is thought to be in doubt. 2. Voters care about the difference between the parties.
If it looks like Johnson's victory is inevitable then you have a very good bet.
HYUFD fondly reminds us of his one happy call, so I thought I'd immodestly mention 6 months ago that I posted here that we'd have to have an autumn election. Technically this is a winter election.
Set that against my less felicitous tips. Ken Clarke as PM being one such
And as I'm also fond of pointing out, if you try often enough eventually you'll stick the donkey's tail on the correct spot.
jeez it's not that difficult to have a system where every constituency has an MP who gets a plurality of votes in that constituency, and also have a parliament where parties' representation is proportional to the vote they get.
When Labour's Chief Whip is sayimg "You can't have an election now - you'll get slaughtered...." then maybe Labour's prospects really are awful?
I'd like Boris to get a majority but I don't think Labour's prospects are any more awful than they were in June 2017.
Boris will be more box office and optimistic than dreary May but Corbyn is a good campaigner. I expect the polls to tighten. I also expect Boris to perform. I think he's a lot more electable than he is said to be on PB.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
I think turnout will be relatively high as long as the following two conditions are met. 1. The outcome is thought to be in doubt. 2. Voters care about the difference between the parties.
If it looks like Johnson's victory is inevitable then you have a very good bet.
I haven't actually had a bet on it. In fact I did the complete mug punter thing of deciding what I thought might happen then looking up what price it was and thinking it looked big!
I think most Labour MPs don't want an election but they know how defeatist they would have looked if they'd voted against today and it had happened anyway.
As it stands I'd say a hung parliament is as likely as a Tory majority of 30.
The MPs have arsed around for three years, all tactics and no strategy. Hung parliament has been an embarrassing mess.
MPs from all parties can now get out there and persuade the electorate of their cases.
If it all ends in another hung parliament then the British people deserve what they get and the coalition or minority government can make a positive case for scrapping Brexit.
I think the amendment should be we keep rerunning the election until we get a majority!
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
You are a simplistic soul.
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
If you have a choice for lunch: sandwich, sushi or soup ...
Then I would vote sushi. However if it comes 5 votes soup, 2 votes sushi, 4 votes sandwich then I accept that soup was the most popular option in that vote . . . even if I and the other sushi voter may have had sandwich as their second choice it isn't what we chose.
Its possible to have other variants to FPTP that seek to meet the same objective like the Australian or French voting systems but FPTP does the job too.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
My guess is that the public are more engaged than they have been for a long time and you can't say about the parties "they're all the same" so turnout will be the highest in decades.
They're kind of engaged, but I think they hate MPs more than ever, and some people, maybe a lot of people, hate all of them rather than the traditional 'enemy'
When Labour's Chief Whip is sayimg "You can't have an election now - you'll get slaughtered...." then maybe Labour's prospects really are awful?
Also he is from the North of the country so may well understand the feeling on the doorstep.
Johnson is taking one hell of a gamble.
But on the face of it, unless there is some kind of sea change wrt to voters view of Jezza, then we are into the last 2 or 3 months of his benighted tenure.
Their radical programme to transform is about to get flattened by the old fashioned "I'm not making him PM" view of voters.
HYUFD fondly reminds us of his one happy call, so I thought I'd immodestly mention 6 months ago that I posted here that we'd have to have an autumn election. Technically this is a winter election.
Set that against my less felicitous tips. Ken Clarke as PM being one such
And as I'm also fond of pointing out, if you try often enough eventually you'll stick the donkey's tail on the correct spot.
When Labour's Chief Whip is sayimg "You can't have an election now - you'll get slaughtered...." then maybe Labour's prospects really are awful?
Also he is from the North of the country so may well understand the feeling on the doorstep.
Johnson is taking one hell of a gamble.
But on the face of it, unless there is some kind of sea change wrt to voters view of Jezza, then we are into the last 2 or 3 months of his benighted tenure.
Their radical programme to transform is about to get flattened by the old fashioned "I'm not making him PM" view of voters.
Boris isnt really. If he hung on, then what, just more blocking brexit, MPs jumping on the outrage bus every week and nothing getting done. It would be bad for him, the tories and the country.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
I think the phrase you use
"NHS Top Trumps...." is open to misinterpretation as supporting the President of USA
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
You are a simplistic soul.
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
If you have a choice for lunch: sandwich, sushi or soup ...
Then I would vote sushi. However if it comes 5 votes soup, 2 votes sushi, 4 votes sandwich then I accept that soup was the most popular option in that vote . . . even if I and the other sushi voter may have had sandwich as their second choice it isn't what we chose.
Its possible to have other variants to FPTP that seek to meet the same objective like the Australian or French voting systems but FPTP does the job too.
although PR isn't about 2nd choices, it's about first choices.
Something like the German system should satisfy both of you.
Minority Labour administration propped up by confidence and supply from Libs SNP and one or two Alliance/SDLP from NI would be my bet for where this ends up.
I asked the question, to no reply as it wasn't troll-inducing, of what might be the over/under % of turnout in the forthcoming election. Looking at recent thread headers I saw that TSE has tipped a high turnout. I had thought it would be low as people are surely bored to death of politics, and reluctant to vote in the same jokers who have paralysed the country for three and a half years.. 16/1 sub 60% looked good.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
My guess is that the public are more engaged than they have been for a long time and you can't say about the parties "they're all the same" so turnout will be the highest in decades.
They're kind of engaged, but I think they hate MPs more than ever, and some people, maybe a lot of people, hate all of them rather than the traditional 'enemy'
Indeed and voting gives them a chance to vent their hatred.
HYUFD fondly reminds us of his one happy call, so I thought I'd immodestly mention 6 months ago that I posted here that we'd have to have an autumn election. Technically this is a winter election.
Set that against my less felicitous tips. Ken Clarke as PM being one such
And as I'm also fond of pointing out, if you try often enough eventually you'll stick the donkey's tail on the correct spot.
Isn't this technically an autumn election?
Ah, good point! In the astronomical definition you're absolutely right. December 21st is the start of winter, running to March 20th.
Meteorological winter is 01st December to end of February.
When Labour's Chief Whip is sayimg "You can't have an election now - you'll get slaughtered...." then maybe Labour's prospects really are awful?
Also he is from the North of the country so may well understand the feeling on the doorstep.
Johnson is taking one hell of a gamble.
But on the face of it, unless there is some kind of sea change wrt to voters view of Jezza, then we are into the last 2 or 3 months of his benighted tenure.
Their radical programme to transform is about to get flattened by the old fashioned "I'm not making him PM" view of voters.
It is a gamble but whichever way you dice it a GE is a better option than remaining a turkey-shoot-target PM in a hung parliament.
The best option for opposition MPs would be to keep Boris in situ as long as possible. That's why I'm surprised we've moved to a GE so quickly.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
Unfortunate use of language there
There's no chance that the Conservatives will ever be trusted more on the NHS than the party which invented it, Labour.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
I think the phrase you use
"NHS Top Trumps...." is open to misinterpretation as supporting the President of USA
Nah, that's "NHS Tops Trump"
"He only went in for an ingrowing toe-nail...." said a mourning Melania.
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
You are a simplistic soul.
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
If you have a choice for lunch: sandwich, sushi or soup ...
Then I would vote sushi. However if it comes 5 votes soup, 2 votes sushi, 4 votes sandwich then I accept that soup was the most popular option in that vote . . . even if I and the other sushi voter may have had sandwich as their second choice it isn't what we chose.
Its possible to have other variants to FPTP that seek to meet the same objective like the Australian or French voting systems but FPTP does the job too.
I'm sure TSE will be along shortly to explain that AV is not a variant of FPTP.
Wouldn’t it be a blessed relief if the election sees a government elected with a stable majority, promises not to hold any referenda on anything ever and we can all switch off, safe in the knowledge the die is cast for the next 4-5 years no matter what we think or do.
No. The next government, whichever it is, will almost certainly do great harm if it has a substantial majority. The only question is what harm.
Agree wholeheartedly.
A hung Parliament is my hope with both Corbyn and Johnson out on their ear.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
I think the phrase you use
"NHS Top Trumps...." is open to misinterpretation as supporting the President of USA
Thank god, the madness of a non-thursday election has been avoided.
????
First, it hasn't yet. Labour haven't said which date they will go for. In fact they've explicitly said all of them are fine.
Second, the iconic veneration of sacred Thursday is a farce. It's no more special than any other day for the holding of an election. Sooner we boot it out the better.
FWIW I agree with whoever said we should vote on Sundays.
There are no prizes for cowardice so I'm glad Boris is being bold.
A minority government with May's numbers (yet a purging of the rebels) would be far preferable to him than the current paralysis. I'm not sure any party really knows what they're doing but a short election campaign will probably not benefit Labour.
You seem to overlook the fact that being the most popular and the most unpopular are not mutually exclusive.
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
We are not seeking to elect the most unpopular we are seeking to elect a candidate. Whoever gets most votes wins, that is fair and it is democratic. If another candidate was more popular then they should have won more votes.
You are a simplistic soul.
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
If you have a choice for lunch: sandwich, sushi or soup ...
Then I would vote sushi. However if it comes 5 votes soup, 2 votes sushi, 4 votes sandwich then I accept that soup was the most popular option in that vote . . . even if I and the other sushi voter may have had sandwich as their second choice it isn't what we chose.
Its possible to have other variants to FPTP that seek to meet the same objective like the Australian or French voting systems but FPTP does the job too.
I'm sure TSE will be along shortly to explain that AV is not a variant of FPTP.
Single constituency electing most popular candidate, one candidate per constituency, resulting in potential majority governments, not proportional.
When Labour's Chief Whip is sayimg "You can't have an election now - you'll get slaughtered...." then maybe Labour's prospects really are awful?
They are. Charge of the lightbrigade stuff.
I certainly don’t relish a landslide for Boris. But a campaign where the Corbynites gradually realise that unlike last time people are not flocking to support them would be really funny. Both May and Corbyn were nowhere near 40% popular but took credit for voters loaning them their votes to help with Brexit.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Boris will go full on, all-out attack against Corbyn. "He wants to spend billions on nationalising the railways. I want to send billions on the NHS. You must decide - which gives YOU the better value for money?"
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
Unfortunate use of language there
There's no chance that the Conservatives will ever be trusted more on the NHS than the party which invented it, Labour.
Hammond: “ I am not prepared to give up on my party, just because a bunch of people from Vote Leave have [sic] been parachuted in and are now calling the shots”
No sympathy for him. Many of the 21 voted for the programme motion, he did not knowing that he would not regain the whip
I wonder if all the mps who rebelled against their whips ever thought for a minute they would have to face the consequences so quickly
Perhaps he can go and get a job with George Osborne
Since he has a brain, a spine, principles and is not insane, there is no place for him in this iteration of the Conservative party.
I see no evidence of his sanity from his time in 11 Downing St blocking no deal preparations while spending billions on Trident. No deal was always a more likely risk than global nuclear war.
At that stage the lunatics did not have control of the asylum.
Yes they did.
Sane MPs like Boris who were calling for no deal preparations to be ramped up, or seeking an eminently achievable backstopless deal were being confined to the backbenches. Lunatics like Hammond who parroted "no deal is better than a bad deal" as a matter of government policy but blocked no deal were in control of the asylum.
Can you give me one solitary honest and good reason to have "no deal is better than a bad deal" as your stated and oft-repeated government policy yet block no deal preparations? Even if you were against no deal it makes sense to do preparations as it is a risk that could occur and the government should do work to minimise the harm of risks even if they don't want the risks to happen.
Hammond is no better than an anti-vaxxer.
No deal preparations are only necessary if you have nutjobs in government prepared to countenance no deal. Since Theresa May’s government did not, it would have been a waste of money to incur costs on them.
The current nutters had to be muzzled by Parliament. Even now they are dreaming about the chaos they can cause in a year’s time.
They're not just dreaming. If the Dispatches programme is right they are already taking action which will result in the NHS having to pay more for medicines.
Lowering food standards is next on the list.
The prospect of any FTA with the EU recedes ever more if Britain Trump abases himself any further.
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Mine is that he was the only invisible leader during the most important referendum in our history. Would anyone trust a radical agenda presented by him?
HYUFD fondly reminds us of his one happy call, so I thought I'd immodestly mention 6 months ago that I posted here that we'd have to have an autumn election. Technically this is a winter election.
Set that against my less felicitous tips. Ken Clarke as PM being one such
And as I'm also fond of pointing out, if you try often enough eventually you'll stick the donkey's tail on the correct spot.
Isn't this technically an autumn election?
Ah, good point! In the astronomical definition you're absolutely right. December 21st is the start of winter, running to March 20th.
Meteorological winter is 01st December to end of February.
I think the voters will be more interested in the meteorological side of things as they battle their way to the polling station.
Comments
Not sure Hoyle's the man for that, though no doubt he will make a competent enough Speaker.
Every single constituency gets 1 MP. That is fair, everyone is treated the same.
Every MP is the most popular in their constituency. That is both fair and democratic.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if people who were not the most popular in their constituency gets seats? How is that more democratic or more fair than ensuring every single MP has a direct mandate from being the most popular?
I'm very much of the view the Conservatives will win the GE and quite possibly with a landslide and while that's not a prospect I neither want, relish nor think would be good for the country as a whole, it's hard to gainsay those who argue we need to change Parliament to move forward.
That in the end will be, unfortunately, the winning argument. It's the last chance for those still hoping to stop Brexit in its tracks but the Overwithers want Brexit "done" and that means implementing the 2016 referendum result rather than annulling it so whatever reservations they have about Boris Johnson personally or his domestic agenda (and there's plenty to have reservations about) will be set aside just to change the subject.
Defeat as we know also provides opportunities - Corbyn took advantage of that in 2015 and it will be fascinating to see how Labour responds to another failure. Will the response be positive or negative?
Victory as we know also provides challenges - Boris will have no one else to blame if he wins with a big majority. He will have expectations to manage and promises to deliver - on two of the big non-Brexit issues, climate change and the provision of social care, he has been long on platitudes and short on specifics and that won't be possible once he is in Government with his own mandate. I don't see how his pledges of additional funding for the Police, NHS and the Armed Forces square with tax cuts and maintaining the public finances.
Like many Conservatives before him, he is quite keen to spend everyone else's money to look good and I also see him as an interventionist and a centraliser based on his time as Mayor of London. Power will be centralised into No.10 with the Cabinet reduced to even greater impotence.
It is the action of a wannabe minnow shrieking for acknowledgement. Big parties need every vote, every one adds to the national vote share, which rather oddly is one of the major indicators of a major party.
Sane MPs like Boris who were calling for no deal preparations to be ramped up, or seeking an eminently achievable backstopless deal were being confined to the backbenches. Lunatics like Hammond who parroted "no deal is better than a bad deal" as a matter of government policy but blocked no deal were in control of the asylum.
Can you give me one solitary honest and good reason to have "no deal is better than a bad deal" as your stated and oft-repeated government policy yet block no deal preparations? Even if you were against no deal it makes sense to do preparations as it is a risk that could occur and the government should do work to minimise the harm of risks even if they don't want the risks to happen.
Hammond is no better than an anti-vaxxer.
Happy New Year!
It's not a problem with PR, where multiple different parties can compete fairly. Nor is it a risk in the US where the Primary system takes the control over selection away from a party leadership. In Britain it creates a real risk of narrowing the debate in the Commons and leaving people unrepresented.
You can just about make the case for FPTP in the UK with broad tent parties. Not otherwise.
The current nutters had to be muzzled by Parliament. Even now they are dreaming about the chaos they can cause in a year’s time.
That could run on to the next conference.
Best ones - No Brexit. No Ref2. No No Deal.
Really does look like the snap election IS happening though. Just days before Christmas. Amazing.
If you think most MPs aren't popular, I see no reason to give candidates who get even fewer votes to get seats.
12/12 is incredibly close to Christmas though. Blimey.
Occasionally the Prime Minister’s briefing papers for PMQs can come from other sources too. Anna Soubry told us that when she was parliamentary private secretary to health minister Simon Burns in 2012, she took it upon herself to reduce the controversial Health and Social Care Bill down to half a side of A4, ‘one Sunday night in front of the telly on the laptop’.
She also pulled together turnout figures for the various surveys of medical professionals which were showing huge opposition to the government’s plans: ‘I was dead proud of this obviously, and it was on one side of A4 and then all the quotes, and I sent it through.
I did that on the Sunday, and on the Wednesday Des Swayne was still [Cameron’s] PPS, and I was in the Aye lobby, and Des came up to me and said, “Where’s that paper? Where is it? Oh my God, where is it, where is it?” And I went, “I’ve got a copy in my handbag.” “Give it to me now!” So I rushed over to my handbag and brought it out, and he just tore off down the corridor with this piece of paper.
This is government, so this is the Prime Minister, with all the spads, with all the everything, and there’s my piece of paper from the home computer, and a question comes in, and I saw it. There was the piece of paper. And it just made me laugh so much that this middle-aged woman had stayed at home on the Sunday on her laptop in front of the telly and done it, and there it was in PMQs.’
‘And then’, Soubry says, ‘I was made a minister not long after that on the basis that I was the only person in Britain who understood the Health and Social Care Act.’
I will be challenging a Conservative or Labour Government from day one and I imagine our good friend @HYUFD will be on the barricades (verbally) if Labour were to win a majority and will be defending a Conservative Government to the hilt from said day.
Politics has a habit of surprising - if you had told a newly elected or re-elected Conservative MP on the night of Thatcher's third GE win in 1987 that not only would she be out within three and a half years but it would be the MPs themselves who would get rid of her, I doubt you'd have been given any credence.
Corbyn IS calling an election for December.
So if Johnson agrees it's game on!
Con
Lab
SNP
LibDem
Doh! MPs are useless and need to learn to be sensible.
I think a fair electoral system is one where only the most popular candidate in each constituency gets elected, therefore under my definition of fair FPTP meets it.
Why is your definition of fair any better than mine?
To take a footballing analogy you seem to be saying the only fair way to determine a match is winner is the team with more possession rather than the team that got the ball in the net more.
Were it not for Brexit, this would be nearly a decade of tory Government, albeit with coaltion at one point. It's unusual to put on seats so late in a cycle.
Johnson is always over-estimated in the polls. He underperforms. One of the reasons is that most of us on here realise he's a bullshitter. He has never been put under a General Election spotlight.
I very much doubt the Brexit Party will stand aside for Johnson. They don't trust him and they hate Cummings (it's mutual). They also think Johnson's deal is crap. So if they go all-guns-blazing for a clean break Brexit, which I think will be their pitch, then Johnson's got problems on his right. He already has serious questions to answer over his deal.
Jeremy Corbyn is remarkably teflon-coated. I think he will whip up the Labour core against the elitist poshos in Johnson's cabal (I know, I know) and get some traction on the issues that really matter to Labour voters: like the NHS, transport, schools, jobs.
The LibDems are going to do superbly in Remain areas. A strong third party showing like that makes it even more difficult for the tories to get an outright majority.
There are plenty of counters. The right-wing tabloids will really whip up against Corbyn. But 12 days before Christmas, will they get the influence they once had?
A bare plurality, when even your supporters have no part in picking you, does not equate to "most popular".
The existence of safe seats alone is a disgrace to democracy, let alone the pervasive corrupting effect of most votes going straight in the bin, and the manifest failure to actually represent public opinions.
FPTP = elective dictatorship by plurality, two steaming piles of corruption, and an electorate that is mostly disenfranchised, mostly unrepresented and utterly sidelined.
But it works for most politicians.
but of course the difference between FPTP and PR is enormous whether you have a 5 % threshold or not
determiner · pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most
greatest in amount or degree.
"popular"
adjective
liked, enjoyed, or supported by many people:
Who has the greatest amount of support by many people if not the candidate who has got the most votes?
And, more to the point, that giving each elector one vote only is a flawed way of assessing who out of a field of candidates is actually the “most popular” in the first place.
Although I guess the opposing argument of people being enthused to get it over with one way or the other is also reasonable.
I would have thought there is an opportuntity for people who haven't previously been MPs to do well on a "Do you really want to re elect the jokers who have dithered for the last god know how long?" ticket
Corbyn is going to be box office again. That doesn't mean he will win much but this is going to be exciting. He'll be pumped with a really radical agenda and I think he will do enough to deprive Johnson of an outright.
Things like nationalisation of the railways will hit a huge spot.
Just my take.
Let the chips fall where they may.
As it stands I'd say a hung parliament is as likely as a Tory majority of 30.
The MPs have arsed around for three years, all tactics and no strategy. Hung parliament has been an embarrassing mess.
MPs from all parties can now get out there and persuade the electorate of their cases.
If it all ends in another hung parliament then the British people deserve what they get and the coalition or minority government can make a positive case for scrapping Brexit.
A sandwich might be the most popular food, but offer people a choice of three types of sandwich or alternatively something else, with one vote only, and the something else might easily win.
The outcome of a single vote election depends heavily on the field of choices on offer.
1. The outcome is thought to be in doubt.
2. Voters care about the difference between the parties.
If it looks like Johnson's victory is inevitable then you have a very good bet.
Set that against my less felicitous tips. Ken Clarke as PM being one such
And as I'm also fond of pointing out, if you try often enough eventually you'll stick the donkey's tail on the correct spot.
Boris will be more box office and optimistic than dreary May but Corbyn is a good campaigner. I expect the polls to tighten. I also expect Boris to perform. I think he's a lot more electable than he is said to be on PB.
NHS Top Trumps railways every time.
Then I would vote sushi. However if it comes 5 votes soup, 2 votes sushi, 4 votes sandwich then I accept that soup was the most popular option in that vote . . . even if I and the other sushi voter may have had sandwich as their second choice it isn't what we chose.
Its possible to have other variants to FPTP that seek to meet the same objective like the Australian or French voting systems but FPTP does the job too.
But on the face of it, unless there is some kind of sea change wrt to voters view of Jezza, then we are into the last 2 or 3 months of his benighted tenure.
Their radical programme to transform is about to get flattened by the old fashioned "I'm not making him PM" view of voters.
Do we still need the election? Really? Oh.....
"NHS Top Trumps...."
is open to misinterpretation as supporting the President of USA
Something like the German system should satisfy both of you.
You couldn't could you!
Minority Labour administration propped up by confidence and supply from Libs SNP and one or two Alliance/SDLP from NI would be my bet for where this ends up.
Meteorological winter is 01st December to end of February.
The best option for opposition MPs would be to keep Boris in situ as long as possible. That's why I'm surprised we've moved to a GE so quickly.
Charge of the lightbrigade stuff.
There's no chance that the Conservatives will ever be trusted more on the NHS than the party which invented it, Labour.
"He only went in for an ingrowing toe-nail...." said a mourning Melania.
A hung Parliament is my hope with both Corbyn and Johnson out on their ear.
I wonder which party will be first to use it?
First, it hasn't yet. Labour haven't said which date they will go for. In fact they've explicitly said all of them are fine.
Second, the iconic veneration of sacred Thursday is a farce. It's no more special than any other day for the holding of an election. Sooner we boot it out the better.
FWIW I agree with whoever said we should vote on Sundays.
A minority government with May's numbers (yet a purging of the rebels) would be far preferable to him than the current paralysis. I'm not sure any party really knows what they're doing but a short election campaign will probably not benefit Labour.
It is closer to FPTP than it is to PR.
Lowering food standards is next on the list.
The prospect of any FTA with the EU recedes ever more if Britain Trump abases himself any further.