Even though it's entirely dishonest, it's not wrong to say that it's a simple and powerful message.
Which gets me thinking, is it possible to have a complicated and powerful message? ...
It is. Think of Aesop's fables. Their strength and durability is that the provide short stories that convey subtle moral problems in powerful and memorable ways.
The same is true for many religious parables, fairy tales and fables. Pretty much every culture has their own set.
Placed my first bet of the GE - an outside punt on Con to win Gateshead at 16/1. On paper this is a very safe Labour seat with a 17k majority but there is no Brexit party candidate and it is estimated the seat was 58% leave. Electoral Calculus are currently only estimating Labour to win by 300 votes so got to be some value there. Downside is the Con candidate lives in Surrey.
I hate to break this to you, but the fact that the candidate lives in Surrey is probably a little bit of a clue that the Tories aren't exactly going to be straining every sinew in that constituency.
I know those are err... unlikely... gains but couldn't the Tories have at least found paper candidates in the North East rather than from Surrey and central Westminster to contest Gateshead and Blaydon ?
Just noticed the Tory candidate for Ivan Lewis's old seat in Bury South is called Christian Wakeford. Presume his posters in Prestwich will read "Vote Wakeford"
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
If you take an IQ test and accept the result then you are probably about as clever as you think you are.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
Interesting that "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson seems to have lost over a quarter of those who think she would make best PM. A similar proportion to the fall in vote share for her party since she started with this crazy "I can be PM too" meme....
SHE has really bothered you, hasn't SHE?
Nope. Dispassionate political observation.
Keep looking for misogyny to tar me with if you like. You won't find it. There's far more men I dislike in politics.....
Mrs T was the best PM of my lifetime. Jo Swansong has the demeanor and mannerisms of a silly teenager and I suspect the aptitude.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
Is consensus, negotiation or coalition building the choice that provides the best answer?
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket.
Edinburgh West for the SNP could be a value bet if the LibDems continue to lag in the polls, and Swinson faces a lot of hostile attention.
SCon under-performed their Scotland-wide recovery here in 2017 and that was probably due to considerable tactical voting, which I think will unwind in 2019.
Also, the Michelle Thomson backlash/negative publicity has dissipated somewhat.
As ever, DYOR.
Good point. However, I still think that SCon voters will prioritise the Union. though. Both SCon and SNP are highlighting independence rather than Brexit as the defining issue. Ironically LibDems will benefit here. Should be an easy hold.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Ah, the dumb adversarial mindset.
General elections can aim to achieve fair parliamentary representation of the broadest views of the electorate, and then let those views be mediated through the workings of parliamentary democracy.
Or they can simply take a slice of opinion and give it intermittent dictatorial powers and near-permanent power of patronage.
You favour the second approach, but all evidence suggests that countries favouring the first out-perform countries favouring the second on metrics of wellbeing, freedom, human development, etc.
Good post. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having adversarial debates, so long as there is a good conflict resolution process to enable decision-making which garners the confidence and respect of all/most parties.
Conflicting perspectives are key to innovation, IMO. So the adversarial mindset is not the dumb part, the idea of term-limited dictatorships based on a plurality is.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
I'd have said, considering the opportunity they had here, the following ranges.
Great night: 60+ seats Good night: 50+ seats Satisfactory night: 40-49 OK night: 30-39 Bad night: 25-29 Very bad night: 21-25 Terrible night: Up to 20 Apocalyptic night: Single digits.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
Yes, Mr Thompson was just setting up a straw man. How a locally chosen person with less than half the vote can be said to reflect that area adequately eludes me.
Reminds me of that charge often leveled at someone "You're not as clever as you think you are."
Which always sends me into a tizz because of the implications of answering it.
If it's true you are bound to disagree. Although if you do disagree it does not mean that it is true. And if you agree it means it cannot be true. In which case you should not be agreeing.
If you take an IQ test and accept the result then you are probably about as clever as you think you are.
And you will have evidence to prove it.
Except if you think there is just one kind of intelligence that can be measured by one test, regardless of culture and context, you almost certainly are not as smart as you think you are.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
Yes, Mr Thompson was just setting up a straw man. How a locally chosen person with less than half the vote can be said to reflect that area adequately eludes me.
Every MP is a locally chosen person more popular than any other alternative on the night. Every single MP.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course there must be respect for minority rights and a right to oppose. But too often now Remainers and those opposed to the Government interpret this as meaning they must get their own way or else they are somehow being oppressed.
Not true. It is the Leavers who have described the right to object as being traitorous, and themselves as being the champion of the oppressed against "elites". Leavers have taken 2016 as carte blanche to do whatever they like and describe anything little short of breaking off diplomatic relations with the EU27 as "betraying the will of the people".
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
The fact that there is a Unionist majority rather holes your argument below the waterline, doesn't it? If they are in a majority within PR, they can still override the other sectors.
The issue with Northern Ireland is all to do with the politicians offered for election. If you have to be a sectarian bigot to get elected, then it is the population that have an issue to deal with. Kick out the sectarian bigots from both sides and life improves. The issue in NI is nothing to do with the voting system.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers. Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
You don’t have to be just have four member constituencies elected by STV keeps the link between MP and constituency and gives more people representation of their views in parliament.
No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas.
I think you are assuming that each elector has , say, four votes. This is what happens in local government elections with multi-member wards.
But with STV electors have a single vote, which can be transferred if it is not needed, for whatever reason. There is no way that one party would take all four seats, unless its candidates had won more than 80% of the votes.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
I'd have said, considering the opportunity they had here, the following ranges.
Great night: 60+ seats Good night: 50+ seats Satisfactory night: 40-49 OK night: 30-39 Bad night: 25-29 Very bad night: 21-25 Terrible night: Up to 20 Apocalyptic night: Single digits.
I must say, I much prefer @Morris_Dancer’s rankings based on famous battles.
"No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas."
For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
In an alternative reality where Ed Davey leads the LDs and stands as the left of centre pragmatist, not revoking but suggesting deal versus remain referendum: Tories 34, LD 28, Labour 24
Indeed. Perhaps. Though that would still in all likelihood leave Lab ahead of LDs on seats.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
It is unlikely they Lib Dems will win as many seats from the Cons as they lose to the Cons. And I am referring to seats they actually won rather than the seats they now hold. They will of course lose all those they now hold but did not win in 2017.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
I'd have said, considering the opportunity they had here, the following ranges.
Great night: 60+ seats Good night: 50+ seats Satisfactory night: 40-49 OK night: 30-39 Bad night: 25-29 Very bad night: 21-25 Terrible night: Up to 20 Apocalyptic night: Single digits.
I think that's a little harsh given the lack of ground support and the hollowing out of LD support in most areas of the country (eg they held Norwich S in 2010 and barely saved deposit in 2019). Anything over 40 imo would constitute a great night and a major breakthrough, anything over low 20s an acceptable night, under 20 a poor night, under 15 a disaster
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
The fact that there is a Unionist majority rather holes your argument below the waterline, doesn't it? If they are in a majority within PR, they can still override the other sectors.
The issue with Northern Ireland is all to do with the politicians offered for election. If you have to be a sectarian bigot to get elected, then it is the population that have an issue to deal with. Kick out the sectarian bigots from both sides and life improves. The issue in NI is nothing to do with the voting system.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand my point and the causes of the Troubles. I was talking about the period 1922 to suspension of the NI Parliament where, as I say, the UUP used their uninterrupted tum of power to trample on the rights of the minority. The post-1968 situation in NI resulted primarily from the denial of Nationalist Civil Rights by Unionists, which led to the marches of the late 60s, that they repressed, which in turn led to violence. The Unionists "Won" every election from the creation of NI until direct rule was reintroduced and used those victories to cement their position over the "Losers", which Mr Thompson appears to suggest was an acceptable thing to do, because the Nationalists "lost".
There were no Nationalist "sectarian bigots" elected to Stormont in that period. In fact, thanks to the Unionists gerrymandering and voter supression, there were very few nationalists elected at all, and those that were were largely from the constitutionalist Nationalists.
Will the bookies allow doubles and trebles on constituency bets does anybody know
Almost never. They'renot generally viewed as Independent events.
Backing Labour at say 100-1 in South Holland and the Deepings and the Tories at 100-1 in Bootle should be plenty longer than 10,000-1 mind.
Yes, which is why constituency markets are one of the very rare betting opportunities where you can take advantage of the fact that the contingencies are related and thus boost your overall reward/risk ratio.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course you should have minority rights and the right to oppose, I never said otherwise so not sure what point you're trying to make. 🤦♂️
What should the primary aim of an electoral system be if not to produce a parliament that accurately reflects what the people have voted for?
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
I don't know if you genuinely do not understand the proportional alternatives or are just being obtuse in order to defend the indefensible. Doesn't cut it either way. Why not just have the guts to admit you prefer a system that gives the Tories (or Labour) a majority even though the voters haven't voted for one. At least I could respect that
Who are the 16% who think Corbyn would be best PM.. They walk among us...
The question doesn't ask who you think would be best at the job. Thatcher was good at being PM. I would have preferred Foot based on what he would do, not on how good he would have been at doing it.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
While each has a plurality of support, not so many have a majority voting for them.
A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
"No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas." For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
Oh dear! Another Tory posting on here who does not know what he is talking about. CCHQ really ought to brief you better.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
Very few from Labour. In London, maybe Bermondsey & Old Southwark, but on the most recent polling seats like that are looking more out of reach than they seemed a couple of weeks ago.
In which case what are you defining as 'not a terrible night' for the Lib Dems?
Seems quite possible now that even with a few gains the Lib Dems will end the election with fewer MPs than they had at dissolution. That surely would be a terrible night for "next PM" Swinson and her team?
Yes, but they'll win some Conservative seats. The question is how many. As things stand, I expect them to end up in the mid-twenties overall. Whether that's a 'terrible night' depends on your view of what they could have done. My view is that that would be a terrible performance for them given the potential and the state of the two main parties.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
I'd have said, considering the opportunity they had here, the following ranges.
Great night: 60+ seats Good night: 50+ seats Satisfactory night: 40-49 OK night: 30-39 Bad night: 25-29 Very bad night: 21-25 Terrible night: Up to 20 Apocalyptic night: Single digits.
I think that's a little harsh given the lack of ground support and the hollowing out of LD support in most areas of the country (eg they held Norwich S in 2010 and barely saved deposit in 2019). Anything over 40 imo would constitute a great night and a major breakthrough, anything over low 20s an acceptable night, under 20 a poor night, under 15 a disaster
Whilst I completely accept that they are starting from a difficult place with a low base what are the chances they will have an election with someone as irredeemably useless as Corbyn in charge of one of the major parties again? This was their chance to break through into the big time and they seem to have blown it.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
Except for very many voters, and the country as a whole.
Who are the 16% who think Corbyn would be best PM.. They walk among us...
The question doesn't ask who you think would be best at the job. Thatcher was good at being PM. I would have preferred Foot based on what he would do, not on how good he would have been at doing it.
Likewise Jezza over Bozo. Or even Jojo over Bozo.
It begs the same question. 16% prefer Corbyn as Pm.. I guess that they are believers in the magic money tree.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
The fact that there is a Unionist majority rather holes your argument below the waterline, doesn't it? If they are in a majority within PR, they can still override the other sectors.
The issue with Northern Ireland is all to do with the politicians offered for election. If you have to be a sectarian bigot to get elected, then it is the population that have an issue to deal with. Kick out the sectarian bigots from both sides and life improves. The issue in NI is nothing to do with the voting system.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand my point and the causes of the Troubles. I was talking about the period 1922 to suspension of the NI Parliament where, as I say, the UUP used their uninterrupted tum of power to trample on the rights of the minority. The post-1968 situation in NI resulted primarily from the denial of Nationalist Civil Rights by Unionists, which led to the marches of the late 60s, that they repressed, which in turn led to violence. The Unionists "Won" every election from the creation of NI until direct rule was reintroduced and used those victories to cement their position over the "Losers", which Mr Thompson appears to suggest was an acceptable thing to do, because the Nationalists "lost".
There were no Nationalist "sectarian bigots" elected to Stormont in that period. In fact, thanks to the Unionists gerrymandering and voter supression, there were very few nationalists elected at all, and those that were were largely from the constitutionalist Nationalists.
Now there is the difference, I was looking at the present and on to the future, not history and past experiences.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
While each has a plurality of support, not so many have a majority voting for them.
A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
The same applies for every voting system. I do not consider that a third place ranking under a PR system means I voted for the winner. Indeed it is possible for someone to be elected under PR with less people putting them as first choice than one of the losers.
Who are the 16% who think Corbyn would be best PM.. They walk among us...
The question doesn't ask who you think would be best at the job. Thatcher was good at being PM. I would have preferred Foot based on what he would do, not on how good he would have been at doing it.
Likewise Jezza over Bozo. Or even Jojo over Bozo.
It begs the same question. 16% prefer Corbyn as Pm.. I guess that they are believers in the magic money tree.
I don't find 16% thinking Corbyn would be better at all odd.
Those who detest Boris, many of the younger cohort who are filled with good ideological views. Add in the proponents of the hard left, some Union supporters and it is an easily attainable number.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course there must be respect for minority rights and a right to oppose. But too often now Remainers and those opposed to the Government interpret this as meaning they must get their own way or else they are somehow being oppressed.
Not true. It is the Leavers who have described the right to object as being traitorous, and themselves as being the champion of the oppressed against "elites". Leavers have taken 2016 as carte blanche to do whatever they like and describe anything little short of breaking off diplomatic relations with the EU27 as "betraying the will of the people".
Making sweeping statements again are you Doug? Something you are quick enough to pick up on in others but it appears you lack the ability to expect the same standard in your own postings as you demand in others. Very poor form.
Does anyone have a tip for a constituency bet with odds larger than evens? Got a tenner burning a hole in my pocket."
Richard_Nabavi said: "Cambridge, Labour, 2.75"
Thanks for that Richard - I `m on. Got 2/1 with Victor Chandler.
If the Lib Dems don't take Cambridge they'll have had a terrible, terrible night.
I'm not so sure about that. Cambridge is a bit of a special case, with a Labour MP well suited to the constituency. I can see the LibDems failing to win there but still doing well in parts of London, Cheltenham etc.
Depends how you define a good night for the Lib Dems.
Other than perhaps Kensington which Labour seats do you see them taking?
Hallam. Very easily.
Yes that should be so far in the bag I'd forgotten about it already. It would be an insane night for them not to retake that.
they're slight favs for Leeds NW. should be close.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
A very blinkered and narrow minded comment. A key point of living in a democracy is the respect for minority rights and the right to oppose. Go live in a system where one faction has untrammelled power and see how you like it.
Of course there must be respect for minority rights and a right to oppose. But too often now Remainers and those opposed to the Government interpret this as meaning they must get their own way or else they are somehow being oppressed.
Not true. It is the Leavers who have described the right to object as being traitorous, and themselves as being the champion of the oppressed against "elites". Leavers have taken 2016 as carte blanche to do whatever they like and describe anything little short of breaking off diplomatic relations with the EU27 as "betraying the will of the people".
Making sweeping statements again are you Doug? Something you are quick enough to pick up on in others but it appears you lack the ability to expect the same standard in your own postings as you demand in others. Very poor form.
I gave up trying and decided to join the rest of you. If you can't beat 'em, join em.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
While each has a plurality of support, not so many have a majority voting for them.
A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
The same applies for every voting system. I do not consider that a third place ranking under a PR system means I voted for the winner. Indeed it is possible for someone to be elected under PR with less people putting them as first choice than one of the losers.
If that couldn’t happen, there wouldn’t be much point.
Obsessing over the minutiae of voting reform is not something most voters find attractive I suspect.
The fact that there is a Unionist majority rather holes your argument below the waterline, doesn't it? If they are in a majority within PR, they can still override the other sectors.
The issue with Northern Ireland is all to do with the politicians offered for election. If you have to be a sectarian bigot to get elected, then it is the population that have an issue to deal with. Kick out the sectarian bigots from both sides and life improves. The issue in NI is nothing to do with the voting system.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand my point and the causes of the Troubles. I was talking about the period 1922 to suspension of the NI Parliament where, as I say, the UUP used their uninterrupted tum of power to trample on the rights of the minority. The post-1968 situation in NI resulted primarily from the denial of Nationalist Civil Rights by Unionists, which led to the marches of the late 60s, that they repressed, which in turn led to violence. The Unionists "Won" every election from the creation of NI until direct rule was reintroduced and used those victories to cement their position over the "Losers", which Mr Thompson appears to suggest was an acceptable thing to do, because the Nationalists "lost".
There were no Nationalist "sectarian bigots" elected to Stormont in that period. In fact, thanks to the Unionists gerrymandering and voter supression, there were very few nationalists elected at all, and those that were were largely from the constitutionalist Nationalists.
Now there is the difference, I was looking at the present and on to the future, not history and past experiences.
One can be changed, and one cannot.
I was using an example from the past to illustrate my point to Mr Thompson. I wasn't making a direct comment about current or future NI politics. I could easily have used a number of others - the Igbos in Nigeria and the creation of Biafra for example.
The BBC's Digital Election team has found that the Lib Dems bought 2,000 ads at the weekend - and almost all of those were targeted at fewer than 1,000 people.
The BBC's Digital Election team has found that the Lib Dems bought 2,000 ads at the weekend - and almost all of those were targeted at fewer than 1,000 people.
The BBC's Digital Election team has found that the Lib Dems bought 2,000 ads at the weekend - and almost all of those were targeted at fewer than 1,000 people.
You and Mrs Urquhart?
I don't really do Facebook, but as far as I can see I have escaped such punishment...only the paper variety so far.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
By the same argument, every elected MP in any parliament and any voting system is a winner. There are no losers in any parliament.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
While each has a plurality of support, not so many have a majority voting for them.
A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
The same applies for every voting system. I do not consider that a third place ranking under a PR system means I voted for the winner. Indeed it is possible for someone to be elected under PR with less people putting them as first choice than one of the losers.
"Let's take revoke, remain, second referendum, people's vote etc off the table as soon as we can" is a less snappy soundbite.
What comes after is less important if you're worried that your 2016 vote is going to be ignored completely.
Well, my vote is ignored completely in every single bloody election, so it's hardly a new experience for people in this country.
But this populist approach followed by inevitable failure is going to make fertile ground for fascism.
Your vote isn't ignored if you lose the election, you just lost. Elections have winners and losers.
Its remarkable that some people now think "all must have prizes" must now be extended to elections and not just primary school sports days.
That's simply not true. Even in a FPTP system the "losers" have a say in the makeup of the Government in the case of a hung parliament. In other systems, PR, AV etc, people's second preferences are taken into account. It's also a dumb way of looking at it. The problem with treating democracy as a zero sum game is that you end up with a dictatorship of the majority and the minority become disillusioned with the system (c.f. Northern Ireland where the Unionist majority chose to ignore the Nationalist minority entirely and reaped the consequences). That is particularly true where the minority is a very very substantial one, in fact barely a minority at all.
In FPTP every MP is a winner.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
By the same argument, every elected MP in any parliament and any voting system is a winner. There are no losers in any parliament.
There were an extraordinary large number of losers in the last Parliament. Mainly of the bad variety too.
While each has a plurality of support, not so many have a majority voting for them. A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
The same applies for every voting system. I do not consider that a third place ranking under a PR system means I voted for the winner. Indeed it is possible for someone to be elected under PR with less people putting them as first choice than one of the losers.
Of course, Mr Tyndall. Imagine that the Conservatives were wildly, overwhelmingly popular. They put up several candidates in the multi-member seat. One of them - a favourite son, say - is elected on first preferences by a landslide. The votes he does not need are transferred, and then a second Conservative is elected. Yet a candidate who in the end is not elected may have had more first preference votes than the second Conservative did.
"No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas."
For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
A weird way of looking at it. The hard left and the hard right would only be favoured if the electorate wanted hard left and hard right MPs, which I suggest isn't the case. In a new constituency, consisting of 3 or 4 existing ones most people would have voted for an MP who got elected - and those that didn't would probably have their 2nd choice elected. Of course you would still have by-elections under STV* but since only one person would be elected it's equivalent to AV (so TSE would be pleased).
*You don't seem to fully understand STV, try googling.
The BBC's Digital Election team has found that the Lib Dems bought 2,000 ads at the weekend - and almost all of those were targeted at fewer than 1,000 people.
The BBC's Digital Election team has found that the Lib Dems bought 2,000 ads at the weekend - and almost all of those were targeted at fewer than 1,000 people.
Spoke to a number of candidates today. None of them think the polls reflect what they’re currently experiencing on the ground. With possible exception of LD squeeze, which seems real.
"No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas."
For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
And at that size, you start to lose the local link with MPs. It's not so bad in cities - a single Birmingham or South Yorkshire 'constituency' perhaps, with 6-10 people representing them.
But out in the sticks, you'd end up with the whole of Cumbria and Northumberland in the same region - or Worcs, Herefordshire and Shropshire. That's a big ask for 'local' representation.
(I'm in favour of a more proportional system, by the way... but I do think this will remain a key and well-principled argument against)
No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas.
I think you are assuming that each elector has , say, four votes. This is what happens in local government elections with multi-member wards.
But with STV electors have a single vote, which can be transferred if it is not needed, for whatever reason. There is no way that one party would take all four seats, unless its candidates had won more than 80% of the votes.
Not what I'm assuming at all, you misunderstand me. Let me make it clearer with an example.
I used to live in a constituency called Newcastle-under-Lyme which coincidentally has a PBer standing this year for election. It is the most Northwesternly constituency within Stafford. On the North and West is another county, on its East it is bordered by 3 constituencies: Stoke on Trent South, Stoke on Trent Central and Stoke on Trent North. South of Stoke and Newcastle is the large rural constituency of Stone.
Logically if you were to merge constituencies so you had a quarter as many constituencies each with 4 MPs then you will likely find the 3 Stoke constituencies and the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency merged to one constituency which should logically simply be called Stoke on Trent.
Currently whoever is elected for the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency is responsible for representing the population of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Newcastle despite being a smaller town has its own distinct voice. If however you were to merge the constituencies into one voted by STV then as it stands you'd probably have 2 Stoke on Trent Labour MPs and 2 Stoke on Trent Tory MPs and none of them would be specifically responsible for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Under your model all 4 MPs would likely end up based in Stoke, all 4 MPs would likely do most of their campaigning in Stoke, all 4 MPs would likely do most of the constituency casework in Stoke and Newcastle would get relatively ignored compared to now. The Tories and Labour Party would both find many more voters in Stoke than in Newcastle.
"No it doesn't. 4 member constituencies is just looking to reverse engineer a system to suit your agenda. 4x the constituency size means what can still be quite large areas with then an incentive to prioritise the larger populations within those areas."
For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
And at that size, you start to lose the local link with MPs. It's not so bad in cities - a single Birmingham or South Yorkshire 'constituency' perhaps, with 6-10 people representing them.
But out in the sticks, you'd end up with the whole of Cumbria and Northumberland in the same region - or Worcs, Herefordshire and Shropshire. That's a big ask for 'local' representation.
(I'm in favour of a more proportional system, by the way... but I do think this will remain a key and well-principled argument against)
The counter arguments are that the boundaries of such seats would be easier to match up with natural communities - cities or local government areas - and avoid the highly artificial nature of many current single member seats, with towns or villages tacked onto seats, or artificially divided, just to ‘balance the numbers’. Boundary reviews would be easier as the opportunity to adjust the number of members rather than the boundaries would enable more stable representational geography. People within those seats would be able to pick a person or political party to deal with their casework who they feel best represents them, rather than be forced to contact someone they don’t respect or agree with as now.
The Tory membership are not as extreme as people make out.
Without having a pop at you personally nor the other Con supporters who grace this board with their presence and the party with their membership, I genuinely don't think that's true. If it helps, the others are also bad, just in different directions.
What evidence do you base that on?
Mostly television coverage of the various MPs, occasionally posters to this board, sometimes MPs I have met (although the latter are rare).
Happy to hear counter-evidence and I acknowledge that those MPs on this board ( @NickPalmer and @Tissue_Price ) and activists/canvassers (@MarqueeMark, @david_herdson , @isam , @HYUFD, others? ) are decent fellows, but party members, activists and MPs do have a tendency to not just repeat the party line but also believe it, and also later believe the exact opposite if expedient. It is a striking characteristic.
Plus the use of arguments from the political toolset ("that study has been discredited"/ad hominem attacks/"I find it interesting that"/no assumption of innocence/others) that civilians use less.
I've only ever voted Conservative once, for the London Mayoralty. Certainly not an activist or canvasser for them.
FPTP does accurately reflect what the people have voted for. Each constituency has one locally chosen person that reflects that areas votes.
I'm not sure why votes here in the NW should be mixed in with votes from London, or even Manchester or elsewhere when we have different priorities and issues.
Comments
The same is true for many religious parables, fairy tales and fables. Pretty much every culture has their own set.
However, a few bookies offer special odds on particular combinations.
And you will have evidence to prove it.
Of course things may change over the next couple of weeks. I think a lot of voters who might be open to voting LibDem are still undecided, but at the moment things seems to be trending in the wrong direction for the LibDems.
Good post. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having adversarial debates, so long as there is a good conflict resolution process to enable decision-making which garners the confidence and respect of all/most parties.
Conflicting perspectives are key to innovation, IMO. So the adversarial mindset is not the dumb part, the idea of term-limited dictatorships based on a plurality is.
Great night: 60+ seats
Good night: 50+ seats
Satisfactory night: 40-49
OK night: 30-39
Bad night: 25-29
Very bad night: 21-25
Terrible night: Up to 20
Apocalyptic night: Single digits.
There are no losers in Parliament in FPTP.
How a locally chosen person with less than half the vote can be said to reflect that area adequately eludes me.
The issue with Northern Ireland is all to do with the politicians offered for election. If you have to be a sectarian bigot to get elected, then it is the population that have an issue to deal with. Kick out the sectarian bigots from both sides and life improves. The issue in NI is nothing to do with the voting system.
But with STV electors have a single vote, which can be transferred if it is not needed, for whatever reason. There is no way that one party would take all four seats, unless its candidates had won more than 80% of the votes.
For Single Transferable Vote to work you need constituencies returning between 6 and 10 members - even in Ireland they are far too small to be proportional. Also you should not have by-elections under STV as the largest party will always hoover up seats as representatives of smaller parties die. If we did turn to STV then the electorate would move away from the centre as people voted for what they really wanted rather than what they thought they could have. Would favour hard left and Brexit at the same time. Then, like in Ireland they would all go into informal coalition and stick two fingers up at the electorate.
There were no Nationalist "sectarian bigots" elected to Stormont in that period. In fact, thanks to the Unionists gerrymandering and voter supression, there were very few nationalists elected at all, and those that were were largely from the constitutionalist Nationalists.
Likewise Jezza over Bozo. Or even Jojo over Bozo.
A majority of voters in the country voted for someone other than their MP. Great system, FPTP.
One can be changed, and one cannot.
Those who detest Boris, many of the younger cohort who are filled with good ideological views. Add in the proponents of the hard left, some Union supporters and it is an easily attainable number.
Obsessing over the minutiae of voting reform is not something most voters find attractive I suspect.
Who Leavers support
Conservative 71% (+12)
Labour 10% (+1)
#Brexit party 8% (-14)
Lib Dem 4% (+1)
YouGov 11-12 Nov
Prompt for parties in constituency
#GE2019
I thought there were EU rules on business rates?
The hard left and the hard right would only be favoured if the electorate wanted hard left and hard right MPs, which I suggest isn't the case.
In a new constituency, consisting of 3 or 4 existing ones most people would have voted for an MP who got elected - and those that didn't would probably have their 2nd choice elected.
Of course you would still have by-elections under STV* but since only one person would be elected it's equivalent to AV (so TSE would be pleased).
*You don't seem to fully understand STV, try googling.
(((Dan Hodges)))
✔
@DPJHodges
Spoke to a number of candidates today. None of them think the polls reflect what they’re currently experiencing on the ground. With possible exception of LD squeeze, which seems real.
2017 redux?
NEW THREAD
But out in the sticks, you'd end up with the whole of Cumbria and Northumberland in the same region - or Worcs, Herefordshire and Shropshire. That's a big ask for 'local' representation.
(I'm in favour of a more proportional system, by the way... but I do think this will remain a key and well-principled argument against)
https://twitter.com/BBCTomSymonds/status/1196464934055530496
I used to live in a constituency called Newcastle-under-Lyme which coincidentally has a PBer standing this year for election. It is the most Northwesternly constituency within Stafford. On the North and West is another county, on its East it is bordered by 3 constituencies: Stoke on Trent South, Stoke on Trent Central and Stoke on Trent North. South of Stoke and Newcastle is the large rural constituency of Stone.
Logically if you were to merge constituencies so you had a quarter as many constituencies each with 4 MPs then you will likely find the 3 Stoke constituencies and the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency merged to one constituency which should logically simply be called Stoke on Trent.
Currently whoever is elected for the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency is responsible for representing the population of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Newcastle despite being a smaller town has its own distinct voice. If however you were to merge the constituencies into one voted by STV then as it stands you'd probably have 2 Stoke on Trent Labour MPs and 2 Stoke on Trent Tory MPs and none of them would be specifically responsible for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Under your model all 4 MPs would likely end up based in Stoke, all 4 MPs would likely do most of their campaigning in Stoke, all 4 MPs would likely do most of the constituency casework in Stoke and Newcastle would get relatively ignored compared to now. The Tories and Labour Party would both find many more voters in Stoke than in Newcastle.
And you support Brexit. Strange that.
But tell me again how Johnson didn't write the letter...