These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
At least Remainers waited five seconds after the referendum result. Nigel Farage wanted a second referendum even before all the results were in. Obviously that was before he realised Leave had won.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That's a feature, not a bug, of FPTP. Just look at the SNP in Scotland; they got around 45% of the votes but 80% of the seats.
Plus we shouldn't forget that people sometimes vote against parties, and that's a feature, not a bug, too.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
True, though the most efficient this time were the SNP, with only 25,882 votes per MP. It certainly helps if the opposition is split three rather than two ways!
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
True, though the most efficient this time were the SNP, with only 25,882 votes per MP. It certainly helps if the opposition is split three rather than two ways!
Back in 1992, Sir Russell Johnston won Inverness with 26% of the vote, and less than 2,000 votes separated fourth from first.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
Dunbar has researched natural numbers in societal groupings which, not totally surprisingly, have some correlations with brain architecture and processing capacity. But I think the highest Dunbar number is 1500 (roughly the number of faces you can put names to), which is a bit too small for constituency size
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
Going to be interesting to see if they do something about Welsh over-representation in the next review. Some of those Valley seats have tiny electorates.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
I think you are mixing overall population and eligible voters population.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
We'd all be worse off - having to pay for 751 MPs and their staff and offices!
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
I think you are mixing overall population and eligible voters population.
Eligible voters are a much higher proportion of total population today than in the nineteenth century.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
We used geography as an easy way to segment the population, because - in the olden days - there was no other way.
Now we have technology, why not divide the population into 650 equal sized constituencies based on other demographic factors?
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
The more things get devolved down to the counties, the fewer MPs we need in the centre - see the USA for an example.
500 overpaid politicians and their numerous taxpayer-funded hangers-on is plenty, go for fewer than that and you run into problems finding a sufficiently skilled Executive.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
The more things get devolved down to the counties, the fewer MPs we need in the centre - see the USA for an example.
500 overpaid politicians and their numerous taxpayer-funded hangers-on is plenty, go for fewer than that and you run into problems finding a sufficiently skilled Executive.
The more you devolve real local stuff, the less relevent geographically based MPs become. Why not segment the country into 500 virtual constituencies based around some combination of Myers-Briggs and age?
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
The more things get devolved down to the counties, the fewer MPs we need in the centre - see the USA for an example.
500 overpaid politicians and their numerous taxpayer-funded hangers-on is plenty, go for fewer than that and you run into problems finding a sufficiently skilled Executive.
The more you devolve real local stuff, the less relevent geographically based MPs become. Why not segment the country into 500 virtual constituencies based around some combination of Myers-Briggs and age?
At least we’d all get to spend our 40s in a marginal seat, rather than spending an entire life suffering wasted vote syndrome!
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
The more things get devolved down to the counties, the fewer MPs we need in the centre - see the USA for an example.
500 overpaid politicians and their numerous taxpayer-funded hangers-on is plenty, go for fewer than that and you run into problems finding a sufficiently skilled Executive.
The more you devolve real local stuff, the less relevent geographically based MPs become. Why not segment the country into 500 virtual constituencies based around some combination of Myers-Briggs and age?
So if I want to see my MP, I have to Skype them rather than meet in person?
Does your Myers-Brigs suggestion mean that all the introverts end up in one seat, and all the extroverts end up in another?
That Jeremy Corbyn article is just about as tone deaf as is possible. Not even a scintilla of contrition.
He is a Bennitte, he has reacted as such. In many ways the Labour party is back to the battles between Kinnock and Benn in the mid eighties, lofty aimed socialism run by public school escapees versus the practical people of the type that set up the party in the first place.
I have some books to add to my reading list on the subject, problem is my reading list is huge.
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That's a feature, not a bug, of FPTP. Just look at the SNP in Scotland; they got around 45% of the votes but 80% of the seats.
Plus we shouldn't forget that people sometimes vote against parties, and that's a feature, not a bug, too.
Surely under preference voting, the ability to rank a party last is a pretty clear way of voting against someone?
One nugget from this election - it takes 38,264 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 50,587 to elect a Socialist. Seems to indicate a big diffferent in the efficiency of the distributions of their voters.
The winning party almost always has a far higher efficiency of vote. Blair was 32,300/MP in 1997, while Cons were at 58,100/MP.
That was probably what kick-started the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering plans. Those numbers (or more particularly, their naive misinterpretation) "proved" Labour must be cheating so justified putting a blue thumb on the scale.
That's gerrymandering as in making sure that constituencies are roughly equal sizes?
It should have been done decades ago.
If it helps, I'm perfectly happy with constituency size equalisation. It's the reduction of MPs to 600 from 650 that worries me. It should be around 750 if my calculations are correct.
How do you get that? America has 435 in the lower house for five times the population. They have a more devolved government, but feds account for about two-thirds of government expenditure. There is no objective way to determine the optimal number for a legislature that I see. I think 500, which I think was originally proposed, would be fine.
A few years back I had a look at population numbers and constituency sizes in (I think) the 19th century, and came up with a maximum size of 85,000 people per constituency. Since Cameron was then PM and his constituency was about 83,000 it seemed about righr. There are about 64million people in the UK, so 64x10^6/85x10^3 = 64/85 x 10^3 = 753 constituencies. Say 750 for the MPs and an additional 1 for the Speaker.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
But you're not allowing for increased productivity. Since the 19th century, this country has increased production per worker by six or ten times. So actually 500 MPs seems ridiculously generous.
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
On this debate I'd look for a reduction in the MP 'social worker' role.
Perhaps they all need to be like Stuart Bell and spend most of their time in Paris and London, rather than the Constituency.
Grimsby one of the worst individual seat results for LAB in a GE since 1906. Others like Basset law and Redcar come into this territory.
The swing in Bassetlaw was the biggest LAB to CON swing in a seat in a GE of all time
Wow.
Given that he was competing against Keir "Dance on Thatcher's Grave Teeshirt" Morrison, the Tory winner should know better than to have allowed this piccie.
Grimsby one of the worst individual seat results for LAB in a GE since 1906. Others like Basset law and Redcar come into this territory.
The swing in Bassetlaw was the biggest LAB to CON swing in a seat in a GE of all time
Wow.
Given that he was competing against Keir "Dance on Thatcher's Grave Teeshirt" Morrison, the Tory winner should know better than to have allowed this piccie.
Millstone. Neck. Possibly.
At least it wasn't him swigging the bubbly.
I'd say only really damaging if what's in there is expensive. If it's £7 plonk, it's an exuberant celebration. If it's £50+ Champagne it looks pretty bad to those struggling to get by on universal credit...
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
It matters very much that the SNP in 2015 only got 49.997% of the vote. Otherwise they could claim a mandate (just) for Sindy :-o .
Grimsby one of the worst individual seat results for LAB in a GE since 1906. Others like Basset law and Redcar come into this territory.
The swing in Bassetlaw was the biggest LAB to CON swing in a seat in a GE of all time
Wow.
Given that he was competing against Keir "Dance on Thatcher's Grave Teeshirt" Morrison, the Tory winner should know better than to have allowed this piccie.
Millstone. Neck. Possibly.
At least it wasn't him swigging the bubbly.
I'd say only really damaging if what's in there is expensive. If it's £7 plonk, it's an exuberant celebration. If it's £50+ Champagne it looks pretty bad to those struggling to get by on universal credit...
Grimsby one of the worst individual seat results for LAB in a GE since 1906. Others like Basset law and Redcar come into this territory.
The swing in Bassetlaw was the biggest LAB to CON swing in a seat in a GE of all time
Wow.
Given that he was competing against Keir "Dance on Thatcher's Grave Teeshirt" Morrison, the Tory winner should know better than to have allowed this piccie.
Millstone. Neck. Possibly.
At least it wasn't him swigging the bubbly.
I'd say only really damaging if what's in there is expensive. If it's £7 plonk, it's an exuberant celebration. If it's £50+ Champagne it looks pretty bad to those struggling to get by on universal credit...
Reflecting - I wonder if it does matter, or it does if it happens too many times. As you say, once may be fine.
If they are going to create an enduring generation of working class Tories to go with the one or two term 'disgusted with Corbyn' vote, he needs the people who are "precariat / minumum-wagers and looking to improve themselves" group. He needs to help build ladders where such can go from say 15-20k per year income, to say 25-30k per year. Up here the former is a struggle for a single or couple; the latter is doable including getting a house.
I would say that creating a bubbly-glugging image will not help that.
Lisa Nandy has confirmed for the first time that she might stand as the next Labour leader.
Asked by Andrew Marr, the MP for Wigan says: "Well, the honest answer is I'm seriously thinking about it.
"The reason I'm thinking about it is because we've just had the most shattering defeat where you really felt in towns like mine that the Earth was quaking".
She says we've watched the entire Labour base "crumble beneath our feet".
She adds: "I think I definitely have a contribution to make" but the party needs to take some time to think about how to "take that very hard road back to power and who is best placed to fix it".
Comments
https://www.rt.com/uk/475861-scuffles-police-london-anti-brexit/
Sorry for giving you some info for the question you posed.
Their calls for "Defying Tory rule" seem to indicate that they don't expect a rerun.
Still, check out RT more often - it's a great source.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/14/young-under-margaret-thatcher-tough-i-fear-this-will-be-far-worse
... and will probably have about as much luck.
Men's hairstyles were clearly amazing back then.
Plus we shouldn't forget that people sometimes vote against parties, and that's a feature, not a bug, too.
It should have been done decades ago.
With 600 constituencies its 64x10^6/6x10^2 = 64/6 x 10^4 = approx 60/6 x 10^4 = 6/6 x 10^5 = 1x10^5 = 100,000 people per constituency. So we'd be worse off than we've been since the 19th century
Also they worked for free in the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'd accept 650 MPs if we could reintroduce that arrangement ...
Now we have technology, why not divide the population into 650 equal sized constituencies based on other demographic factors?
500 overpaid politicians and their numerous taxpayer-funded hangers-on is plenty, go for fewer than that and you run into problems finding a sufficiently skilled Executive.
Does your Myers-Brigs suggestion mean that all the introverts end up in one seat, and all the extroverts end up in another?
I have some books to add to my reading list on the subject, problem is my reading list is huge.
Perhaps they all need to be like Stuart Bell and spend most of their time in Paris and London, rather than the Constituency.
Given that he was competing against Keir "Dance on Thatcher's Grave Teeshirt" Morrison, the Tory winner should know better than to have allowed this piccie.
Millstone. Neck. Possibly.
At least it wasn't him swigging the bubbly.
If they are going to create an enduring generation of working class Tories to go with the one or two term 'disgusted with Corbyn' vote, he needs the people who are "precariat / minumum-wagers and looking to improve themselves" group. He needs to help build ladders where such can go from say 15-20k per year income, to say 25-30k per year. Up here the former is a struggle for a single or couple; the latter is doable including getting a house.
I would say that creating a bubbly-glugging image will not help that.
Lisa Nandy has confirmed for the first time that she might stand as the next Labour leader.
Asked by Andrew Marr, the MP for Wigan says: "Well, the honest answer is I'm seriously thinking about it.
"The reason I'm thinking about it is because we've just had the most shattering defeat where you really felt in towns like mine that the Earth was quaking".
She says we've watched the entire Labour base "crumble beneath our feet".
She adds: "I think I definitely have a contribution to make" but the party needs to take some time to think about how to "take that very hard road back to power and who is best placed to fix it".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50798916