Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Exactly - "populations" don't vote, but electorates do.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Always been electorates. Population includes loads of non-eligible voters.
Desperately hoping Mark Nicholas is commentating at the behest of the RSA side of this shared broadcast. If he's on Sky next Summer I might finally give up subsidising football fans.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
If Sibley gets 100 this match will be a draw. A scoring rate like this means England will have to bat too long.
Root's getting on with it and so will all the remaining players to come in. Afternoon session was a tough watch but we'll be in decent shape for a declaration just before tea tomorrow if we are lucky enough to be able to choose.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
So when is Iran going to retaliate? Still nothing so far.
I wouldn't be flying on any American flagged Airline for a while.
Fair, though one would imagine they will go for a military target given what the US did. A civilian target would lose them any kind of good will they still have among the weaker European nations.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
How it has always been defined, the number of people on the electoral register.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
It's a ridiculous complaint, as given everything that has happened over the last 5 years if there are any people who are still unregistered they clearly have no interest in voting. Fundamentally anyone in this country who is eligble to vote can easily register to do so, and easily vote in person, or by proxy, or by post. All the talk about registration, gerrymandering and the like is just sour grapes.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
How it has always been defined, the number of people on the electoral register.
ah ok, so doing things how they've always been done is always definitely right, or do you have some other reason for thinking that it is fairer to do it that way?
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Only the electoral Commisiion do this so talk of gerrymandering is stupid. Suggests we need that body to be more efficient at updating the rolls no?
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
You'd actually prefer to keep fighting elections on an out-of date roll which massivley favours the Labour party. Hypocrite.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Only the electoral Commisiion do this so talk of gerrymandering is stupid. Suggests we need that body to be more efficient at updating the rolls no?
It is the government (or was the Cameron government) that did this.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
How world you even get that first figure?
I don't know. I'm guessing it's possible to get an accurate enough approximation.
Personally, I am strongly in favour of PR. And I think we should have automatic registration of voters.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
True, but Labour have not been entirely honest either.
The Welsh seats were not re-allocated by Labour after devolution, but the Scottish ones were. They have remained absurdly small.
In 2019, the number of votes needed to win Ynys Mon was just 12,559. The same number of votes would have put you in FOURTH place in Finchley and Golders Green, behind Ross Houston's 13,347 in third place (and well behind the winning and second placed candidates).
Welsh decisions should be taken in Cardiff -- but it suited Labout to have a cohort of pliant Welsh Labour MPs, so the constituencies never got re-sized.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
How world you even get that first figure?
I don't know. I'm guessing it's possible to get an accurate enough approximation.
Personally, I am strongly in favour of PR. And I think we should have automatic registration of voters.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
It's a ridiculous complaint, as given everything that has happened over the last 5 years if there are any people who are still unregistered they clearly have no interest in voting. Fundamentally anyone in this country who is eligble to vote can easily register to do so, and easily vote in person, or by proxy, or by post. All the talk about registration, gerrymandering and the like is just sour grapes.
You are conflating different issues. For gerrymandering purposes it matters not whether Fred Smith is registered to vote, but whether the great city of Dunny on the Wold has a million registered voters and is thus entitled to 20 seats of 50,000 voters each, or has 1.1 million and is thus divided into 22 constituencies.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
True, but Labour have not been entirely honest either.
The Welsh seats were not re-allocated by Labour after devolution, but the Scottish ones were. They have remained absurdly small.
In 2019, the number of votes needed to win Ynys Mon was just 12,559. The same number of votes would have put you in FOURTH place in Finchley and Golders Green, behind Ross Houston's 13,347 in third place (and well behind the winning and second placed candidates).
Welsh decisions should be taken in Cardiff -- but it suited Labout to have a cohort of pliant Welsh Labour MPs, so the constituencies never got re-sized.
Not the national parliament. The regional one ... maybe.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Easy peasy. By getting them to join some sort of not-registered to vote but potentially eligble to register register.
I think we might need an additional register to know how many people are eligible to be on this register of people who are eligible to be on the electoral register. Or something...
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
Given they are going back to 650, the boundaries will have to be drawn again, rather than using the ones generated on the register for 2017 (which is still relatively recent, I might add).
It’s funny watching Tories berate Labour for being the “party of nostalgia” when the Conservative Party’s entire reason for being at the moment is to recreate Britain circa 1890.
How so?
And even if they do, the point being made was about deliberate, obvious nostalgia - attacks or encouragements directly referencing the politics of the 1970s and 1980s with either a clear desire to return to it, or an inability to look beyond it. I cannot recall that many people openly pining for the days of the 1890s, so at best there is the accusation that what they peddle is equivalent to the 1890s, rather than the direct corrolation with those days made by Labour itself.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
Given they are going back to 650, the boundaries will have to be drawn again, rather than using the ones generated on the register for 2017 (which is still relatively recent, I might add).
The register used for the 600 seats was, shall we say 'suspect' it was a moment in time. From the old system to the individual registration. Lots of voters were purged in the transition but in the run up to the 2017 election almost certainly ended up back on.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
Given they are going back to 650, the boundaries will have to be drawn again, rather than using the ones generated on the register for 2017 (which is still relatively recent, I might add).
There were 3 million new registrations in the weeks before the election.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
There were 3 million new registrations in the weeks before the election.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
Yeah, but still infinitely better than using seats based on a register that is over a decade old (without considering the fact that the vast majority of those were duplicate registrations). Anyway, moot if they use the updated register for 650 seats. I don't think it's been officially announced, only hinted at from sources reported by Guido.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
So when is Iran going to retaliate? Still nothing so far.
I wouldn't be flying on any American flagged Airline for a while.
Fair, though one would imagine they will go for a military target given what the US did. A civilian target would lose them any kind of good will they still have among the weaker European nations.
If it's "An Eye for an Eye", then it could probably be Pompeo.
It would have practical political implications for control of the Senate. Pompeo wants to run for Kansas Senator, if he doesn't run then Kris Kobach will probably lose the seat for the Republicans and the Senate will be up for grabs.
But it will take months to organise such a serious responce.
Anyway this is too macabre even for a political betting site. I don't like speculating about deaths, I don't like it at all.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
While I don't inherently have a problem with the idea of voter ID, so long as there are easy means to provide such ID to people who lack other means, it does look like a solution searching for a problem rather than the other way around. Not that it has never happened, but is this a proportionate response to the scale of the problem?
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Urban areas (which lean Labour) have high population turnover so their electoral registers tend to be out of date -- people leave the area without cancelling their reistration; new arrivals are slow to register when there is no need to do so (like an election).
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Thankfully there has been a massive drive to get voters registered, what with the change to individual registration, and two general elections in two years. The register is about as fresh as it is going to be. I assume you are proposing to do it based on the results of the last census, eight years ago?
Ideally new boundaries would indeed be based on the current register. That is, I fear, not what is intended.
Given they are going back to 650, the boundaries will have to be drawn again, rather than using the ones generated on the register for 2017 (which is still relatively recent, I might add).
There were 3 million new registrations in the weeks before the election.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
Reduce the number of unelected Has-Beens Lords, not the ELECTED MPs!
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
It's funny that something so non-existent could happen to one of us here on PB, and we aren't exactly a big community.
There were 3 million new registrations in the weeks before the election.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
3 million applications, not new registrations. It was ~850k registrations that were from those that did need updating / adding, which again aren't all "new", a lot are people who have moved.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
It's funny that something so non-existent could happen to one of us here on PB, and we aren't exactly a big community.
Does he live in Tower Hamlets or in other similar areas?
Such practices have zero effect in inner city or student seats where such fraud is most likely because Labour would win in such seats anyway regardless of fraud.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
It's funny that something so non-existent could happen to one of us here on PB, and we aren't exactly a big community.
Does he live in Tower Hamlets or in other similar areas?
Such practices have zero effect in inner city or student seats where such fraud is most likely because Labour would win in such seats anyway regardless of fraud.
That's hardly a convincing reason not to try and stop it.
There were 3 million new registrations in the weeks before the election.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
Yeah, but still infinitely better than using seats based on a register that is over a decade old (without considering the fact that the vast majority of those were duplicate registrations). Anyway, moot if they use the updated register for 650 seats. I don't think it's been officially announced, only hinted at from sources reported by Guido.
That is encouraging if true.
This gerrymandering comes from the Cameron-era Conservative Party having convinced itself Labour must be cheating because the number of MPs per million votes was different. More sophisticated analysis (including on pb) showed this was just a question of efficiency of distribution, of running up huge majorities in Huntingdon and the like. Now the Conservatives are back running the show, their distribution does magically look more efficient. Similarly all the fuss about Scotland and Wales is from that brief period when the Tories were wiped out in both. Now they have recovered, things look fairer.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
It's funny that something so non-existent could happen to one of us here on PB, and we aren't exactly a big community.
YouGov still haven't published all the results from their Christmas poll of Labour members.
As well as the questions on 7 potential candidates for the leadership, they asked all the same questions about 4 potential candidates for the deputy leadership (Barry Gardiner, Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler and Rosena Allin-Khan). There were also a load of questions about the relative importance of various criteria for choosing the leader (electability v ideology, etc).
Mike, perhaps you could give them a prod? I suspect they might take more notice of you than me.
YouGov still haven't published all the results from their Christmas poll of Labour members.
As well as the questions on 7 potential candidates for the leadership, they asked all the same questions about 4 potential candidates for the deputy leadership (Barry Gardiner, Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler and Rosena Allin-Khan). There were also a load of questions about the relative importance of various criteria for choosing the leader (electability v ideology, etc).
Mike, perhaps you could give them a prod? I suspect they might take more notice of you than me.
We had head of household registration previously which ended up with one bedroom flats having 27 different voters and other such voter fraud. Individual voter registration is the best way, additionally voter ID is another prudent measure to stop fraud. A free biometric photo ID will cut out all voter fraud as multiple registrants under assumed identities will also be found by simple photo matching.
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
Personation (ie voter fraud by assuming a false identity) is almost non-existent so the claim that photo IDs are needed to prevent it are false. Perhaps its advocates are looking for narrow party advantage -- as in the United States.
If it's such a small issue then why is there so much outrage about it?
YouGov still haven't published all the results from their Christmas poll of Labour members.
As well as the questions on 7 potential candidates for the leadership, they asked all the same questions about 4 potential candidates for the deputy leadership (Barry Gardiner, Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler and Rosena Allin-Khan). There were also a load of questions about the relative importance of various criteria for choosing the leader (electability v ideology, etc).
Mike, perhaps you could give them a prod? I suspect they might take more notice of you than me.
Why are the Tories so long in the Most Seats market? If they manage to reduce the number of MPs to 600, gerrymander the boundaries, disenfranchise significant chunks of the Labour vote, cower the BBC into submission, politicise the judiciary and civil service, use the apparatus of the state in the party interest, and give the mandate back to people living abroad (15 years+), then I’d have thought that a sensible price five years out would be sub 1/3.
Next UK GE - Most seats - best prices
Con 4/6 Lab 13/8 Any other party 33/1
What gerrymandering?
The bit where constituencies are made to be more equal, obviously.
The gerrymandering is allocating too few seats to Labour-leaning areas relative to their population, as has previously been explained.
But have we ever allocated seats based on population?
It has always been based on electorates has it not?
Basing the seat sizes on population and not the electorate sounds a lot like gerrymandering to me.
how are you defining "electorate" - it would be fairer to define at as "number of people eliglible to register to vote" rather than "number of people on the electoral register"
How world you even get that first figure?
I don't know. I'm guessing it's possible to get an accurate enough approximation.
Personally, I am strongly in favour of PR. And I think we should have automatic registration of voters.
Approximations are not good enough.
Again, how does automatic registration even work?
that's a pretty easy question to answer. try a search engine.
not sure why you need to add "even" to all your questions.
Comments
The Disk: the real story of MPs' Expenses Scandal
https://youtu.be/ZWH0ang_fBU
So if you purge the electoral rolls of the people who have left but take no steps to register newcomers, the electoral registers of these urban areas will seem smaller than they are. This means places that lean Labour will be allocated fewer seats than ought to be the case.
It is so fiendishly clever that even the Americans have taken it up, or so I am told.
Followed 5 months later by Pan Am flight 103.
Personally, I am strongly in favour of PR.
And I think we should have automatic registration of voters.
The Welsh seats were not re-allocated by Labour after devolution, but the Scottish ones were. They have remained absurdly small.
In 2019, the number of votes needed to win Ynys Mon was just 12,559. The same number of votes would have put you in FOURTH place in Finchley and Golders Green, behind Ross Houston's 13,347 in third place (and well behind the winning and second placed candidates).
Welsh decisions should be taken in Cardiff -- but it suited Labout to have a cohort of pliant Welsh Labour MPs, so the constituencies never got re-sized.
Again, how does automatic registration even work?
We do need to secure our voting system, if that negatively effects one party over another then surely we should be looking at why one of the parties benefits from an insecure system and fraud, not leave the system open to it to avoid false claims of gerrymandering.
And even if they do, the point being made was about deliberate, obvious nostalgia - attacks or encouragements directly referencing the politics of the 1970s and 1980s with either a clear desire to return to it, or an inability to look beyond it. I cannot recall that many people openly pining for the days of the 1890s, so at best there is the accusation that what they peddle is equivalent to the 1890s, rather than the direct corrolation with those days made by Labour itself.
I had not seen the government returning to 650 seats. Has that been officially announced?
It would have practical political implications for control of the Senate.
Pompeo wants to run for Kansas Senator, if he doesn't run then Kris Kobach will probably lose the seat for the Republicans and the Senate will be up for grabs.
But it will take months to organise such a serious responce.
Anyway this is too macabre even for a political betting site.
I don't like speculating about deaths, I don't like it at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50996471
U.D.A are thought to be involved but the investigation is in the early stages and is still currently ongoing.
I can do quite a few threads on that.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1213827400687063040
Such practices have zero effect in inner city or student seats where such fraud is most likely because Labour would win in such seats anyway regardless of fraud.
This gerrymandering comes from the Cameron-era Conservative Party having convinced itself Labour must be cheating because the number of MPs per million votes was different. More sophisticated analysis (including on pb) showed this was just a question of efficiency of distribution, of running up huge majorities in Huntingdon and the like. Now the Conservatives are back running the show, their distribution does magically look more efficient. Similarly all the fuss about Scotland and Wales is from that brief period when the Tories were wiped out in both. Now they have recovered, things look fairer.
NEW THREAD
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/five-things-we-have-learnt-about-englands-voter-id-trials-in-mays-local-elections/
As well as the questions on 7 potential candidates for the leadership, they asked all the same questions about 4 potential candidates for the deputy leadership (Barry Gardiner, Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler and Rosena Allin-Khan). There were also a load of questions about the relative importance of various criteria for choosing the leader (electability v ideology, etc).
Mike, perhaps you could give them a prod? I suspect they might take more notice of you than me.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0jp0qfiu1x/YG-Archive-02012020-QMULResultsLabMembers.pdf
not sure why you need to add "even" to all your questions.