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

135678

Comments

  • https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,501
    edited December 2019
    Nigelb said:

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

    60-40?

    Probably 20+% Lib Dem.

    There are very few Labour posters. When counting Conservatives, taxonomists will be wondering how to classify those who renounced their membership over the summer.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    edited December 2019
    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.

    There are plenty of winning 5/1 shots and probably a fair few at 10/1 out there; we just don't know which ones they are.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,652
    edited December 2019

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

    60-40?

    Maybe 55% Tory, 20% Liberal Democrat, 15% Labour Centrists, 10% Labour Left and Celtic nationalists.
  • 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.
    If we go by posts it’s a Labour paradise! :)
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    Nigelb said:

    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.
    Why? The practical experience of PR is that it breaks the link between constituent and representative.
  • 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..
    Hong Kong run my line, it’s a disaster. I’d even have Stagecoach back
  • 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.
    With Blair as PM? I might vote for that...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,131

    rcs1000 said:


    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).
    The latter case being more representative of the reality of the electoral count - a point which MM conveniently ignores.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    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.
    Why? The practical experience of PR is that it breaks the link between constituent and representative.
    Stepping over the question of how many constituents feel such a link, that ain't necessarily so.
  • 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.
    With Blair as PM? I might vote for that...
    Works for me
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305

    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.

    These nested quotes are also a nice little echo chamber ... :dizzy:
  • https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017

    That is not a good set of numbers for Labour. There are far more over 65s and they are much more likely to vote.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,131
    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    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.
    Why? The practical experience of PR is that it breaks the link between constituent and representative.
    The practical experience of FPTP is that for a very large portion of the electorate, they are ‘represented’ by people they voted against, and actively don’t want representing them.
  • Re those registration figures for seats, I thought it had been officially confirmed that more new people had registered to vote than ever before, so is it the case that all of these people are stacked up in certain seats?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,695

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

    60-40?

    Maybe 55% Tory, 20% Liberal Democrat, 15% Labour Centrists, 10% Labour Left and Celtic nationalists.
    you missed out the trolls!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717

    Maybe 55% Tory, 20% Liberal Democrat, 15% Labour Centrists, 10% Labour Left and Celtic nationalists.

    That sounds about right. And we could split the 55% too. Approx 25% of that 55% are quite stridently right wing.
  • https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017

    That is not a good set of numbers for Labour. There are far more over 65s and they are much more likely to vote.
    Historically that’s the case. But the supposed youthquake might finally happen (somehow I doubt it)
  • JamesPJamesP Posts: 85

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017

    But still behind by 9% in YouGov instead of 2%ish

    Which age group is showing the biggest decrease in support?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,753

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

    60-40?

    Not a hope! After at least 65% Conservatives/BXP, there are a significant number of LDs (maybe 20%) a handful of ScotsNats. and a similar amount of Labourites (7.5% each). It is quite uncanny, as that is the percentage breakdown I have pencilled in for GE 2024.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    edited December 2019
    Betfair followers might be interested to see that that 1.38 has held up overnight, although there's not much left at that price.

    Lay Lab Maj is out to 48, so more than a 2% return inside a week for anyone with a big bank (who doesn't think they can make more than 60 gains).
  • https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017

    That is not a good set of numbers for Labour. There are far more over 65s and they are much more likely to vote.
    Historically that’s the case. But the supposed youthquake might finally happen (somehow I doubt it)
    Even if they all vote there are not as many of them as the over 65s.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    edited December 2019
    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.
    I said there will be hung Parliament.

    I am now saying Tory landslide
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,992
    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.
    Trolling parties/people that you don't like is now a major component of political motivation all the way up to supposedly serious politicians. I expect some enterprising distiller is putting together a gin called Libtard Tears.
  • nunu2 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.
    I said there will be hung Parliament.

    I am now saying Tory landslide
    Why ?
  • Becky Bibbly-Bobbly should be favourite?

    Heaven help us
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,131

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

    60-40?

    Maybe 55% Tory, 20% Liberal Democrat, 15% Labour Centrists, 10% Labour Left and Celtic nationalists.
    you missed out the trolls!
    That is a set overlapping portions of the others.
  • rcs1000 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.

    Surely, implementing the boundary changes must be an absolute priority if only to demonstrate that Parliament takes our democracy seriousl

    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

    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 isolatized 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.
    There's a good case for moving to PR, perhaps with larger multi-member constituencies if you want to maintain the direct link between voters in a particular area and their MP. Until you do, I think Orkney and Shetland should have their own MP and the Western Isles too. The Isle of Wight isn't such an obvious case as it's so close to the mainland, but if you give them two MPs it might calm down Home Counties Tories who think they're getting shafted by the Scots again (not that Orkney/Shetland are completely Scottish anyway).
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    IanB2 said:

    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.

    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.
    We still pay UK tax and have no vote in our adopted country. The only outrage is your faux one because you dislike the way some of us vote.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,753

    Becky Bibbly-Bobbly should be favourite?

    Heaven help us

    At least she hasn't got Corbyn's dreadful backstory.

    The incompetence element can always be addressed with training. Presumably there are no photographs or film footage of her with H Block inmates or Hezbollah guerillas. That in itself will be helpful.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,365

    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 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.

    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.
    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.
    Peers only get paid when they turn up, and they cost about 15-20% as much as an MP - so it is a relatively peripheral question.

    I'll give you that there are some crooks in there, and some chucked-upstairs expenses fiddlers.

    You don't seem to have mentioned the over-representation of Scotland, Wales and NI.

    In 2017, the median total Parliamentary electorate across constituencies was about 56,000 in Wales, 68,300 in Northern Ireland, 67,200 in Scotland and 72,200 in England.

    That alone would be worth about 12-15 fewer MPs.

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Anecdote alert from South Eastblondon.
    Last few days noticable on doorsteps of C&W that seat swinging back to Tom Brake..I expect him to hold it quite comfortably now increasing his majority.
    Sutton and Cheam a slam dunk for Tories by 8-10k
    Croydon Central labour should hold..no traction despite massive amounts of canvassers for Tories.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,131
    edited December 2019
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    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.
    We still pay UK tax and have no vote in our adopted country. The only outrage is your faux one because you dislike the way some of us vote.
    How many of those ten million pay UK tax ?
    (I am agnostic on the issue, and it’s a genuine question rather than a rhetorical point.)
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166
    Electoral calculus calls Wrexham and Vale of Clywd as Labour, while PBers are celebrating it as a Tory win
    Overall Lab is up 4% in Wales but a recent dodgy poll shows it's down 15%, to 29% in Wrexham!
    I was in North wales last week and spoke to the average Joe. Yes, many seemed miffed about the delay in brexit but more seemed angry about the collapsing infrastructure and hopelessness around. Specially in areas around Rhyl and Prestatyn. I wouldn't be suprised, if the Brexit Party crosses 10%
    All depends on voter turnout and there has been a surge in young people registering. If I put my money on a Tory win, then I would probaby wait till Friday, the 13th and every vote is counted. Before I even buy, forget pop the champagne
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,822
    Just at british museum for the "Tory- myth and reality" exhibition.
    And it's Troy!!! Grrr.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:
    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.
    We still pay UK tax and have no vote in our adopted country. The only outrage is your faux one because you dislike the way some of us vote.
    Indeed so. Voting rights should follow citizenship rather than residence, as they do pretty much everywhere else in the world.

    In a country with high levels of immigration, this distinction is even more important. We should welcome residents to go through the process of obtaining citizenship over time, and one of the major benefits of this display of loyalty should be the right to vote.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261

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

    60-40?

    48-52 :)
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,549

    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.
    My mother is 90 and has no photo ID because she hasn't renewed her driving licence (stopped driving) or her passport (unable to travel abroad). I would imagine there are thousands like her up and down the country, particularly in care homes. I would imagine a large majority of them would vote Tory. Youngsters on the other hand will all have photo ID
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

    Oh look it's another obituary for Jeremy Corbyn.

    How many is that now?!

    Hmmm. A week from now we might be talking about the tory leadership. I just wonder ...

    For christ's sake the header acknowledges the possibility that his successor might not be an issue for years
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thred.

    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.
    We still pay UK tax and have no vote in our adopted country. The only outrage is your faux one because you dislike the way some of us vote.
    Not at all. Did you miss the defenders of FPTP explaining its basis upon the constituency link above?

    If you don't live in a constituency you shouldn't vote there, end of. Even UK residents who own property there but don't make it their substantive home aren't allowed to do so.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    timmo said:

    Anecdote alert from South Eastblondon.
    Last few days noticable on doorsteps of C&W that seat swinging back to Tom Brake..I expect him to hold it quite comfortably now increasing his majority.
    Sutton and Cheam a slam dunk for Tories by 8-10k
    Croydon Central labour should hold..no traction despite massive amounts of canvassers for Tories.

    What happened to the anecdotes from South EAST London??
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    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

    Oh absolutely, in fact I hope there is a counter video out there which is about the Tories. Our every day hypocrisy and tribalism as public supporters should be exposed - we think we are rational but we are not.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    Nigelb said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.

    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.
    We still pay UK tax and have no vote in our adopted country. The only outrage is your faux one because you dislike the way some of us vote.
    How many of those ten million pay UK tax ?
    (I am agnostic on the issue, and it’s a genuine question rather than a rhetorical point.)
    The great majority of OAPs like me certainly do - both on my OAP and my Teacher pension.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,904

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

    60-40?

    Not a hope! After at least 65% Conservatives/BXP, there are a significant number of LDs (maybe 20%) a handful of ScotsNats. and a similar amount of Labourites (7.5% each). It is quite uncanny, as that is the percentage breakdown I have pencilled in for GE 2024.
    That's probably true of the posters, but what of the actual posts? There are some extremely prolific Labour posters who help even the score on that count somewhat. I don't feel like one side or the other dominates particularly.

    And of course as it's OGH's site many of the thread headers have a very Lib Dem feel to them.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

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

    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

    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 isolatized 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.
    There's a good case for moving to PR, perhaps with larger multi-member constituencies if you want to maintain the direct link between voters in a particular area and their MP. Until you do, I think Orkney and Shetland should have their own MP and the Western Isles too. The Isle of Wight isn't such an obvious case as it's so close to the mainland, but if you give them two MPs it might calm down Home Counties Tories who think they're getting shafted by the Scots again (not that Orkney/Shetland are completely Scottish anyway).
    On 650 members the IOW is close to being entitled to two full seats anyway.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I think of most interest tonight will be Opinium and BMG. These were ones last week which showed the biggest lead in terms of the former and smallest lead in terms of the latter for the Tories .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    "End the Uncertainty, vote Conservative"

    On what basis will we trade and do business with the rest of the world in a year's time?

    Err...
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,549
    OT Am I right in assuming that having used the £3 instant voting membership scheme to take over the Labour Party that the hard left have now closed that scheme? I ask as an ex-member who would rejoin in order to vote for the leader but could not remain a member with Corbyn and co in charge.
  • OllyT 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) rep
    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.
    My mother is 90 and has no photo ID because she hasn't renewed her driving licence (stopped driving) or her passport (unable to travel abroad). I would imagine there are thousands like her up and down the country, particularly in care homes. I would imagine a large majority of them would vote Tory. Youngsters on the other hand will all have photo ID
    Would postal votes be affected?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166
    I know a lot of people have money and personal interests in a Tory landslide. Hence I come across as a party pooper, if I post anything contrary to that dream.
    I still feel this election is too close to call. The tories may sneak in by 10-20 seats. Anywhere from 305-335. My reasoning
    1) Bojo has harped mostly on Brexit, which is great. However, in the background of 10 years of austerity, specially in the north, it's not a killer.
    2) Polls missing the surge in young people registering and keen to vote, mostly labour. I would take this as around 5-10%
    3) Polls again missing or underrepresenting ethnics and other minorities, who are now nearly 20%
    4) Winter weather, specially in the North, may affect the turnout among the elderly, mostly staunch Tories and Brexiters. Not a significant amount but even 2-5% decrease can make a huge diff in many seats
    4) Brexit party will do well in some seats, denying Tories victories. My estimate , around 5-15 seats, eg Vale of Clywd
    5) Tactical voting by LibDems and Green, specially Greens towards Labour, making a difference in 10-20 seats
    Please do correct me on any of the above
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    Here comes the promised onslaught of Tory social media spending. :+1:


  • 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 isolatized 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.

    There's a good case for moving to PR, perhaps with larger multi-member constituencies if you want to maintain the direct link between voters in a particular area and their MP. Until you do, I think Orkney and Shetland should have their own MP and the Western Isles too. The Isle of Wight isn't such an obvious case as it's so close to the mainland, but if you give them two MPs it might calm down Home Counties Tories who think they're getting shafted by the Scots again (not that Orkney/Shetland are completely Scottish anyway).

    There is no case in 2019 for keeping these tiny Island seats. It takes longer to drive from the top of Caithness to the bottom of Easter Ross than for the ferry to cross the Minch or the plane to fly from Inversneckie to Kirkwall. Until the 1970s most of the Western Isles was in the Inverness seat with Lewis and Harris in Ross and Cromarty. If the Scilly Isles can be part of the St Ives constituency why can't the Scottish islands be part of the 2 adjacent mainland constituencies. Then they could create a proper urban seat round the rapidly growing City of Inverness.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

    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.

    It's technically reasonable to say and more dramatic, but it is misleading as an historic seeming milestone.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

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

    60-40?

    75 to 25. But disproportionate LDs.
  • LOL @ Zadok the Priest for a man whose ambition was to be King of the World.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    OllyT said:

    OT Am I right in assuming that having used the £3 instant voting membership scheme to take over the Labour Party that the hard left have now closed that scheme? I ask as an ex-member who would rejoin in order to vote for the leader but could not remain a member with Corbyn and co in charge.

    The scheme remains the same, but the price is determined by I think the NEC when the election is called. For the 2016 leadership election, they set that price at £20 rather than £3 - the same price as a standard membership and reducing significantly the numbers signing up.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,753
    kle4 said:

    Oh look it's another obituary for Jeremy Corbyn.

    How many is that now?!

    Hmmm. A week from now we might be talking about the tory leadership. I just wonder ...

    For christ's sake the header acknowledges the possibility that his successor might not be an issue for years
    That will certainly apply if Corbyn believes a 30% vote share constitutes a satisfactory result.

    Don't forget to the hard left it is not about the winning but being able to complain about everyone else.
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155
    melcf said:

    I know a lot of people have money and personal interests in a Tory landslide. Hence I come across as a party pooper, if I post anything contrary to that dream.
    I still feel this election is too close to call. The tories may sneak in by 10-20 seats. Anywhere from 305-335. My reasoning
    1) Bojo has harped mostly on Brexit, which is great. However, in the background of 10 years of austerity, specially in the north, it's not a killer.
    2) Polls missing the surge in young people registering and keen to vote, mostly labour. I would take this as around 5-10%
    3) Polls again missing or underrepresenting ethnics and other minorities, who are now nearly 20%
    4) Winter weather, specially in the North, may affect the turnout among the elderly, mostly staunch Tories and Brexiters. Not a significant amount but even 2-5% decrease can make a huge diff in many seats
    4) Brexit party will do well in some seats, denying Tories victories. My estimate , around 5-15 seats, eg Vale of Clywd
    5) Tactical voting by LibDems and Green, specially Greens towards Labour, making a difference in 10-20 seats
    Please do correct me on any of the above

    Polls could be missing the same people they missed in 2016 that voted leave that could also vote Tory as a one off.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    edited December 2019
    melcf said:

    I know a lot of people have money and personal interests in a Tory landslide. Hence I come across as a party pooper, if I post anything contrary to that dream.
    I still feel this election is too close to call. The tories may sneak in by 10-20 seats. Anywhere from 305-335. My reasoning
    1) Bojo has harped mostly on Brexit, which is great. However, in the background of 10 years of austerity, specially in the north, it's not a killer.
    2) Polls missing the surge in young people registering and keen to vote, mostly labour. I would take this as around 5-10%
    3) Polls again missing or underrepresenting ethnics and other minorities, who are now nearly 20%
    4) Winter weather, specially in the North, may affect the turnout among the elderly, mostly staunch Tories and Brexiters. Not a significant amount but even 2-5% decrease can make a huge diff in many seats
    4) Brexit party will do well in some seats, denying Tories victories. My estimate , around 5-15 seats, eg Vale of Clywd
    5) Tactical voting by LibDems and Green, specially Greens towards Labour, making a difference in 10-20 seats
    Please do correct me on any of the above

    I'd rather not see a Tory majority, but fear we are relying on the capriciousness of the voting system to deny them one despite a very clear vote lead, which is not a great place to be.

    The weaknesses in your list are that (1) is in the polls already, (2) is marginal in most seats and mostly a repeat of what we saw in 2017 when the polls were on the move, (3) is no different to any previous election, your first (4) isn't really the forecast and is unlikely to affect turnout anyway, your second (4) assumes that BXP voters are Tories when they aren't. People made the same mistake about UKIP last time.

    We are left hanging on (5) - and specifically Labour voters being prepared to put the LibDems across the line in remainer seats in the South. Losing those is the surest way to deny the majority - the one thing the LibDems have got right during the campaign.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717
    Labour Leadership -

    My view. The party will stay Left but will conform to the rule that you replace a leader with their diametric opposite. They will go for someone who is everything Corbyn was not, and furthermore who is not anything that Corbyn was. He was - and still is for that matter - an elderly middle class man rooted in North London. Thus the new leader will be a young working class woman from the North. Which means one of Rayner, Long Bailey, Pidcock. It is the last named who has the X factor. She will lose her seat if there is a "blue wave" north of Watford Gap - something I fear is verging on the probable - but assuming this does not happen and she stands, I think she wins.

    Two caveats. She is very young and inexperienced and thus might opt instead for deputy leader. In which case I have no strong view on who will keep the seat warm until she's ready to sit on it - that sounded wrong but never mind. The other caveat is if the party do NOT keep faith with the left radicalism of the Corbyn years. What if a thrashing next week causes a lurch back to timid centrism? This is easy. If that happens there is a particular person who I cannot see past. She's smart. She's capable and tough. She's been around but still has plenty of zip. Yvette Cooper.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    kle4 said:

    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.

    It's technically reasonable to say and more dramatic, but it is misleading as an historic seeming milestone.
    They also forget that there wasn't a Tory government between 2010-2015 as it was a coalition.
    Under the FTPA we shouldn't be having an election until May of next year, but Cameron went to Europe, tried to renegotiate and...well you know the story.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001
    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
  • Nicola not doing too well by the looks of it

    Scottish Independence voting intention:

    No: 56% (+5)
    Yes: 44% (-5)

    via @YouGov, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgs. w/ Sep
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,652
    edited December 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Labour Leadership -

    My view. The party will stay Left but will conform to the rule that you replace a leader with their diametric opposite. They will go for someone who is everything Corbyn was not, and furthermore who is not anything that Corbyn was. He was - and still is for that matter - an elderly middle class man rooted in North London. Thus the new leader will be a young working class woman from the North. Which means one of Rayner, Long Bailey, Pidcock. It is the last named who has the X factor. She will lose her seat if there is a "blue wave" north of Watford Gap - something I fear is verging on the probable - but assuming this does not happen and she stands, I think she wins.

    Two caveats. She is very young and inexperienced and thus might opt instead for deputy leader. In which case I have no strong view on who will keep the seat warm until she's ready to sit on it - that sounded wrong but never mind. The other caveat is if the party do NOT keep faith with the left radicalism of the Corbyn years. What if a thrashing next week causes a lurch back to timid centrism? This is easy. If that happens there is a particular person who I cannot see past. She's smart. She's capable and tough. She's been around but still has plenty of zip. Yvette Cooper.

    I think politicians most associated with the Blair era have very little chance in the current Labour party. If not Pidcock or Long-Bailey on the Left, then Miliband or Starmer in the centrist faction within the Left.

    There's also still a possibility we may be dealing with a hung parliament before any of this arises. The next few days will be crucial, as mentioned many times here today.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,130

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1203215063106097155?s=21

    Labour have almost regained all the youth support they had in 2017

    But still back by 10 points. The issue isn't the youth, it's the 25-44 age group that is now fearful of tax rises under Labour. The crossover age was something like 52 or 54 in 2017, I expect it will be closer to 40 this time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    Tory lead has been steady enough that even if it is wrong they should be far enough ahead to win at least a small majority. Melcf does show how they could just lose iut in several ways, and I'd agree which is which thought we'd get a hung parliament, but with so steady a lead then as ianB2 says we're relying an awful lot on perfect capriciousness of the voting system to see that outcome.
  • kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
  • Catching up on some of the recent postings. Re the Scottish Islands and the stupid continuation of these tiny Westminster constituencies, until the 1970s, most of the Western Isles along with Skye was part of Inverness-shire. No reason why they can't go back into an Inverness-shire county constituency. Argyll contains lots of tiny islands but they form part of the one seat. Lewis and Harris were part of Ross and Cromarty and should be restored to it. Tain and Easter Ross has far less in common with Caithness than Orkney or Shetland. Orkney and Shetland should be combined with Caithness and Sutherland. That would give the Scottish Highlands and Islands the following seats

    Orkney, Shetland, Caithness and Sutherland
    Ross and Cromarty (inc Lewis and Harris)
    Inverness-shire and Lochaber (inc Skye and rest of Inner Hebrides not in Argyll)
    Inverness City and District
    Moray and Nairn
    Argyll and the Islands

    That would be far more in keeping with traditional links and create more realistically sized seats. Shetland actually is linked to Aberdeen for transport and few people travel from Orkney to Shetland directly or Inverness to Shetland directly.
  • Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour
  • 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.

    It could well be that a few Corbynistas lose their seats or do not get to take them, too. The Momentum plant put into Bassetlaw after the local membership chose the wrong candidate looks set to be defeated if the polls are anywhere near correct, for example.

  • kinabalu said:

    Labour Leadership -

    My view. The party will stay Left but will conform to the rule that you replace a leader with their diametric opposite. They will go for someone who is everything Corbyn was not, and furthermore who is not anything that Corbyn was. He was - and still is for that matter - an elderly middle class man rooted in North London. Thus the new leader will be a young working class woman from the North. Which means one of Rayner, Long Bailey, Pidcock. It is the last named who has the X factor. She will lose her seat if there is a "blue wave" north of Watford Gap - something I fear is verging on the probable - but assuming this does not happen and she stands, I think she wins.

    Two caveats. She is very young and inexperienced and thus might opt instead for deputy leader. In which case I have no strong view on who will keep the seat warm until she's ready to sit on it - that sounded wrong but never mind. The other caveat is if the party do NOT keep faith with the left radicalism of the Corbyn years. What if a thrashing next week causes a lurch back to timid centrism? This is easy. If that happens there is a particular person who I cannot see past. She's smart. She's capable and tough. She's been around but still has plenty of zip. Yvette Cooper.

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,400
    IanB2 said:

    melcf said:

    I know a lot of people have money and personal interests in a Tory landslide. Hence I come across as a party pooper, if I post anything contrary to that dream.
    I still feel this election is too close to call. The tories may sneak in by 10-20 seats. Anywhere from 305-335. My reasoning
    1) Bojo has harped mostly on Brexit, which is great. However, in the background of 10 years of austerity, specially in the north, it's not a killer.
    2) Polls missing the surge in young people registering and keen to vote, mostly labour. I would take this as around 5-10%
    3) Polls again missing or underrepresenting ethnics and other minorities, who are now nearly 20%
    4) Winter weather, specially in the North, may affect the turnout among the elderly, mostly staunch Tories and Brexiters. Not a significant amount but even 2-5% decrease can make a huge diff in many seats
    4) Brexit party will do well in some seats, denying Tories victories. My estimate , around 5-15 seats, eg Vale of Clywd
    5) Tactical voting by LibDems and Green, specially Greens towards Labour, making a difference in 10-20 seats
    Please do correct me on any of the above

    I'd rather not see a Tory majority, but fear we are relying on the capriciousness of the voting system to deny them one despite a very clear vote lead, which is not a great place to be.

    The weaknesses in your list are that (1) is in the polls already, (2) is marginal in most seats and mostly a repeat of what we saw in 2017 when the polls were on the move, (3) is no different to any previous election, your first (4) isn't really the forecast and is unlikely to affect turnout anyway, your second (4) assumes that BXP voters are Tories when they aren't. People made the same mistake about UKIP last time.

    We are left hanging on (5) - and specifically Labour voters being prepared to put the LibDems across the line in remainer seats in the South. Losing those is the surest way to deny the majority - the one thing the LibDems have got right during the campaign.
    Are Lab and LD voters thinking of voting tactically? This would seem to show that they are, and 27% of voters are still undecided.

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1202969395242426370?s=19
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

    Nicola not doing too well by the looks of it

    Scottish Independence voting intention:

    No: 56% (+5)
    Yes: 44% (-5)

    via @YouGov, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgs. w/ Sep

    Started further back than that last time. But I'd prefer that direction. The fundamental problem closed the last thread in that for the foreseeable future the issue wont go away If a huge chunk continue to want it but cannot quite get a majority.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    All manifestos say they want more power to regions and local government. They rarely follow through in meaningful ways. And when it is meaningful it's in a haphazard, confused way.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717
    edited December 2019

    I think politicians most associated with the Blair era have very little chance with the current party. If not Pidcock or Long-Bailey on the Left, then Miliband or Starmer in the centrist faction within the Left.

    I suppose that could be a negative for Cooper. She was not a Blairite but she is from that era. I should have mentioned Jess Phillips as well. If the Left lose control she must be a possible wild card. Ed Miliband would be a good soft left choice, better than Starmer IMO, but I really do think it has to be - and will be - a woman.
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166
    Looks like Grimsby is turning blue, some change that would be. Several reasons but seems like it
    Scunthorpe still red at the miment
    Lincoln still red, thanks largely to the Tories central Hq for re selecting a rejected prik
    Wrexham and Vale of Clwyd, confusing signals but I would be foolish, to call it Tory yet
  • kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
    650 means the same number as current MPs who have to vote for any change. More would mean less office space.

    I would expect to end up with 650.
  • kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Interesting point I hadnt thought of. Particularly pertinent given May ran out of MPs to appoint who hadnt either already been sacked, resigned or had called for her own resignation.
  • melcf said:

    Looks like Grimsby is turning blue, some change that would be. Several reasons but seems like it
    Scunthorpe still red at the miment
    Lincoln still red, thanks largely to the Tories central Hq for re selecting a rejected prik
    Wrexham and Vale of Clwyd, confusing signals but I would be foolish, to call it Tory yet

    Grimsby needs to go blue. Then when Brexit fails to revive the fishing industry, or anything else much for that matter, Labour won't be blamed for it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    melcf said:

    Looks like Grimsby is turning blue, some change that would be. Several reasons but seems like it
    Scunthorpe still red at the miment
    Lincoln still red, thanks largely to the Tories central Hq for re selecting a rejected prik
    Wrexham and Vale of Clwyd, confusing signals but I would be foolish, to call it Tory yet

    Could well be many such areas get tantalisingly close for the tories but fall short. It's a feeling LDs would be quite familiar with.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    I'm afraid I'm not seeing the attraction of Laura Pidcock - she looks and sounds like someone from the student union - which of course she was only a few years ago.

    She's only 32, appears from her bio to have spent half her adult life as a student, and has had a single non-political job (as an educator for an anti-racism charity) for about 18 months.

    If Labour want to win an election, they need to select a leader who's electable and seen as Prime Ministerial. A shouty student activist type really isn't that person.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.

    I could go with her if she demonstrates some good policy grasp and a little more interest in ideology.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,001

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
    650 means the same number as current MPs who have to vote for any change. More would mean less office space.

    I would expect to end up with 650.
    Oh I expect you are right. But as a thought experiment its interesting to speculate what would be the best number.

    I'd arbitrarily go for 500. It's still more than there seats in the Chamber so theyd retain that crowded bustling atmosphere.
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155
    edited December 2019
    kinabalu said:

    I think politicians most associated with the Blair era have very little chance with the current party. If not Pidcock or Long-Bailey on the Left, then Miliband or Starmer in the centrist faction within the Left.

    I suppose that could be a negative for Cooper. She was not a Blairite but she is from that era. I should have mentioned Jess Phillips as well. If the Left lose control she must be a possible wild card. Ed Miliband would be a good soft left choice, better than Starmer IMO, but I really do think it has to be - and will be - a woman.
    Compare and contrast with the Tories who at the time of their election presumed Thatcher & May as the best 'person' to lead their party.
    Labour need to find a woman capable of being leader, can't stand her and she is very divisive, but her Ladyship is only one that is worthy of being on the ballot at the moment. While momentum have a stranglehold still think McDonnell has to be favourite.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,652
    edited December 2019
    The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.
  • kinabalu said:

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.

    I could go with her if she demonstrates some good policy grasp and a little more interest in ideology.
    It is her lack of taking sides on ideology that makes her appealing to the floating voters. When Labour are ideoligical they lose as far left is not the view of the country. She clearly has a passion for improving the lives of people, and understands how to communicate in the social media era. With good people around her she could be a formidable LOTO.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,400
    kinabalu said:

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.

    I could go with her if she demonstrates some good policy grasp and a little more interest in ideology.
    Jess Phillips or Angela Rayner look to me to be the only ones capable of doing a Neil Kinnock on the Trots and dragging Labour back to electability. That is a battle that needs passion, credibility but also solid Labour roots.
  • kle4 said:

    Nicola not doing too well by the looks of it

    Scottish Independence voting intention:

    No: 56% (+5)
    Yes: 44% (-5)

    via @YouGov, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgs. w/ Sep

    Started further back than that last time. But I'd prefer that direction. The fundamental problem closed the last thread in that for the foreseeable future the issue wont go away If a huge chunk continue to want it but cannot quite get a majority.
    I have a close relationship with all things Scots and can say with some degree of confidence they will not vote for independence. Apart from close family ties across the UK it is inconceivable that the Scots would want a border from Berwick to Carlisle, lose their navy shipbuilding contracts, lose RAF Lossiemouth, surrender their fishing to Brussels, see RBS locate to London and interrupt their 60% trade with the rest of the UK for their much smaller trade with the EU


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,187
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    All manifestos say they want more power to regions and local government. They rarely follow through in meaningful ways. And when it is meaningful it's in a haphazard, confused way.
    Indeed so. Maybe (just maybe) a majority that comes about because of a lot of seats won unexpectedly in non-traditional areas, might lead to an understanding that those areas need to be kept onside to keep that majority at the next election.

    I'm not a fan of 'regions' spending money, that's just an excuse to keep the power with central government. Let democratically accountable counties and cities raise and spend their own money, and let central government help co-ordinate projects that run between them.
  • IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    The timing of this coming to light is certainly very curious, one must say. It could be an accident of investigation by Reddit, or something else.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 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.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
    The US manages with 435 members of the 'House' plus 100 senators, we're much smaller so why do we need 650 plus untold peers?
    I would reduce the number to 600 to start with a longer term aim of 500 and I would ease the workload by getting rid of anachronisms like walking through lobbies to vote in favour of giving each member a hand held device and they can simply press a button.
    I'm told that there isn't even enough room on the benches for every member to have a seat when large numbers of MPs are present and that's ridiculous.
  • JamesPJamesP Posts: 85
    Conservative overall majority 1.37 on Betfair now. Haven't seen it lower.
  • The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    Yes when told I need to be wary of Russian meddling in the election, my first thought was why cant we see the Russia report! How else am I supposed to be wary?
  • melcf said:

    Looks like Grimsby is turning blue, some change that would be. Several reasons but seems like it
    Scunthorpe still red at the miment
    Lincoln still red, thanks largely to the Tories central Hq for re selecting a rejected prik
    Wrexham and Vale of Clwyd, confusing signals but I would be foolish, to call it Tory yet

    Grimsby needs to go blue. Then when Brexit fails to revive the fishing industry, or anything else much for that matter, Labour won't be blamed for it.
    You do know that Grimsby does not have a fishing fleet anymore
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,400
    IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    I think Putin just wants to sow chaos amongst his enemies. While clearly BoZo does this, Jezza may also suffice.

    Putin has certainly played a blinder the last few years, as the Russia report will probably show.
This discussion has been closed.