Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s leadership rules will limit the number of nominees and c

245678

Comments

  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106


    True, we're all guessing at the moment - but another effect of the 2017 debacle is that both the MRP and the exit poll have gained credibility. If the update on Tuesday points one way and the exit poll concurs then the probability is that they'll be right. So if that's the case and everyone's prediction at 10:01 is therefore "what the exit poll just said" then we're all liable to be pretty much spot on :smile:

    You wouldn't want to be stood in the way on the exchanges if they do tally.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,800
    edited December 2019

    I'm a bit surprised that the overall narrative (including this well written header) is now accepting the certainty of a Tory win and we seem to be moving on to the discussion of the consequences.

    I think that is where we will get to...probably a substantial majority for the blue team (maybe 60+ or so). But who knows?

    If this happens though, I suspect the losing teams will have to go through a rethink before (or during) their leadership elections. Brexit will suddenly be a fact, not an opinion, for example. Adaptation to a "new normal" will be highly traumatic for Labour and, especially, the LibDems, but maybe cathartic too in ways that are hard to predict.



    Despite campaigning for the Lib Dems, there's a part of me that is secretly hoping for a clear Tory majority. Then Boris Johnson will have to fully own the never-ending disaster that Brexit will inevitably become. I will, of course, grieve for the enormous economic and political damage incurred by our country, but at least I will know that I did what I could to try to prevent it.

    The Lib Dems will, of course, benefit hugely as Boris's lies wither under the hard light of reality, just as they did when Blair's lies about WMD were exposed. It's just a shame that, again, so many people will have to suffer because of these lies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    edited December 2019
    SunnyJim said:

    Something similar could be made about the Tories i'm sure but this is fascinating all the same...

    https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1203209274391814144

    The one who comes out of that with credit is the lady in the hat, who didn't change her views on the nature of the comments. The rest of them...
  • Jonathan said:

    With 10 mins to go before polls closed last time some people posted Labour 150-199 seats and the Tories pushing 400.

    What were you saying?
  • Jonathan said:

    To answer any Labour contest you need to understand union politics in particular the difficult relationship between GMB and Unite. Look at who sponsors which MP and you’ll better understand the potential candidates.

    O/t, I know, but reflecting on the Leaders debates, and last night's efforts I would say that I really do not understand why Ms Sturgeon is such a hate figure among the Tories, apart of course from the fact that she took a lot of Scottish Tory seats. Both she and the Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price, seem sensible, grounded people. Swinson, I thought, is suffering from being promoted too soon. If she survives, she may do a lot better next time round. Corbyn is beginning to look, and sound old and Johnson has confirmed my (and my wife's) opinion of him as a blustering liar and has added cowardice to his other vices.
    She hasn’t taken any Conservative seats. At least not yet. In fact, she’s partly responsible for the Tory resurgence up here!
  • I do wish the media would stop with this "fourth term" bollocks.

    We're having a fourth GE, sure, but it's well before the planned end of Cameron's second term.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    Well yes, I had a passport.

    Unless it was being renewed. Or was with the Indian embassy getting a visa for ten weeks.

    It's very easy to cut personation to zero. People without ID can vote, but are required to have their photo taken (and you could even add fingerprints too). It would eliminate the practise (if it were widespread), and would not depress turnout of the young and the poor.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    I've given up making predictions. The data is confusing and in any case the plausible conclusions are too depressing. Whichever side wins there will be a racist with a track record of supporting violence who thinks the truth is for losers as PM.

    But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
    Last time people couldn’t predict the result after the polls had closed and the exit poll was published.
    Yes, people got wildly over excited by early declarations in safe Labour seats that showed swing to the Tories and declared it would be a landslide and Curtice was wrong.

    But as result after result matched the YouGov MRP people should have wised up faster.
    Yougov MRP was very good. If it gets it right this time round, that will be useful info. It seems to match up broadly with the Bents Green Labour and Killamarsh Tory vibe I've got from my local patch.
    Maybe they can build a statue to Corbyn in Canterbury after all
    Bloody students.

    I didn't like students even when I was a student.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    The great surprise of 2019 might yet be asymmetric turn-out - Brexiteers determined to vote come hell or high water, Remainers finally conceding they've lost and not prepared to give their vote to parties who buggered up their chance to overturn the referendum.
    Though it might well be the reverse, with low turnout amongst C2DE Leavers and high turnout amongst ABC1 Remainers... :)

    I do think turnout is key to this election. That is the reason that polls in 2016 and 2017 were wrong, and still very hard to get correct. I think YouGov have the best data on this as they adjust to what voters actually did last time rather than self reported likelihood to vote.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The “600 seats” has been dropped, hasn’t it?
    Yes and no.

    The boundary commissions recommendations (which are increasingly out of date) are based around 600 seats. They would need to redo the exercise to get it to 650.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,596
    ydoethur said:

    SunnyJim said:

    Something similar could be made about the Tories i'm sure but this is fascinating all the same...

    https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1203209274391814144

    The one who comes out of that with credit is the lady in the hat, who didn't change her views on the nature of the comments. The rest of them...
    Second guy in particular - “well, the Jews do have a lot of power...”.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,997
    edited December 2019
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    I agree, it was always a slightly bizarre gesture by Cameron. Yes MPs are greedy, thieving people of doubtful parentage so I will sort this by having 50 fewer of them. If we are to go back to 650, however, the EC needs to get straight on it. No more messing about. This really has to be the last election on the current boundaries.
    To maintain 650 seats, Parliament will have to amend the 2011 Act which prescribes 600. Only then can the Boundary Commission start its work. If nothing changes, the Commission will work on the basis of 600 constituencies as it has done with commendable efficiency in the last two Parliaments.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,893

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    I've given up making predictions. The data is confusing and in any case the plausible conclusions are too depressing. Whichever side wins there will be a racist with a track record of supporting violence who thinks the truth is for losers as PM.

    But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
    Last time people couldn’t predict the result after the polls had closed and the exit poll was published.
    Yes, people got wildly over excited by early declarations in safe Labour seats that showed swing to the Tories and declared it would be a landslide and Curtice was wrong.

    But as result after result matched the YouGov MRP people should have wised up faster.
    Yougov MRP was very good. If it gets it right this time round, that will be useful info. It seems to match up broadly with the Bents Green Labour and Killamarsh Tory vibe I've got from my local patch.
    Maybe they can build a statue to Corbyn in Canterbury after all
    Bloody students.

    I didn't like students even when I was a student.
    We’re you born old?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,917
    edited December 2019
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins a majority he will block indyref2 and unless nationalists win most seats in NI, unlikely now a hard border with the Republic of Ireland has been avoided thanks to the Boris Deal, under the GFA ministers will also be able to block any Irish unity poll
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.

    The Cameron/Osborne changes were designed to help the Tories as they were in the early 2010s. The Tories in 2019 will have a very different voting demographic based much more around the low turnout northern and midland seats that were targeted for substantial change and abolition last time around. There will have to be very careful thought put into the next guidelines for redrawing if the Tories are to benefit long-term.

    Last time I looked the boundary commission members had no political affiliation. Indeed in Scotland the members usually include a judge and a surveyor. Clearly Labour is happy for the Western Isles to return an MP on an electorate of roughly 20,000 and the Isle of Wight on 140,000. In 21st century with vastly improved transport and communications, tiny island seats should be scrapped. I would amalgamate Western Isles with Ross and Cromarty and Orkney and Shetland with Caithness and Sutherland.
    All constituencies should have between 60,000 and 70,000 voters. Not hard. Not discriminatory. And doesn't have such a ridiculously tight band that you end up breaking up natural town sized constituencies too often.
  • Starmer's chances hinge to me on quite precisely where we've got to on Brexit.

    If it's still in play, he'll have a good chance.

    If the FTA is done and dusted, and there's no full leadership contest until well into 2021, then no.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.
    Boundaries should automatically be updated after every GE, but there is more than a slight whiff of voter suppression to the Tory plans. Particularly so when one considers the removal of parliamentary and judicial restraints on the executive that are also planned. We do not have the balanced powers of a written Constitutional, and we have already seen the contempt that Johnson and Cummings have for our unwritten constitution.
    So extending voting rights to Brits abroad suppresses voting rights along with equalising constituencies as those fascist Chartist campaigned for on the 19th century! It's a view.
    No, extending the vote to Brits abroad is a different form of manipulation. Why should someone who emigrated decades before have a vote here? I am thinking more of the need for photo ID as a form of vote suppression, though ironically that would probably most disenfranchised the poorer CDE voters that the Tories are supposedly picking up at the moment.
    Citizens living abroad have the right to vote as they generally cannot vote in their country of residence. I emigrated 10 years ago and have paid taxes to the UK continously. Your last point about photo ID is ridiculous.
    I do think that voters abroad should need some ongoing connection to the country, but overall the numbers are not large, and I do think that the numbers retiring to the Costas will be sharply down post Brexit.
    Having ten million people none of whom live here potentially swaying an election is an outrage. That in reality few of them bother doesn’t weaken the point - indeed it underlines their lack of active involvement with the Uk. I can’t vote in seats where I used to live, regardless of what social connections I still might have there; nor should they.
  • Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    I've given up making predictions. The data is confusing and in any case the plausible conclusions are too depressing. Whichever side wins there will be a racist with a track record of supporting violence who thinks the truth is for losers as PM.

    But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
    Last time people couldn’t predict the result after the polls had closed and the exit poll was published.
    Yes, people got wildly over excited by early declarations in safe Labour seats that showed swing to the Tories and declared it would be a landslide and Curtice was wrong.

    But as result after result matched the YouGov MRP people should have wised up faster.
    Yougov MRP was very good. If it gets it right this time round, that will be useful info. It seems to match up broadly with the Bents Green Labour and Killamarsh Tory vibe I've got from my local patch.
    Maybe they can build a statue to Corbyn in Canterbury after all
    Bloody students.

    I didn't like students even when I was a student.
    We’re you born old?
    Nah. Just found them annoying, sheepish and dickish. Particularly in groups.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,917
    edited December 2019
    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    I also said there were more undecided voters than any other election and of course Yougov MRP projected a hung parliament, it has a Tory majority of 68 this time
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,822
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    I also said there werw more undecided voters than any other election and of course Yougov MRP projected a hung parliament, it has a Tory majority of 68 this time
    I don't think the next one will be as high as that but I would be very surprised if it doesn't continue to show a comfortable majority.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266
    SunnyJim said:


    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.

    These proposals all seem reasonable and prudent to me.

    Which ones in particular do you object to?
    As a voteless person, I like g), but I can also understand those who support the coupling of voting rights to residency (with exceptions for military and civil servants such as diplomats living abroad on government service).
  • eekeek Posts: 19,254

    Starmer's chances hinge to me on quite precisely where we've got to on Brexit.

    If it's still in play, he'll have a good chance.

    If the FTA is done and dusted, and there's no full leadership contest until well into 2021, then no.

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins a majority he will block indyref2 and unless nationalists win most seats in NI, unlikely now a hard border with the Republic of Ireland has been avoided thanks to the Boris Deal, under the GFA ministers will also be able to block any Irish unity poll
    How exactly do ministers block a border poll?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    I've given up making predictions. The data is confusing and in any case the plausible conclusions are too depressing. Whichever side wins there will be a racist with a track record of supporting violence who thinks the truth is for losers as PM.

    But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
    Last time people couldn’t predict the result after the polls had closed and the exit poll was published.
    How about having a stab at Arundel and South Downs and Horsham ;)
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    It made more sense when we were always going to be in the EU and so the European Parliament etc. were performing some of the legislative work that had been done at Westminster. If we leave then that argument no longer holds.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,917
    edited December 2019
    eek said:

    Starmer's chances hinge to me on quite precisely where we've got to on Brexit.

    If it's still in play, he'll have a good chance.

    If the FTA is done and dusted, and there's no full leadership contest until well into 2021, then no.

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins a majority he will block indyref2 and unless nationalists win most seats in NI, unlikely now a hard border with the Republic of Ireland has been avoided thanks to the Boris Deal, under the GFA ministers will also be able to block any Irish unity poll
    How exactly do ministers block a border poll?
    Quite simple, refuse one. A Government with a majority under our constitution is all powerful.

    Sinn Fein are not in power at Stormont anyway so unlike the SNP cannot even ask for one
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.

    The Cameron/Osborne changes were designed to help the Tories as they were in the early 2010s. The Tories in 2019 will have a very different voting demographic based much more around the low turnout northern and midland seats that were targeted for substantial change and abolition last time around. There will have to be very careful thought put into the next guidelines for redrawing if the Tories are to benefit long-term.

    Last time I looked the boundary commission members had no political affiliation. Indeed in Scotland the members usually include a judge and a surveyor. Clearly Labour is happy for the Western Isles to return an MP on an electorate of roughly 20,000 and the Isle of Wight on 140,000. In 21st century with vastly improved transport and communications, tiny island seats should be scrapped. I would amalgamate Western Isles with Ross and Cromarty and Orkney and Shetland with Caithness and Sutherland.
    The most recent review exempted the Western and Northern Isles on the grounds of geographical isolation and distinctiveness, and the Isle of Wight so that part of the island wouldn't have to share an MP with the mainland. In each case electors would therefore find themselves living in under rather than over sized seats (as the Isle of Wight was to be divided into two equal halves.) These were the only exceptions to equalisation, and they seem entirely reasonable given the circumstances.
    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.
  • IanB2 said:


    Having ten million people none of whom live here potentially swaying an election is an outrage. That in reality few of them bother doesn’t weaken the point - indeed it underlines their lack of active involvement with the Uk. I can’t vote in seats where I used to live, regardless of what social connections I still might have there; nor should they.

    How can people who don't vote in the election sway the result???
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,023

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    It's silly to assume that just because a party loses one (or even three) elections that they will be out of the picture for ever. Of course, before the Tory win of 2015, they had failed to win a majority four times in a row - the first three by a considerable margin.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    The great surprise of 2019 might yet be asymmetric turn-out - Brexiteers determined to vote come hell or high water, Remainers finally conceding they've lost and not prepared to give their vote to parties who buggered up their chance to overturn the referendum.
    I am really not prepared to make a seat prediction, as I think the distribution of parties' votes could change dramatically this election, and so seat count will be highly susceptible to smallish changes in % terms.

    That said, I expect the Tories to get 41-43%, Labour 31-35%, and the LDs 11-13%
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483


    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.



    The Cameron/Osborne changes were designed to help the Tories as they were in the early 2010s. The Tories in 2019 will have a very different voting demographic based much more around the low turnout northern and midland seats that were targeted for substantial change and abolition last time around. There will have to be very careful thought put into the next guidelines for redrawing if the Tories are to benefit long-term.



    Last time I looked the boundary commission members had no political affiliation. Indeed in Scotland the members usually include a judge and a surveyor. Clearly Labour is happy for the Western Isles to return an MP on an electorate of roughly 20,000 and the Isle of Wight on 140,000. In 21st century with vastly improved transport and communications, tiny island seats should be scrapped. I would amalgamate Western Isles with Ross and Cromarty and Orkney and Shetland with Caithness and Sutherland.

    The most recent review exempted the Western and Northern Isles on the grounds of geographical isolation and distinctiveness, and the Isle of Wight so that part of the island wouldn't have to share an MP with the mainland. In each case electors would therefore find themselves living in under rather than over sized seats (as the Isle of Wight was to be divided into two equal halves.) These were the only exceptions to equalisation, and they seem entirely reasonable given the circumstances.

    A classical PB pedant point is that the IOW is simply required to be divided (under the previous criterion) - they didn’t make any stipulation that the division had to be “equal”

    I think that the problem for the IOW was not just partition, but also that part of the IOW
    would have to be combined with a chunk of the mainland in order to reach equal sizes.
    East and West Wight at 70 000 each would have been too small.

    Each one would still be far bigger than Na h-Eileanan an Iar which has only 21,000
    electors, but which for some bizarre reason is a special case.

  • rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    The young are probably the most likely to carry photo ID as they need it for proof of age. How many on here have ever been ‘carded’ at a club or pub?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins a majority he will block indyref2 and unless nationalists win most seats in NI, unlikely now a hard border with the Republic of Ireland has been avoided thanks to the Boris Deal, under the GFA ministers will also be able to block any Irish unity poll
    Holding territories against the will of their peoples is not sustainable for long, and does further fuel nationalist resentments. If 2021 produces a pro Indy Holyrood parliament, as seems likely, it is hard to deny that referendum.Such high handedness by Unionists is probably the surest way to lose a referendum when it does happen.

    I think both Irish unification and Scottish independence are increasingly likely. Political divergence from England is becoming so extreme, but I agree that the time course is less nailed on.
  • I'm not sure about a Labour leadership contest. Why would they want to do so at their moment of triumph? Labour sub 200 means literally scores of hated Blairites defeated. The PLP will finally have been reshaped to reflect views of the Stalinists and that paves the way towards True Socialism.

    I look forward to welcoming Keir Starmer to the Liberal Democrats.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    SunnyJim said:

    Something similar could be made about the Tories i'm sure but this is fascinating all the same...

    https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1203209274391814144

    Amazing how they try to rationalise it, apart from one lady.
  • IanB2 said:


    Having ten million people none of whom live here potentially swaying an election is an outrage. That in reality few of them bother doesn’t weaken the point - indeed it underlines their lack of active involvement with the Uk. I can’t vote in seats where I used to live, regardless of what social connections I still might have there; nor should they.

    How can people who don't vote in the election sway the result???
    Simples. Imagine the fun if 30-40% of 2017 voters for one party or another chose to stay at home whilst the other side only lose 5% to apathy...
  • IanB2 said:

    I note that Bozo continues to troll Mrs May by sending Nicky Morgan onto the airwaves just as she is pouring her cornflakes each morning

    The Tories’ surprise giveaway for the final weekend is a World Cup bid.

    I’m sure Qatar could tell us how much we need to pay FIFA for one...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,534
    edited December 2019
    The polls in the next few days will be unusually important in framing the narrative. Because of what happened last time, everyone will be looking for some sign of a repeat. If this doesn't happen, the chances of a tory majority will be very much solidified.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,020
    edited December 2019

    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.

    I think it's also that if you have a disproportional system and you reduce the number of seats you increase the disproportionality.

    (Imagine the extreme cases: If everyone in the country had their own seat with one voter, the system would be completely proportional. If the country only had one seat, it would be extremely disproportional, with the winning party getting all 1 of the seats.)
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,266
    rcs1000 said:



    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.

    On the same basis as the over-representation of the small US rural states in Congress, I am happy to see certain small British communities over-represented if their needs are distinct and not shared with other communities. If Orkney & Shetland have distinct needs to those of the Western Isles, I'm more than happy for them both to be represented separately and both be even more over-represented, rather than for neither of them to have the own, dedicated, undiluted representation. After all, in a House of 650, or even 600, have 2 or 3 constituencies over represented, even if greatly in percentage terms, does not materially alter the overall situation.

    However, if their needs are broadly similar, then sure, they should be lumped together.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    IanB2 said:


    Having ten million people none of whom live here potentially swaying an election is an outrage. That in reality few of them bother doesn’t weaken the point - indeed it underlines their lack of active involvement with the Uk. I can’t vote in seats where I used to live, regardless of what social connections I still might have there; nor should they.

    How can people who don't vote in the election sway the result???
    Did you skip over "potentially"?

    The fact that it is even possible is bad enough.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    I also said there were more undecided voters than any other election and of course Yougov MRP projected a hung parliament, it has a Tory majority of 68 this time
    Another classic.

    Most of us were wrong in 2017. Not HY, of course.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    edited December 2019
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.

    "I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID."

    Do you know how many UK driving licences are in issue, for example?

    49 million.

    In 2017, there were 6.9m British passports issued. Given they have a 10 year life, you have a reasonable basis for the ballpark number in issue by multiplying by 10. Obviously that will include children. But it does suggest the great bulk of the population have one or the other.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.

    The Cameron/Osborne changes were designed to help the Tories as they were in the early 2010s. The Tories in 2019 will have a very different voting demographic based much more around the low turnout northern and midland seats that were targeted for substantial change and abolition last time around. There will have to be very careful thought put into the next guidelines for redrawing if the Tories are to benefit long-term.

    Last time I looked the boundary commission members had no political affiliation. Indeed in Scotland the members usually include a judge and a surveyor. Clearly Labour is happy for the Western Isles to return an MP on an electorate of roughly 20,000 and the Isle of Wight on 140,000. In 21st century with vastly improved transport and communications, tiny island seats should be scrapped. I would amalgamate Western Isles with Ross and Cromarty and Orkney and Shetland with Caithness and Sutherland.
    The most recent review exempted the Western and Northern Isles on the grounds of geographical isolation and distinctiveness, and the Isle of Wight so that part of the island wouldn't have to share an MP with the mainland. In each case electors would therefore find themselves living in under rather than over sized seats (as the Isle of Wight was to be divided into two equal halves.) These were the only exceptions to equalisation, and they seem entirely reasonable given the circumstances.
    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.
    You want to put places 500 miles apart in the same constituency? Well, it's a view.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    Despite the predictions of snowmageddon on here last week, Thursday's weather forecast looks like a very typical early winter's day for the UK
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    edited December 2019
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it becomes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,893

    Jonathan said:

    With 10 mins to go before polls closed last time some people posted Labour 150-199 seats and the Tories pushing 400.

    What were you saying?
    I was saying absolutely nothing for very good legal reasons.
  • IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    I also said there were more undecided voters than any other election and of course Yougov MRP projected a hung parliament, it has a Tory majority of 68 this time
    Another classic.

    Most of us were wrong in 2017. Not HY, of course.
    I hope that I am wrong this time. I was on here in 2017 saying the mood on the ground was that the big Tory lead in the polls wasn't there. This time the mood on the ground feels like it IS there and that Labour are in significant trouble.

    Although I have left Labour I do not want a thumping Tory win for the sake of all the people that government would thump. But unless tactical anti-Tory voting organises itself and quickly that will be the result. Despite the polls and the ground reports and the leaks I can't see the Tories taking seats like Easington. But I can see Labour clinging on in them. How many seats this happens in and not just in the NE depends on how organised punters become.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373
    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.

    On the same basis as the over-representation of the small US rural states in Congress, I am happy to see certain small British communities over-represented if their needs are distinct and not shared with other communities. If Orkney & Shetland have distinct needs to those of the Western Isles, I'm more than happy for them both to be represented separately and both be even more over-represented, rather than for neither of them to have the own, dedicated, undiluted representation. After all, in a House of 650, or even 600, have 2 or 3 constituencies over represented, even if greatly in percentage terms, does not materially alter the overall situation.

    However, if their needs are broadly similar, then sure, they should be lumped together.
    I believe the problem is that it is next to impossible to go from Orkney & Shetland to the Western Isles. Firstly, they're a surprisingly long way from each other. Secondly, there's no direct route between them, so you have to catch an infrequent flight to Edinburgh/Glasgow and change.

    That being said: we don't live in a US state like system. I don't think the argument for having a voter in Orkney being worth 3x a voter in Cheam is that strong.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.

    "I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID."

    Do you know how many UK driving licences are in issue, for example?

    49 million.

    In 2017, there were 6.9m British passports issued. Given they have a 10 year life, you have a reasonable basis for the ballpark number in issue by multiplying by 10. Obviously that will include children. But it does suggest the great bulk of the population have one or the other.
    "Here in the UK, 3.5 million citizens do not have access to photo ID and 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence – in 2013/14 1.7 million lack even a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID – with no free provision – a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote."

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/voter-id/
  • rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    Well yes, I had a passport.

    Unless it was being renewed. Or was with the Indian embassy getting a visa for ten weeks.

    It's very easy to cut personation to zero. People without ID can vote, but are required to have their photo taken (and you could even add fingerprints too). It would eliminate the practise (if it were widespread), and would not depress turnout of the young and the poor.
    So ten people vote in a constituency that are later discovered to have been personating. The winning candidate has a majority of two. What happens next? Stopping them from voting in the first place seems a better solution.

    That said, I like the very British trust that means all you have to do is turn up, give your name and address and off you go. I’m not sure there is much evidence of it being a problem at the moment and the conservative approach should always be to regard any change as guilty until proved innocent. Twenty odd years of teaching has shown that to be true in education at least and I suspect it is true in most areas of life.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    It was a clever strategy to undermine the LibDems, who depended heavily on local campaigning and incumbency. Under the new boundaries 2015 would have been terminal rather than just catastrophic. Yet what was obvious straight away to many LibDems on the ground took Clegg a long time to understand.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    edited December 2019
    Re the young voting. A lot depends on where students are registered, The student loan bribe will have some effect, the brighter ones will realise it is unaffordable. In the unlikely even Labour form a Govt they can try to spend zillions, but the money markets will put a stop to it surely. Perhaps Corbyn will then blame the jews?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it comes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
    That's a terrible reason to support 600 seats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriously. Such changes are now approximately EIGHT YEARS overdue which is an absolute disgrace. Going forward, legislation should be introduced to ensure that such boundary changes take place automatically, within a prescribed time frame.

    The Cameron/Osborne changes were designed to help the Tories as they were in the early 2010s. The Tories in 2019 will have a very different voting demographic based much more around the low turnout northern and midland seats that were targeted for substantial change and abolition last time around. There will have to be very careful thought put into the next guidelines for redrawing if the Tories are to benefit long-term.

    Last time I looked the boundary commission members had no political affiliation. Indeed in Scotland the members usually include a judge and a surveyor. Clearly Labour is happy for the Western Isles to return an MP on an electorate of roughly 20,000 and the Isle of Wight on 140,000. In 21st century with vastly improved transport and communications, tiny island seats should be scrapped. I would amalgamate Western Isles with Ross and Cromarty and Orkney and Shetland with Caithness and Sutherland.
    The most recent review exempted the Western and Northern Isles on the grounds of geographical isolation and distinctiveness, and the Isle of Wight so that part of the island wouldn't have to share an MP with the mainland. In each case electors would therefore find themselves living in under rather than over sized seats (as the Isle of Wight was to be divided into two equal halves.) These were the only exceptions to equalisation, and they seem entirely reasonable given the circumstances.
    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.
    You want to put places 500 miles apart in the same constituency? Well, it's a view.
    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    No, the reason for 600 was to allow the gerrymandering scheme. The excuse was cost-cutting but that is less credible because the Conservatives increased the size of the House of Lords to more than 800.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,373

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    Well yes, I had a passport.

    Unless it was being renewed. Or was with the Indian embassy getting a visa for ten weeks.

    It's very easy to cut personation to zero. People without ID can vote, but are required to have their photo taken (and you could even add fingerprints too). It would eliminate the practise (if it were widespread), and would not depress turnout of the young and the poor.
    So ten people vote in a constituency that are later discovered to have been personating. The winning candidate has a majority of two. What happens next? Stopping them from voting in the first place seems a better solution.

    That said, I like the very British trust that means all you have to do is turn up, give your name and address and off you go. I’m not sure there is much evidence of it being a problem at the moment and the conservative approach should always be to regard any change as guilty until proved innocent. Twenty odd years of teaching has shown that to be true in education at least and I suspect it is true in most areas of life.
    Errrr. Every ballot paper has a number on. Every number is matched to a voter. It's not really a secret ballot.

    If you want, you could "reserve" the ballots from the unidentified voters and only count them in the event they'd make a difference.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,917
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins also be able to block any Irish unity poll
    Holding territories against the will of their peoples is not sustainable for long, and does further fuel nationalist resentments. If 2021 produces a pro Indy Holyrood parliament, as seems likely, it is hard to deny that referendum.Such high handedness by Unionists is probably the surest way to lose a referendum when it does happen.

    I think both Irish unification and Scottish independence are increasingly likely. Political divergence from England is becoming so extreme, but I agree that the time course is less nailed on.
    Except with the SNP still polling well below 50% it is clearly not the will of Scots for indyref2 either anyway.

    Scots nats should be grateful they got their 1 referendum in 2014, Catalonia was not even allowed that and the Spanish government have arrested or forced into exile half their leaders.

    Quebec only got its second referendum on independence from Canada 15 years after the first
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    Well yes, I had a passport.

    Unless it was being renewed. Or was with the Indian embassy getting a visa for ten weeks.

    It's very easy to cut personation to zero. People without ID can vote, but are required to have their photo taken (and you could even add fingerprints too). It would eliminate the practise (if it were widespread), and would not depress turnout of the young and the poor.
    So ten people vote in a constituency that are later discovered to have been personating. The winning candidate has a majority of two. What happens next? Stopping them from voting in the first place seems a better solution.

    That said, I like the very British trust that means all you have to do is turn up, give your name and address and off you go. I’m not sure there is much evidence of it being a problem at the moment and the conservative approach should always be to regard any change as guilty until proved innocent. Twenty odd years of teaching has shown that to be true in education at least and I suspect it is true in most areas of life.
    As with Winchester in 1997, what happens next is that it goes to court and if the court decides enough votes were questionable to bring the result into doubt, there is a by-election. As it happens the Tories were very lucky to win the Winchester case on questionable grounds, and got their due reward at the by-election.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big chalong.

    "I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID."

    Do you know how many UK driving licences are in issue, for example?

    49 million.

    In 2017, there were 6.9m British passports issued. Given they have a 10 year life, you have a reasonable basis for the ballpark number in issue by multiplying by 10. Obviously that will include children. But it does suggest the great bulk of the population have one or the other.
    "Here in the UK, 3.5 million citizens do not have access to photo ID and 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence – in 2013/14 1.7 million lack even a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID – with no free provision – a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote."

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/voter-id/
    Wrong kind of people. Tories don't want them voting anyway.
    The Conservatives are importing so many dirty tricks from the US Republicans, they'll need their very own FTA.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    IanB2 said:

    Despite the predictions of snowmageddon on here last week, Thursday's weather forecast looks like a very typical early winter's day for the UK

    Just for the record, no one predicted anything. I reported the model outputs. They have certainly backed away from the penetrating northerly, although interestingly that's not the case with UKMO. For short range I always put UKMO over GFS and ECMWF.

    Anyway, it's utter nonsense to describe the remnant as 'a typical early winter's day'.

    Even if the ppn falls as rain and sleet rather than snow (as seems likely right now unless UKMO is right) It's going to be truly foul. A really awful day with heavy driving rain.
  • The documents that Labour released were with the Telegraph before Labour leaked them.

    It’s pretty obvious Labour found them on Reddit and downloaded them. I highly doubt they know of the origin.

    Are we now suggesting it’s not in the public interest for us to have these documents?

    There should definitely be an investigation into how the Russians got them and that seems to be a Government failing not a Labour one. Perhaps we could start with releasing the Russia report?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    edited December 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it comes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
    That's a terrible reason to support 600 seats.
    He is nevertheless right. That is the way the Tories were thinking.

    The criterion that was indended to force a widespread redrawing was actually the hugely tighter (smaller) tolerance on variance above or below the mean. Which pretty much every Tory I have spoken to or heard commenting since has accepted was a mistake, since it threw up some very peculiar proposals.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    You say "purge". I say "achieving greater accuracy on the true number of valid voters in a constituency".

    One of us is using emotive language.
  • rcs1000 said:


    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    If not for legacy systems the obvious way to design this would be just to have a big old single open list for the whole country. People who thought their constituency should be geographical would vote for somebody local who spent the time talking to voters in their town. People who were more bothered about something else would vote based on something else.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower be repealed.

    The Conservative manifesto includes:
    a) repeal of the FTPA
    b) updated and equal constituencies
    c) requiring ID to vote
    d) stopping postal vote harvesting
    e) unspecified measures to prevent foreign interference
    f) making it easier for expats to vote
    g) ending the 15-year-limit on expats' voting rights

    Distingu.
    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    I think older CDE voters are particularly unlikely to have photo ID.

    Considering the negligible rate of impersonation in person at polling stations, it does seem to be a solution in search of a problem, unless the problem is considered to be people voting for the opposition.

    The other big challenge to an opposition overturning the anticipated Tory majority is the loss of 59 seats due to Scottish Independence and 18 to Irish reunification. It is not impossible that both occur before the next GE, particularly if Brexit goes badly wrong.
    Boris has made clear if he wins also be able to block any Irish unity poll
    Holding territories against the will of their peoples is not sustainable for long, and does further fuel nationalist resentments. If 2021 produces a pro Indy Holyrood parliament, as seems likely, it is hard to deny that referendum.Such high handedness by Unionists is probably the surest way to lose a referendum when it does happen.

    I think both Irish unification and Scottish independence are increasingly likely. Political divergence from England is becoming so extreme, but I agree that the time course is less nailed on.
    Except with the SNP still polling well below 50% it is clearly not the will of Scots for indyref2 either anyway.

    Scots nats should be grateful they got their 1 referendum in 2014, Catalonia was not even allowed that and the Spanish government have arrested or forced into exile half their leaders.

    Quebec only got its second referendum on independence from Canada 15 years after the first
    So with the Tories still polling well below 50% it is clearly not the will of Brits to have Bozo as PM?

    Your myopia and partial inconsistency are priceless.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,596
    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.

    On the same basis as the over-representation of the small US rural states in Congress, I am happy to see certain small British communities over-represented if their needs are distinct and not shared with other communities. If Orkney & Shetland have distinct needs to those of the Western Isles, I'm more than happy for them both to be represented separately and both be even more over-represented, rather than for neither of them to have the own, dedicated, undiluted representation. After all, in a House of 650, or even 600, have 2 or 3 constituencies over represented, even if greatly in percentage terms, does not materially alter the overall situation.

    However, if their needs are broadly similar, then sure, they should be lumped together.
    I believe the problem is that it is next to impossible to go from Orkney & Shetland to the Western Isles. Firstly, they're a surprisingly long way from each other. Secondly, there's no direct route between them, so you have to catch an infrequent flight to Edinburgh/Glasgow and change.

    That being said: we don't live in a US state like system. I don't think the argument for having a voter in Orkney being worth 3x a voter in Cheam is that strong.
    Anyone really that concerned about representation would back PR.
  • IanB2 said:


    Having ten million people none of whom live here potentially swaying an election is an outrage. That in reality few of them bother doesn’t weaken the point - indeed it underlines their lack of active involvement with the Uk. I can’t vote in seats where I used to live, regardless of what social connections I still might have there; nor should they.

    How can people who don't vote in the election sway the result???
    Assuming that they are assigned to particular constituencies then if they are unevenly distributed and the constituencies are equalised on registered voters, then those constituencies with particularly large numbers of overseas voters who don’t actually vote would require fewer voters to win. If these are in area with lots of safe seats for one party it would make their vote more efficient.

    That argument contained a lot of conditionals...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    edited December 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Yeah, but Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles aren't a *bit* smaller. They're a lot smaller.

    It makes perfect sense to combine them either with each other, or with some other constituencies.

    On the same basis as the over-representation of the small US rural states in Congress, I am happy to see certain small British communities over-represented if their needs are distinct and not shared with other communities. If Orkney & Shetland have distinct needs to those of the Western Isles, I'm more than happy for them both to be represented separately and both be even more over-represented, rather than for neither of them to have the own, dedicated, undiluted representation. After all, in a House of 650, or even 600, have 2 or 3 constituencies over represented, even if greatly in percentage terms, does not materially alter the overall situation.

    However, if their needs are broadly similar, then sure, they should be lumped together.
    I believe the problem is that it is next to impossible to go from Orkney & Shetland to the Western Isles. Firstly, they're a surprisingly long way from each other. Secondly, there's no direct route between them, so you have to catch an infrequent flight to Edinburgh/Glasgow and change.

    That being said: we don't live in a US state like system. I don't think the argument for having a voter in Orkney being worth 3x a voter in Cheam is that strong.
    So many votes are effectively worthless in our system that the ratio between those and the votes that count is infinite. Differences in constituency size are a small matter in comparison.

    Also ignored is that the seats are equalised not on people, not on voters, but on the electorate. Lots of people - students, second home owners, landlords - are registered more than once, influencing the commissions's calculations, yet are able to vote only once.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311
    edited December 2019
    @OnlyLivingBoy

    Well it used to be the wrong kind of people, but now those low information ID free voters are the ones that BoZo is counting on to win Durham etc.

    Of course, cutting them out of the vote could be a key stratagem to minimise backlash after the Tories shaft them post GE, and shaft them they will.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    The 80% chance was probably correct given what we knew at the time
    Funny you should say that...


    Pulpstar said:
    Labour ahead in Canterbury ?

    I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
    This site is often a centre-right echo chamber, in the way the Guardian's is of the centre-left.

    Indeed. It really is. Certain people have seemingly fallen into the trap of repeating something enough times until they really believe it to be true.

    I would say this is on a knife-edge.

    Mock away, but there's plenty of evidence. The next few days are crucial.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    edited December 2019
    IanB2 said:


    So with the Tories still polling well below 50% it is clearly not the will of Brits to have Bozo as PM?

    Your myopia and partial inconsistency are priceless.

    Was going to say the same.

    If the SNP increase their voteshare, win most of the seats and then go onto win in the Scottish elections again, how on Earth can you claim it’s not what the people want?

    Brexit has utterly destroyed the ability for people to vote for things they want, due to some utter rubbish that the will of the people only exists from some arbitrary date.

    Let’s say it stopped in 1997 and continue our Labour Government.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,534
    edited December 2019

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    The 80% chance was probably correct given what we knew at the time
    Funny you should say that...


    Pulpstar said:
    Labour ahead in Canterbury ?

    I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
    This site is often a centre-right echo chamber, in the way the Guardian's is of the centre-left.

    Indeed. It really is. Certain people have seemingly fallen into the trap of repeating something enough times until they really believe it to be true.

    I would say this is on a knife-edge.

    Mock away, but there's plenty of evidence. The next few days are crucial.
    Indeed. If there's some sign of movement between now and Tuesday, everything's up in the air. If not, I think there will be probably be a small but workable Tory majority.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    The 80% chance was probably correct given what we knew at the time
    Funny you should say that...


    Pulpstar said:
    Labour ahead in Canterbury ?

    I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
    This site is often a centre-right echo chamber, in the way the Guardian's is of the centre-left.

    Indeed. It really is. Certain people have seemingly fallen into the trap of repeating something enough times until they really believe it to be true.

    I would say this is on a knife-edge.

    Mock away, but there's plenty of evidence. The next few days are crucial.
    I think you should look in the mirror before posting comments like that.
  • Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    The 80% chance was probably correct given what we knew at the time
    Funny you should say that...


    Pulpstar said:
    Labour ahead in Canterbury ?

    I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
    This site is often a centre-right echo chamber, in the way the Guardian's is of the centre-left.

    Indeed. It really is. Certain people have seemingly fallen into the trap of repeating something enough times until they really believe it to be true.

    I would say this is on a knife-edge.

    Mock away, but there's plenty of evidence. The next few days are crucial.
    It’s like Reddit but on the other side in many ways.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    edited December 2019
    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,596
    This is interesting - China is introducing a similar regime on passenger vehicle carbon credits to the one in California:
    https://electrek.co/2019/12/06/beijing-shifts-from-ev-subsidies-to-setting-quotas-for-automakers/

    It will have a profound global impact (the immediate short term one is that foreign manufacturers who don’t produce enough EVs will be forced effectively to subsidise Chinese manufacturers who do).
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete n

    Distinguishing between measures aimed at suppressing Labour votes and those to boost Tory votes is left as an exercise for the reader. The odd one out is that granny-farming is usually thought to favour Conservatives.

    I would not have (c) as until I moved to the US and was forced to drive, I've never carried ID. There are other ways to secure elections that do not deliberately depress turnout of the young and the urban.
    Surely you had a passport? (Although that is of course not true of everyone especially low income groups.)
    Well yes, I had a passport.

    Unless it was being renewed. Or was with the Indian embassy getting a visa for ten weeks.

    It's very easy to cut personation to zero. People without ID can vote, but are required to have their photo taken (and you could even add fingerprints too). It would eliminate the practise (if it were widespread), and would not depress turnout of the young and the poor.
    So ten people vote in a constituency that are later discovered to have been personating. The winning candidate has a majority of two. What happens next? Stopping them from voting in the first place seems a better solution.

    That said, I like the very British trust that means all you have to do is turn up, give your name and address and off you go. I’m not sure there is much evidence of it being a problem at the moment and the conservative approach should always be to regard any change as guilty until proved innocent. Twenty odd years of teaching has shown that to be true in education at least and I suspect it is true in most areas of life.
    Errrr. Every ballot paper has a number on. Every number is matched to a voter. It's not really a secret ballot.

    If you want, you could "reserve" the ballots from the unidentified voters and only count them in the event they'd make a difference.
    OK. That could work, although it might delay a few counts by several days I suppose.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    IanB2 said:

    Despite the predictions of snowmageddon on here last week, Thursday's weather forecast looks like a very typical early winter's day for the UK

    Just for the record, no one predicted anything. I reported the model outputs. They have certainly backed away from the penetrating northerly, although interestingly that's not the case with UKMO. For short range I always put UKMO over GFS and ECMWF.

    Anyway, it's utter nonsense to describe the remnant as 'a typical early winter's day'.

    Even if the ppn falls as rain and sleet rather than snow (as seems likely right now unless UKMO is right) It's going to be truly foul. A really awful day with heavy driving rain.
    BBC for the south coast - light rain, fresh breeze, average temperatures
    BBC for the Midlands - light rain, average winds and temperatures (hourly chance of rain <45%)
    BBC for the North West - light rain, gentle breeze, average temps (hourly chance of rain max 60%)
  • Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    The 80% chance was probably correct given what we knew at the time
    Funny you should say that...


    Pulpstar said:
    Labour ahead in Canterbury ?

    I have NEVER heard so much tripe in all my life.
    This site is often a centre-right echo chamber, in the way the Guardian's is of the centre-left.

    Indeed. It really is. Certain people have seemingly fallen into the trap of repeating something enough times until they really believe it to be true.

    I would say this is on a knife-edge.

    Mock away, but there's plenty of evidence. The next few days are crucial.
    Indeed. If there's some sign of movement between now and Tuesday, everything's up in the air. If not, I think there will be probably be a small but workable Tory majority.
    My view remains that we’re either looking at a HP or a very slim Tory majority, perhaps of the 2015 level.

    The polls seem to indicate that, although within MOE they indicate both a HP and a landslide.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
    Congratulations. Getting a Tory even to the point of imagining that there are different ways of doing things is an achievement.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,248

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    You say "purge". I say "achieving greater accuracy on the true number of valid voters in a constituency".

    One of us is using emotive language.
    Labour areas generally have far higher turnover in their electoral roll, with many people only registering to vote close to election periods. So taking lots of people off the registers outside of election periods because their current address isn't valid will make them appear smaller than reality without an equal or even stronger effort to make sure that people are included on the list at their current address. And individuals aren't going to be pro-active in registering "unnecessarily" as they will not care for (or be aware of) the implications in relation to boundary reviews.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311
    I have another busy few days with non-political business, but the practical problem in respect of this site is that I see little betting value out there as I do not see the polls being far out.

    I have a few constituency bets and some money both on low turnout and on low numbers of LD seats, but the value on the latter seems to have gone now. Indeed it may well be overdone.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,982

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it becomes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
    LOL.

    Of course the real reason behind 600, was as a reaction to the expenses scandal Cameron waved to cut the cost of politics and politicians, who in 2010 were at their most unpopular as a profession.

    IMO as we leave the EU, it’s probably better now to keep 650 rather than reduce further, with this years electoral roll as the baseline. I do feel awfully sorry for all those involved in actually drawing the boundaries, who have spend the last eight years doing this and keep being told to do it again by the politicians. As others have said, this system needs to be automated so that it simply happens without political interference.
  • IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    I also said there were more undecided voters than any other election and of course Yougov MRP projected a hung parliament, it has a Tory majority of 68 this time
    Another classic.

    Most of us were wrong in 2017. Not HY, of course.
    I hope that I am wrong this time. I was on here in 2017 saying the mood on the ground was that the big Tory lead in the polls wasn't there. This time the mood on the ground feels like it IS there and that Labour are in significant trouble.

    Although I have left Labour I do not want a thumping Tory win for the sake of all the people that government would thump. But unless tactical anti-Tory voting organises itself and quickly that will be the result. Despite the polls and the ground reports and the leaks I can't see the Tories taking seats like Easington. But I can see Labour clinging on in them. How many seats this happens in and not just in the NE depends on how organised punters become.
    Some of these seats are so tight, even the MRP model acknowledges Labour can hold most of them. It also says the Tories can take all of them
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
    Congratulations. Getting a Tory even to the point of imagining that there are different ways of doing things is an achievement.
    The Tories imagined there was a different way than subsidised state enterprises: privatisation.

    But I'm guessing you weren't cheering on that Tory innovation!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,820
    edited December 2019

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    You say "purge". I say "achieving greater accuracy on the true number of valid voters in a constituency".

    One of us is using emotive language.
    Three million people registered to vote since the election was called, so just a month ago, the electoral registers would have been out by at least that many.

    There is a subtle effect here. Urban areas, which lean Labour, generally have higher population turnover than rural or more expensive areas that lean Conservative. With time, while the number of voters on the roll might be accurate, the names become wrong. So immediately after a purge, the numbers on the roll will drop below their true level, and this makes urban seats look smaller than they really are. An election acts as a registration drive, and as we have seen there is a vast increase in registrations.

    So from a purely partisan point of view, Tory schemers will favour basing boundary reviews on electoral rolls over census or other population counts, and just after purging the rolls of those who have moved out, before they are replaced by the registration of new voters.

    For Labour partisans, the opposite is true. If electoral rolls must be used, Labour is favoured by rolls immediately after a registration drive (in this case caused by the election).
  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
    Congratulations. Getting a Tory even to the point of imagining that there are different ways of doing things is an achievement.
    The Tories imagined there was a different way than subsidised state enterprises: privatisation.

    But I'm guessing you weren't cheering on that Tory innovation!
    You must despise the railways in their current state then
  • Serious question: what do we reckon the split here on this forum is Tory to Labour?

    60-40?
  • Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have allowed Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering through the Commons because it would not have threatened Tory MPs (and their local parties) with redundancy.

    It worked like this:
    1) drastically change the number of MPs so that *every* seat is redrawn;
    2) base boundary reviews on registered voters, not population;
    3) purge the rolls in order to make Labour-leaning areas look smaller;
    4) redraw *every* seat so Labour-leaning areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it becomes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
    LOL.

    Of course the real reason behind 600, was as a reaction to the expenses scandal Cameron waved to cut the cost of politics and politicians, who in 2010 were at their most unpopular as a profession.

    IMO as we leave the EU, it’s probably better now to keep 650 rather than reduce further, with this years electoral roll as the baseline. I do feel awfully sorry for all those involved in actually drawing the boundaries, who have spend the last eight years doing this and keep being told to do it again by the politicians. As others have said, this system needs to be automated so that it simply happens without political interference.
    Cameron increased the number of peers to more than 800 so let us not pretend he had any great commitment to reducing the cost of parliamentarians.
  • JamesPJamesP Posts: 85
    For those who think a hung parliament is more likely than not, no overall majority is now 3.90 on Betfair
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,596
    edited December 2019

    Serious question: what do we reckon the split here on this forum is Tory to Labour?

    60-40?

    Probably 20+% Lib Dem.

  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
    Congratulations. Getting a Tory even to the point of imagining that there are different ways of doing things is an achievement.
    The Tories imagined there was a different way than subsidised state enterprises: privatisation.

    But I'm guessing you weren't cheering on that Tory innovation!
    You must despise the railways in their current state then
    My local railway is state owned and runs very well, with a new service to Oxford opened in the last couple of years.

    The state that owns it being Germany of course..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,311

    Serious question: what do we reckon the split here on this forum is Tory to Labour?

    60-40?

    Quite a few LDs here, and a few Nats...
  • Foxy said:

    I have another busy few days with non-political business, but the practical problem in respect of this site is that I see little betting value out there as I do not see the polls being far out.

    I have a few constituency bets and some money both on low turnout and on low numbers of LD seats, but the value on the latter seems to have gone now. Indeed it may well be overdone.

    I've been too busy at work to bet and the juicy mis-priced constituencies have long been mopped up. It will be hell reading pb on Friday as poster after poster aftertimes how much they won on Plaid Cymru taking Glasgow North-East.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Personally, I don't see why constituencies should be geographic any more.

    Technology now allows that. Have maybe 20 different nationwide groups - and each voter decides which group to sign up for. Each group has 30 MPs. You could have a Yoof Group. A disabilities group. An NHS group. A grumpy old bastards group.... Then have a list of potential MPs within that group, elected by STV....

    That should nicely mess with the party system.
    Congratulations. Getting a Tory even to the point of imagining that there are different ways of doing things is an achievement.
    The Tories imagined there was a different way than subsidised state enterprises: privatisation.

    But I'm guessing you weren't cheering on that Tory innovation!
    With telephony and many of the industrials (rolls Royce, steel, cars, sugar etc.) it was probably sensible. With most of the public services it hasn't delivered.

    But tbf I was referring specifically to voting systems, where your willingness to even imagine advantages to anything other than the one true path of FPTnP puts you well ahead of most Tories.
  • Serious question: what do we reckon the split here on this forum is Tory to Labour?

    60-40?

    As there are a fair number of Lib Dems and SNP supporters, I would say more like 40-30-20-10. (10 being other)

    If we go by number of posts then it is a different story.
  • So...what polls are we expecting tonight?
  • Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The reason for 600 seats is to ensure that all constituency boundaries had to be redrawn. The number itself was unimportant, and increasing to 700 would have alloing areas get fewer constituencies than Conservative-leaning ones.

    It is so brilliant that (aiui) even American gerrymanderers are adopting this strategem.
    I thought the 600 number was as a result of the expenses scandal, justified as a way of reducing costs.

    Though with increasing executive powers planned and removal of judicial and parliamentary restraints, frankly it doesn't really matter how many MPs there are, as they will be increasingly marginalised.
    I reckon 600 seats was just done to troll the LibDems. The bigger the population in each seat, the harder it becomes for them to hold their disparate yellow zits in a sea of blue.....
    LOL.

    Of course the real reason behind 600, was as a reaction to the expenses scandal Cameron waved to cut the cost of politics and politicians, who in 2010 were at their most unpopular as a profession.

    IMO as we leave the EU, it’s probably better now to keep 650 rather than reduce further, with this years electoral roll as the baseline. I do feel awfully sorry for all those involved in actually drawing the boundaries, who have spend the last eight years doing this and keep being told to do it again by the politicians. As others have said, this system needs to be automated so that it simply happens without political interference.
    Cameron increased the number of peers to more than 800 so let us not pretend he had any great commitment to reducing the cost of parliamentarians.
    Politicians want to be seen to have done something. Actually doing something is a nice bonus if it happens, but not exactly at the top of the list of priorities.
This discussion has been closed.