I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
The most ugly part of the Tories (or at least some of them) is attacking the BBC and the Courts.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
My issue with the telly tax is that is actually totally unenforceable these days, and that watching this large moving picture box in your living room via an aerial is dying.
There does need to be real reform. What that is I don't know. But, the BBC won't accept any reform.
End the license fee, let them reform themselves however they like.
On your second question, building HS2 from the north is a non-starter. The capacity constraints are into London, so it would just be a white elephant: the trains couldn't decant anywhere.
Makes sense. Could be a long wait for them then.
Any idea of whether HS3 is only viable once HS2 is done and dusted?
The issue is more a decent trans-pennine link.
I'm not sure the 'high speed' bit matters too much at that length; it just needs a decent modern new main-line.
Cheers. I have heard apparently well-informed people argue Britain as a whole is "too small" for high speed to be worthwhile for its own sake (so can certainly believe that for an east-west link!) but that at least in HS2's case, there was a need for new capacity anyway and the cost differential between "high speed" and not was sufficiently small that you might as well go the whole hog. Not sure if this is broad-brush accurate.
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?
I love looking at big spreads of all the different newspaper front pages and what different angles they are taking on the day. Oddly I especially like the slow news days where they prioritise completely different stories and you can really see the different interests and worldviews of the readerships ("immigrants/Diana/house prices/football/random celeb/new nursing contracts/pharmamegacorp merger"). The day after the election is usually less interesting than the day itself, when the papers make their final pitch to their readers - the tabloids often especially witty on the front pages, "please turn out the lights" and all that - and the best thing is you know how ridiculous at least half of those headlines are going to look in the wake of the results that night, but can't be certain which ones it is. The result day headlines and photos tend to be quite samey which takes some of the interest out of it though, and always suffer from necessary vagueness due to being printed before the final results are out.
What I would love to see, though, is a big spread of all the "almost" results day front pages that they prepared before the exit poll but didn't run with!
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.
I love looking at big spreads of all the different newspaper front pages and what different angles they are taking on the day. Oddly I especially like the slow news days where they prioritise completely different stories and you can really see the different interests and worldviews of the readerships ("immigrants/Diana/house prices/football/random celeb/new nursing contracts/pharmamegacorp merger"). The day after the election is usually less interesting than the day itself, when the papers make their final pitch to their readers - the tabloids often especially witty on the front pages, "please turn out the lights" and all that - and the best thing is you know how ridiculous at least half of those headlines are going to look in the wake of the results that night, but can't be certain which ones it is. The result day headlines and photos tend to be quite samey which takes some of the interest out of it though, and always suffer from necessary vagueness due to being printed before the final results are out.
What I would love to see, though, is a big spread of all the "almost" results day front pages that they prepared before the exit poll but didn't run with!
Funnily enough, all those h’s and g’s are a rough approximation to the noise I’d have been making as I slowly rocked backwards and forwards if the exit poll had shown a Corbyn victory..
On your second question, building HS2 from the north is a non-starter. The capacity constraints are into London, so it would just be a white elephant: the trains couldn't decant anywhere.
Makes sense. Could be a long wait for them then.
Any idea of whether HS3 is only viable once HS2 is done and dusted?
The issue is more a decent trans-pennine link.
I'm not sure the 'high speed' bit matters too much at that length; it just needs a decent modern new main-line.
Cheers. I have heard apparently well-informed people argue Britain as a whole is "too small" for high speed to be worthwhile for its own sake (so can certainly believe that for an east-west link!) but that at least in HS2's case, there was a need for new capacity anyway and the cost differential between "high speed" and not was sufficiently small that you might as well go the whole hog. Not sure if this is broad-brush accurate.
I thought Japan lead the way with high speed rail? And itsn't their island about the same size as ours?
I think it's a great idea. Great for the Borders, which is a much overlooked and beautiful part of Scotland, and great for Northern Ireland.
Any idea how much that might cost, what sort of toll could be charged?
Quite a lot of detail in this Wiki article. Costs in the region of £20 billion, if we apply the rule of "and you probably need to double the initial estimate when someone's trying to stoke up interest" then it's still not completely infeasible. Certainly the engineering is possible (will mean spending a lot of money cleaning up WW2 munitions!). May not make actual economic sense, but that's a different issue. The symbolism is important here.
Interestingly it's something that the DUP and Sturgeon are in agreement on! And I do wonder if Boris is tempted.
Bread and circuses?
Actually, no. I'm a big fan of grandiose schemes like this - see also Boris Island, Trump buying Greenland, the late 90's plan to buy Siberia. These things really make a difference in historical terms
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".
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]
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.
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".
As a warning.
That's certainly the vibe i'm getting when watching foreign media. He's just discredited the hard left in a way none of its opponents could ever do.
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.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
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.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
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.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
Your in favour of the p.r voting system.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
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.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
Your in favour of the p.r voting system.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
I said I'm in favour of Party List system. Personally I don't regard STV and it's ilk as PR ; but heh, I'm an eccentric
That's ironic coming from a guy who's clearly middle class.
That's not really the point though, the right isn't interested in fomenting class war. He's claiming to be a middle class person who's willing to listen to what his constituents want where modern Labour doesn't care.
That's ironic coming from a guy who's clearly middle class.
That's not really the point though, the right isn't interested in fostering class war. He's claiming to be a middle class person who's willing to listen to what his constituents want where modern Labour doesn't care.
It's always good to listen, whether he does anything for Wakefield is another matter, time will only tell.
So we start day three of the Labocalyse and Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. 🤡
Yes but he is going to stay for a few more months apparently.
He's going to stay until after May 7th 2020 and then he's going to report back to CCHQ and say 'I've completed my 40 year mission, can I have my pension now'
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.
So we start day three of the Labocalyse and Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. 🤡
Yes but he is going to stay for a few more months apparently.
He's going to stay until after May 7th 2020 and then he's going to report back to CCHQ and say 'I've completed my 40 year mission, can I have my pension now'
One thing you can be sure about, is that he'll get a pretty hefty pension.
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
I love looking at big spreads of all the different newspaper front pages and what different angles they are taking on the day. Oddly I especially like the slow news days where they prioritise completely different stories and you can really see the different interests and worldviews of the readerships ("immigrants/Diana/house prices/football/random celeb/new nursing contracts/pharmamegacorp merger"). The day after the election is usually less interesting than the day itself, when the papers make their final pitch to their readers - the tabloids often especially witty on the front pages, "please turn out the lights" and all that - and the best thing is you know how ridiculous at least half of those headlines are going to look in the wake of the results that night, but can't be certain which ones it is. The result day headlines and photos tend to be quite samey which takes some of the interest out of it though, and always suffer from necessary vagueness due to being printed before the final results are out.
What I would love to see, though, is a big spread of all the "almost" results day front pages that they prepared before the exit poll but didn't run with!
HS2+ Aberdeen to London
Who's with me?
That's certainly the vibe i'm getting when watching foreign media. He's just discredited the hard left in a way none of its opponents could ever do.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
I'm sure that some of you (i.e none of you) will be concerned about my interactions with the Scottish NHS mental health department.
Well I'm I delighted to tell you that they're no longer injecting me every month to keep me sane.
Back on the pills.
Great Success!
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.
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