politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The factors that drive much of the pro-LAB bias in general

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited December 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The factors that drive much of the pro-LAB bias in general elections could work for the Tories in the May Euros

We all know that the electoral system for Westminster seats seems to produce an outcome that is more favourable to LAB than the other parties. A big part of the reason for this is illustrated in the chart above. Labour has far fewer wasted votes.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    Betting post...Ilmaz Vural next Cardiff manager
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,790
    Mike

    Did you go to the game yesturday ?

    35-6

    What a thrashing ;-)

    Lovely sunny day as well and only 3 miles away people were wasting their time and money in Meadowhall.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,790
    valleyboy said:

    Betting post...Ilmaz Vural next Cardiff manager

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yılmaz_Vural

    Dear me, is Vincent Tan trying to provoke the fans even more ???
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    Last time the Tories won 37.7% of the seats on 27.9% of the vote.

    That was not a simulation but a real election.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I just don't see Labour getting their vote out for the euro. Their Europe policy is the status quo (essentially), and I just don;t see that message motivating people.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    I am not sure I understand why more votes are "wasted" when Labour or the tories comes third rather than second but it is clearly the case that where Labour is not in contention they do really badly, possibly because of more tactical voting to support Lib Dems against tories.


    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    DavidL said:


    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

    You really believe the sole import of an election result is in so far as it throws voters in to the arms of the winning candidate when looking for someone to moan to about the street lights?

    Bizarre.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    MikeSmithson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    Last time the Tories won 37.7% of the seats on 27.9% of the vote.

    That was not a simulation but a real election.

    In 2009, the Tories won 26 seats (notional on 2014 boundaries), to Labour's 13.

    Had the Con and Lab vote shares been reversed, Labour would have won 29 seats to the Tories' 11.

    You are still having difficulty grasping the concept of 'bias', I see...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    DavidL said:

    I am not sure I understand why more votes are "wasted" when Labour or the tories comes third rather than second but it is clearly the case that where Labour is not in contention they do really badly, possibly because of more tactical voting to support Lib Dems against tories.


    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

    The most important thing as far as I'm concerned, is to maximise UKIP council seat gains, on the back of the EU election results.



  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Strangely enough, I was thing about UKIP and the EU elections while cycling to the launderette this morning...

    the launderette was closed...

    Aren't the Euro elections a bit of a paradox for Kippers? Many people who would be inclined to vote for them are, by definition, not fans of the EU. I cant imagine this kind of person would give the EU elections legitimacy by voting in them...

    Or more likely, were even aware they were taking place...



  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,684
    DavidL said:

    I am not sure I understand why more votes are "wasted" when Labour or the tories comes third rather than second but it is clearly the case that where Labour is not in contention they do really badly, possibly because of more tactical voting to support Lib Dems against tories.


    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

    Yes. I have been provided with a huge amount of information and statistics as well as a great deal of insider knowledge on how the EU works by a number of MEPs from both the Tory party and UKIP.

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited December 2013
    Interesting post from Think Defence....

    Who'da-thunck-it that Geoff Hoon's pension-plan would be at number three in the expenditure chart! Not 'arf...!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    DavidL said:



    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    I think that's right. I'm expecting a big push from the Labour leadership in 2015 for ALL voters, no matter where they are, to vote Labour (rather than the nod-nod-wink-wink hints that people in Tory-LibDem marginals should tactically vote Lib Dem, especially in 2010). The reason for that is Labour will be aware how important, psychologically, the national share of the vote is - if it's a hung parliament and the Tories have a slightly higher share of the vote, even if Labour have more seats, we all know the press will be screeching about how the Tories have a more "legitimate" claim to form the government.

    That's another reason why I think people are overestimating the Lib Dems' chances in 2015, come to that, because there's surely atleast 6-8 seats which the Lib Dems hold solely because of Labour supporters throwing them a lifeline with tactical voting (before we even start talking about the many genuine Lib Dem supporters who've been alienated).
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Danny565 said:

    DavidL said:



    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    I think that's right. I'm expecting a big push from the Labour leadership in 2015 for ALL voters, no matter where they are, to vote Labour (rather than the nod-nod-wink-wink hints that people in Tory-LibDem marginals should tactically vote Lib Dem, especially in 2010). The reason for that is Labour will be aware how important, psychologically, the national share of the vote is - if it's a hung parliament and the Tories have a slightly higher share of the vote, even if Labour have more seats, we all know the press will be screeching about how the Tories have a more "legitimate" claim to form the government.

    That's another reason why I think people are overestimating the Lib Dems' chances in 2015, come to that, because there's surely atleast 6-8 seats which the Lib Dems hold solely because of Labour supporters throwing them a lifeline with tactical voting (before we even start talking about the many genuine Lib Dem supporters who've been alienated).
    "The reason for that is Labour will be aware how important, psychologically, the national share of the vote is - if it's a hung parliament and the Tories have a slightly higher share of the vote, even if Labour have more seats, we all know the press will be screeching about how the Tories have a more "legitimate" claim to form the government. "

    Basically, you are saying Labour would cut it's nose to spite it's face. No chance, old boy !

    It's seats, dear boy ! it's seats which matter !!

    So you will find Labour supporters in CON-LD marginals will be commiting a supreme sacrifice and vote for a party which they do not indeed support. There is not better pleasure than keeping the nasty* Tories out !

    * the expression "nasty tories" was used by Theresa May in a conference speech !
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Nope, and I can only name two of my MEPs, Claude Moraes and the green woman.
    DavidL said:

    I am not sure I understand why more votes are "wasted" when Labour or the tories comes third rather than second but it is clearly the case that where Labour is not in contention they do really badly, possibly because of more tactical voting to support Lib Dems against tories.


    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    old_labour said:

    Nope, and I can only name two of my MEPs, Claude Moraes and the green woman.

    DavidL said:

    I am not sure I understand why more votes are "wasted" when Labour or the tories comes third rather than second but it is clearly the case that where Labour is not in contention they do really badly, possibly because of more tactical voting to support Lib Dems against tories.


    Given the Coalition I think it will be interesting to see if that features quite so strongly at the next election. My hunch is that labour will have more wasted votes then than in the last 2 elections.

    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

    You are 2 ahead of me. Well done.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited December 2013
    "It's seats, dear boy ! it's seats which matter !!"

    But in reality, it's not just seats that matter is it. How often do we hear the Tories whining about how they were 7% ahead of Labour last time but got no majority, or how their share of their vote was higher in 2010 than Labour's was in 2005 - even though, in both cases, Labour's share of the vote was artificially depressed by people tactically voting Lib Dem. I'm pretty sure that, if there is a hung parliament, the party that has the highest share of the vote will be of vital importance in the public's eyes as to who the government should be.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    You do lead a very sad life worrying about some silly index no one else knows or cares about !

    Let's say we have two seats, each with 100,000 registered voters:

    Constituency C. The Tories win 60000 against Labour 10000. Turnout 70000

    Constituency L. Labour wins 30000 against Tories 20000. Turnout 50000.

    According to you, there is a pro-Labour "bias". Or, are Labour voters smarter by not piling up extra "unnecessary" votes ?


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,020
    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    No system can be proportional when the number of seats per constituency is barely bigger than the number of parties effectively contesting the election.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    surbiton said:



    * the expression "nasty tories" was used by Theresa May in a conference speech !

    No it wasn't, are you ill informed or fibbing?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    No system can be proportional when the number of seats per constituency is barely bigger than the number of parties effectively contesting the election.
    If it's a 'bottom-up' constituency system, true. However, it would be possible to design a 'top-down' constituency system, using bi-proportional apportionment. It has in fact been used in Zurich since 2006.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproportional_apportionment
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    surbiton said:


    You do lead a very sad life worrying about some silly index no one else knows or cares about !

    Let's say we have two seats, each with 100,000 registered voters:

    Constituency C. The Tories win 60000 against Labour 10000. Turnout 70000

    Constituency L. Labour wins 30000 against Tories 20000. Turnout 50000.

    According to you, there is a pro-Labour "bias". Or, are Labour voters smarter by not piling up extra "unnecessary" votes ?

    Not according to me, but according to common sense and the mathematical definition of bias...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    You do lead a very sad life worrying about some silly index no one else knows or cares about !

    Let's say we have two seats, each with 100,000 registered voters:

    Constituency C. The Tories win 60000 against Labour 10000. Turnout 70000

    Constituency L. Labour wins 30000 against Tories 20000. Turnout 50000.

    According to you, there is a pro-Labour "bias". Or, are Labour voters smarter by not piling up extra "unnecessary" votes ?

    Why on earth should those not voting be considered Labour voters just because it's a Labour seat?

    In reality, whatever the electoral system, every vote counts to some extent whether or not it 'elects' someone because it goes to help form a view as to who has (and who doesn't have) a national mandate. That matters if there's a hung parliament - and the fact that the Conservatives won more votes was cited by Clegg as a principal reason why his party would negotiate first with the Tories. It also matters when, for example, the House of Lords is deciding how long to delay something for.

    There's also the dynamic factor to consider. Seats change over time and one where former Labour voters get used to not voting can become vulnerable to a challenge from another party experiencing a surge in support, not least because those who've been accustomed to not voting are difficult to drag out when it does matter and may have lost much of their sense of identity with their former party anyway.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    another_richard said:

    valleyboy said:

    Betting post...Ilmaz Vural next Cardiff manager

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Yılmaz_Vural

    Dear me, is Vincent Tan trying to provoke the fans even more ???
    That wiki link has him having 27 clubs (I think - lost the will to live counting them all) since 1986. Twenty seven! Can't see this going down well at the 'Diff if true.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    edited December 2013
    DavidL said:


    So far as the Euros are concerned the greater propensity to vote amongst tories, even when they have no chance, clearly helps them. The level of interest in the Euros in this country is stunningly low. Personally I am not persuaded that the Euro Parliament has any democratic legitimacy at all and I would like it abolished.

    For all these reasons and the general lack of enthusiasm discussed on the last thread I agree with Mike it is entirely possible that the tories will once again come top in the total votes cast at the Euros and that Labour will underperform their Westminster support like they usually do. There have been suggestions that Labour is reluctant to spend money on the Euros which is (a) not surprising and (b) an accurate assessment of their importance.

    UKIP supporters who think that these elections matter or will be a launch pad to anything more than more expense account dinners for their candidates are deceiving themselves. Let me throw out a challenge. Has anyone on this Board ever got any assistance from a Euro MP?

    Unusually I find I'm disagreeing with everything you say today - didn't get the "no justice without crime" idea on the last thread, and heartily disagree with this. Having had a lot to do with both Westminster and (less obviously, but related to my day job) the European Parliament, I think the latter is clearly superior in terms of debate quality, willingness of MEPs to think independently of the international groups and seriousness of purpose - far less posturing (Hannan and a few others excepted), far more genuine interest in details of how legislation will actually work (partly because the rapporteur system focuses doscussion helpfully and there's no overall majority, ever).

    This is obviously very different from the usual impression. But I'd suggest that most people have no idea how the EP works or what it does, because the media don't tell them - none of the mainstream press report the discussions at all unless it's someone pulling a stunt. The media don't tell them partly because it's an expensive nuisance to maintain a staffer in Brussels, and partly because the issues tend to be second-level as the EU rarely decides anything that affects everyday life directly (which is why I'm not standing there).

    And yes, I've always found MEPs (of most parties) to be really helpful both to me and to constituents who I've referrred to them. Have you tried yours?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    RodCrosby said:


    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    No system can be proportional when the number of seats per constituency is barely bigger than the number of parties effectively contesting the election.
    If it's a 'bottom-up' constituency system, true. However, it would be possible to design a 'top-down' constituency system, using bi-proportional apportionment. It has in fact been used in Zurich since 2006.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproportional_apportionment
    I'd think of that more akin to a single national constituency with regional apportionment than true constituencies though.

    That said, I've never been overly fussed about proportionality and regard the benefits of the constituency link as outweighing disadvantages of disproportionality, providing that the constituencies themselves are fairly drawn.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:


    You do lead a very sad life worrying about some silly index no one else knows or cares about !

    Let's say we have two seats, each with 100,000 registered voters:

    Constituency C. The Tories win 60000 against Labour 10000. Turnout 70000

    Constituency L. Labour wins 30000 against Tories 20000. Turnout 50000.

    According to you, there is a pro-Labour "bias". Or, are Labour voters smarter by not piling up extra "unnecessary" votes ?

    Why on earth should those not voting be considered Labour voters just because it's a Labour seat?

    In reality, whatever the electoral system, every vote counts to some extent whether or not it 'elects' someone because it goes to help form a view as to who has (and who doesn't have) a national mandate. That matters if there's a hung parliament - and the fact that the Conservatives won more votes was cited by Clegg as a principal reason why his party would negotiate first with the Tories. It also matters when, for example, the House of Lords is deciding how long to delay something for.

    There's also the dynamic factor to consider. Seats change over time and one where former Labour voters get used to not voting can become vulnerable to a challenge from another party experiencing a surge in support, not least because those who've been accustomed to not voting are difficult to drag out when it does matter and may have lost much of their sense of identity with their former party anyway.
    Far better to have a system which guarantees most votes=most seats, rather than having to rely on the LibDems doing the decent thing!

    PR^2 for example....
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    The European Parliament elections could be a problem for Labour.Given that the British public use the European elections to show how Eurosceptic they are,Labour`s pro-European stance could depress their turnout.

    To expect the Tories to top the European poll is not taking into account that the public will use mid-term to register their displeasure with the government of whatever colour.

    Labour and UKIP close together and the Conservatives further back with decimation of the Lib Dems is my reading of EP polls.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    DavidL said:

    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.

    The Lib Dems won't lose their seat to the Tories in Scotland. The Greens aren't out of the question but they'd be most likely to lose it to Labour or the SNP. A split of, say, 35/30/15/10/5/5 would produce a 3/2/1 outcome for the first three parties and none for the rest.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    david_herdson said:

    DavidL said:

    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.

    The Lib Dems won't lose their seat to the Tories in Scotland. The Greens aren't out of the question but they'd be most likely to lose it to Labour or the SNP. A split of, say, 35/30/15/10/5/5 would produce a 3/2/1 outcome for the first three parties and none for the rest.
    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    I wouldn't rule out UKIP bizarrely winning a seat in Scotland...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    All the evidence and simulations show that there is still a pro-Labour bias under PR-D'Hondt.

    Labour tend to do better in the smaller, lower-turnout constituencies.

    You will always manage to find reds under the bed ! Bias in PR ? Proportional to the votes cast. It's in the name. There is no law which says a registered voter has to vote. In fact, the Labour party would probably benefit from such a law.
    Odd then that the 2009 Euros had a Loosemore-Hanby Index of Disproportionality of 17.8% - larger than some FPTP elections! [Anything greater than 10% can in no way be described as 'PR']
    You do lead a very sad life worrying about some silly index no one else knows or cares about !

    Let's say we have two seats, each with 100,000 registered voters:

    Constituency C. The Tories win 60000 against Labour 10000. Turnout 70000

    Constituency L. Labour wins 30000 against Tories 20000. Turnout 50000.

    According to you, there is a pro-Labour "bias". Or, are Labour voters smarter by not piling up extra "unnecessary" votes ?

    Why on earth should those not voting be considered Labour voters just because it's a Labour seat?

    In reality, whatever the electoral system, every vote counts to some extent whether or not it 'elects' someone because it goes to help form a view as to who has (and who doesn't have) a national mandate. That matters if there's a hung parliament - and the fact that the Conservatives won more votes was cited by Clegg as a principal reason why his party would negotiate first with the Tories. It also matters when, for example, the House of Lords is deciding how long to delay something for.

    There's also the dynamic factor to consider. Seats change over time and one where former Labour voters get used to not voting can become vulnerable to a challenge from another party experiencing a surge in support, not least because those who've been accustomed to not voting are difficult to drag out when it does matter and may have lost much of their sense of identity with their former party anyway.
    "Why on earth should those not voting be considered Labour voters just because it's a Labour seat?"

    No one is saying that, certainly not me. But in my example, it takes 80000 votes to elect 1 Tory MP, and only 40000 to elect a Labour MP. Simply because the Tories piled up "unnecessary" votes in the FPTP system. There is no bias here !
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I am not sure that the Euros can be called midterm. It will be just 11 months to the GE.


    SMukesh said:

    The European Parliament elections could be a problem for Labour.Given that the British public use the European elections to show how Eurosceptic they are,Labour`s pro-European stance could depress their turnout.

    To expect the Tories to top the European poll is not taking into account that the public will use mid-term to register their displeasure with the government of whatever colour.

    Labour and UKIP close together and the Conservatives further back with decimation of the Lib Dems is my reading of EP polls.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    RodCrosby said:


    I wouldn't rule out UKIP bizarrely winning a seat in Scotland...

    If fact, are there any bookies odds available? ;-)

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    edited December 2013
    david_herdson said:



    I'd think of that more akin to a single national constituency with regional apportionment than true constituencies though.

    That said, I've never been overly fussed about proportionality and regard the benefits of the constituency link as outweighing disadvantages of disproportionality, providing that the constituencies themselves are fairly drawn.

    Afternoon all :)

    Ah yes, the old chestnut of the "constituency link". Is it really that significant in seats of 100,000 or more going forward ? It might work better with seats of 50,000 so a House of Commons with 1,300 MPs - that wouldn't be popular though oddly enough I'm not totally anti.

    Yes, we can draw the constituencies "better" which translates as making it work better for the Conservatives but that won't give us proportionality though it gives people someone to go to with their problems.

    My MP, Stephen Timms, is an excellent constituency MP though whether he's much more than a "super-councillor" in truth is debatable. The ability to get Councils and other organisations to circumvent their own bureaucratic shortcomings and get something done for an individual shouldn't be restricted to someone with the letters "MP" after their name.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited December 2013
    e.g.

    Lab 27% 2
    SNP 26% 2
    Con 14% 1
    UKIP 9.5% 1
    LD 8%
    GRN 6%
    Oths 9.5%
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    DavidL said:

    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.

    The Lib Dems won't lose their seat to the Tories in Scotland. The Greens aren't out of the question but they'd be most likely to lose it to Labour or the SNP. A split of, say, 35/30/15/10/5/5 would produce a 3/2/1 outcome for the first three parties and none for the rest.
    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    I wouldn't rule out UKIP bizarrely winning a seat in Scotland...
    Not that bizarre: they'll win one everywhere else except NI. That said, while UKIP are making progress in Scotland, they're still about 10 years behind their position in England and even in the Euro-poll, which is by far their best opportunity, they'll be doing well to finish in double figures and that's just not going to be enough. In fact, unless UKIP have a stormer, the leading party should secure more than 3x the fourth party and to bag the third seat. They nearly did last time, when the Lib Dems weren't in government.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,684
    stodge said:

    david_herdson said:



    I'd think of that more akin to a single national constituency with regional apportionment than true constituencies though.

    That said, I've never been overly fussed about proportionality and regard the benefits of the constituency link as outweighing disadvantages of disproportionality, providing that the constituencies themselves are fairly drawn.

    Afternoon all :)

    Ah yes, the old chestnut of the "constituency link". Is it really that significant in seats of 100,000 or more going forward ? It might work better with seats of 50,000 so a House of Commons with 1,300 MPs - that wouldn't be popular though oddly enough I'm not totally anti.

    Yes, we can draw the constituencies "better" which translates as making it work better for the Conservatives but that won't give us proportionality though it gives people someone to go to with their problems.

    My MP, Stephen Timms, is an excellent constituency MP though whether he's much more than a "super-councillor" in truth is debatable. The ability to get Councils and other organisations to circumvent their own bureaucratic shortcomings and get something done for an individual shouldn't be restricted to someone with the letters "MP" after their name.

    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited December 2013
    david_herdson said:

    In fact, unless UKIP have a stormer, the leading party should secure more than 3x the fourth party and to bag the third seat. They nearly did last time, when the Lib Dems weren't in government.

    Counter to that, the leading party has not got 3x the 4th in each of the previous 3 Euro elections..
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    RodCrosby said:


    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    That's either very mad or very wise! Please cackle or provide an explanation.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    Doh! I thought you understood that FPTP is nothing more than a closed list of length one?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    In fact, unless UKIP have a stormer, the leading party should secure more than 3x the fourth party and to bag the third seat. They nearly did last time, when the Lib Dems weren't in government.

    Counter to that, the leading party has not got 3x the 4th in each of the previous 3 Euro elections..
    Fair point however the situation re the Lib Dems is now very different (to the extent that they will very probably not be top 4, and possibly not top 5). As you demonstrated, any party will need at least 9% to win a seat; it may have to be 12%+ if the SNP or Labour do particularly well (the minor parties are likely to fall back from their 2009 combined total). I can't see the Lib Dems or Greens making that kind of score; UKIP might do, on a good day.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited December 2013
    Omnium said:

    RodCrosby said:


    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    That's either very mad or very wise! Please cackle or provide an explanation.
    I'll do both.

    D'Hondt is a divisor-based electoral system. So each party's vote is divided successively by 1,2,3... etc.

    We would expect in Scotland the leading parties to be in the approximate range:-

    1st 25-30%
    2nd 20-30%
    3rd 10-20%
    4th 5-10%
    5th 5-10%
    6th 5-10%

    So you can see that if the 4th party's first quotient is greater than the 1st party's third quotient, the 4th party will win a seat...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    edited December 2013
    Richard_Tyndall said:





    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    As I've said before, the system I like best is the optional Danish one of open parallel lists. You get a list of candidates for regionsfor each party. You can vote for the party or for an individual. The number of seats won by the party is proportionate (d'Hondt) to the number of party votes plus the number of votes for the individuals. The PEOPLE who get elected to those seats are ones who got most personal votes. So if you quite like the Tories but prefer Clarke to Osborne or vice versa, you can shade your Tory vote accordingly. It gives a really nice balance of political choice and personal choice. And of course if you've no idea who they are and just like the prty, you can just vote the list.

    The parties are allowed to make this semi-open, weighting the list-only votes to the people at the top of the list. Big parties tend to do that, so that their key people don't get voted out by accident or design. To my mind that rather spoils it, but of course if voters really like low-place Fred Bloggs over Osborne they can ignore the party list option and just vote Bloggs.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    RodCrosby said:


    I'll do both.

    Not sure you did either - but a good private cackle and a pointer to an explanation satisfies me. I'll follow up your clues. Ta.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    At last a PR thread! Happy Christmas!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    NickPalmer said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:





    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    As I've said before, the system I like best is the optional Danish one of open parallel lists. You get a list of candidates for regionsfor each party. You can vote for the party or for an individual. The number of seats won by the party is proportionate (d'Hondt) to the number of party votes plus the number of votes for the individuals. The PEOPLE who get elected to those seats are ones who got most personal votes. So if you quite like the Tories but prefer Clarke to Osborne or vice versa, you can shade your Tory vote accordingly. It gives a really nice balance of political choice and personal choice. And of course if you've no idea who they are and just like the prty, you can just vote the list.

    The parties are allowed to make this semi-open, weighting the list-only votes to the people at the top of the list. Big parties tend to do that, so that their key people don't get voted out by accident or design. To my mind that rather spoils it, but of course if voters really like low-place Fred Bloggs over Osborne they can ignore the party list option and just vote Bloggs.

    The problem with that, though, is that voters don't get to know Fred Bloggs when they're an unknown and there are potentially dozens of other unknowns on each party list.

    I'd still much rather have primaries and single-member constituencies, though I would accept that single-member elections can over-concentrate local concerns at the expense of parliamentarians actually doing their job! I also think it's a great shame that the recall election idea was dropped.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    While D'Hondt is used in the initial allocation of seats, it's the Hare quota plus largest remainders which determines the overall composition of the Folketing...
    Some light reading...
    http://www.thedanishparliament.dk/Democracy/~/media/Pdf_materiale/Pdf_publikationer/English/The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark_samlet pdf.ashx
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2013
    Nick Palmer

    Have you offered an apology to Ms Soubry for your rather nasty cheap shot that you posted on the site a few days back?.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,711
    Quite amazing of course that the Irish regularly manage to fail to r-eelect TD's their parties want and insist on electing locally admired candidates.

    It's also significant of course that the Tories benefited from FPTP, and indeed on occasion got more seats than their vots deserved. 1951 was a case in point!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Omnium said:

    RodCrosby said:


    I'll do both.

    Not sure you did either - but a good private cackle and a pointer to an explanation satisfies me. I'll follow up your clues. Ta.

    The reason the top-placed party needs 3x the fourth place to exclude them in Scotland is this:

    The first five places are likely to be SNP (2), Lab (2), Con (1). The final seat will go to the party with the highest number from the following:

    SNP total divided by 3
    Lab total divided by 3
    Con total divided by 2
    All other parties' full totals.

    You can probably write off the Conservatives, who'll probably not poll much more than 15% (especially with UKIP protest votes), and 7.5 will be less than both Lab/3 and SNP/3.

    Clearly, whichever is larger of SNP and Lab will also be the larger of SNP/3 and Lab/3 as well and likewise, whoever finishes with most out of everyone bar Con, Lab and SNP will knock out the rest. So the key question is whether the sixth seat goes is the first placed party's third, or the fourth-placed party's first - and that will depend on the formula Rod quoted.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    @RodCrosby

    A little bit of research later. Your point now makes sense, but the conclusion isn't entirely right. It's something like 1st>3x4th first AND 2nd>2x4th etc. Mostly matters will be dictated by the first party's vote.

    I'd never realised before that the Scottish parliament had a different system.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Might be worth betting on Labour coming third in the Euro elections given that the chances of three parties being very close together are quite high.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    UKIP have to be favourites to get the highest vote share, but I see them as odds against. The EU elections are elections that much of the public treat frivolously. Many will not vote and many of those who will vote will not put much thought into it. That's benefited UKIP a lot in the past. They'll still benefit from it a bit, but those voters are already naming them. So the upside is lower than might be expected.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLgLDkBDo0

    Regarding "bias" or wasted votes, this presentation by Thrasher is the simplest and the best.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    In 2001 Labour won 63% of seats with 41% of votes.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Omnium said:

    @RodCrosby

    A little bit of research later. Your point now makes sense, but the conclusion isn't entirely right. It's something like 1st>3x4th first AND 2nd>2x4th etc. Mostly matters will be dictated by the first party's vote.

    I'd never realised before that the Scottish parliament had a different system.

    Within the likely ranges of the vote, the simplification holds...
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    antifrank said:

    UKIP have to be favourites to get the highest vote share, but I see them as odds against. The EU elections are elections that much of the public treat frivolously. Many will not vote and many of those who will vote will not put much thought into it. .

    But turnout will be higher in areas where local elections are taking place on the same day as the Euros. People are more interested in their local councils and since local council candidates are far more numerous than MEP candidates there will be a much greater effort on the ground in areas where council seats are up for grabs. Next year's local elections take place in London boroughs and other areas where Labour is generally strong and UKIP and the Tories are weak. The higher turnout in these areas will boost Labour's national vote share in the Euros and make it harder for UKIP to come top.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    Labour could finish up winning the Euro elections on the basis of everyone else is so confused. The stubborn irrationality and disregard to debate that characterises Labour's core vote (and the same for all other parties) may just mean that they win when they aren't trying.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    In fact, unless UKIP have a stormer, the leading party should secure more than 3x the fourth party and to bag the third seat. They nearly did last time, when the Lib Dems weren't in government.

    Counter to that, the leading party has not got 3x the 4th in each of the previous 3 Euro elections..
    Fair point however the situation re the Lib Dems is now very different (to the extent that they will very probably not be top 4, and possibly not top 5). As you demonstrated, any party will need at least 9% to win a seat; it may have to be 12%+ if the SNP or Labour do particularly well (the minor parties are likely to fall back from their 2009 combined total). I can't see the Lib Dems or Greens making that kind of score; UKIP might do, on a good day.
    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    In fact, unless UKIP have a stormer, the leading party should secure more than 3x the fourth party and to bag the third seat. They nearly did last time, when the Lib Dems weren't in government.

    Counter to that, the leading party has not got 3x the 4th in each of the previous 3 Euro elections..
    Fair point however the situation re the Lib Dems is now very different (to the extent that they will very probably not be top 4, and possibly not top 5). As you demonstrated, any party will need at least 9% to win a seat; it may have to be 12%+ if the SNP or Labour do particularly well (the minor parties are likely to fall back from their 2009 combined total). I can't see the Lib Dems or Greens making that kind of score; UKIP might do, on a good day.
    Given they normally struggle to get even a few % , it does seem just a bit unlikely.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,684
    RodCrosby said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    Doh! I thought you understood that FPTP is nothing more than a closed list of length one?

    Doh! I thought you understood that my whole argument as I have espoused many times on here, is that we should ban whips and end the control parties have over our elected representatives. Your whole thinking is just too parochial.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    RodCrosby said:

    Within the likely ranges of the vote, the simplification holds...

    Yep. Completely agree. I didn't understand the apparently odd statement in your first post. Now I do though. Thanks to you and David for explaining.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    anothernick said:

    antifrank said:

    UKIP have to be favourites to get the highest vote share, but I see them as odds against. The EU elections are elections that much of the public treat frivolously. Many will not vote and many of those who will vote will not put much thought into it. .

    But turnout will be higher in areas where local elections are taking place on the same day as the Euros. People are more interested in their local councils and since local council candidates are far more numerous than MEP candidates there will be a much greater effort on the ground in areas where council seats are up for grabs. Next year's local elections take place in London boroughs and other areas where Labour is generally strong and UKIP and the Tories are weak. The higher turnout in these areas will boost Labour's national vote share in the Euros and make it harder for UKIP to come top.
    It's certainly another reason why the Tories won't win it. Whether it will prevent UKIP is a different matter and depends to no small extent on how much Labour voters at local level are prepared to split their vote by supporting UKIP in Europe.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10539380/David-Cameron-Impossible-to-protect-everyone-from-flooding.html

    It's certainly impossible to protect everyone from floods when you keep building more and more houses in flood plains. That's why people didn't used to build houses there.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    London Euro 14 - 8 seats

    Votes: Lab 40%, Tory 30%, LD 15%, UKIP 10%, Others 5%.

    1st Lab
    2nd Con
    3rd Lab
    4th LD
    5th Con
    6th Lab
    7th and 8th between Lab, Con and UKIP

    Am I correct ?



  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

  • oldnatoldnat Posts: 136
    I'll wait till the last moment to decide how to vote in May. My preferred outcome is for the Greens to win the 6th Scottish seat. 2nd preference is for the SNP to gain a 3rd seat. Worst option is for UKIP to win one. Hopefully there will be some Scottish polling nearer the time so that I can calculate the best way to cast my vote.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    david_herdson said:

    anothernick said:

    antifrank said:

    UKIP have to be favourites to get the highest vote share, but I see them as odds against. The EU elections are elections that much of the public treat frivolously. Many will not vote and many of those who will vote will not put much thought into it. .

    But turnout will be higher in areas where local elections are taking place on the same day as the Euros. People are more interested in their local councils and since local council candidates are far more numerous than MEP candidates there will be a much greater effort on the ground in areas where council seats are up for grabs. Next year's local elections take place in London boroughs and other areas where Labour is generally strong and UKIP and the Tories are weak. The higher turnout in these areas will boost Labour's national vote share in the Euros and make it harder for UKIP to come top.
    It's certainly another reason why the Tories won't win it. Whether it will prevent UKIP is a different matter and depends to no small extent on how much Labour voters at local level are prepared to split their vote by supporting UKIP in Europe.
    I doubt that Labour voters turning out primarily to elect their councillors are likely to go with UKIP for the Euros in any significant numbers, particularly in London. There are fewer and fewer of the old white working class in London now, Labour's core vote comes increasingly from the metropolitan/liberal/cosmopolitan/ethnic minority nexus and these people are repelled by UKIP's white male xenophobia. UKIP's presence in Labour boroughs in London is generally minimal and their performance in the GLA election last year was not insipiring, although this may be partly down to their decision not to stand under the UKIP name.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited December 2013
    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

    People aren't choosing to live in a swamp. The political class are pushing people out of the cities into new housing built on flood plains.

    edit: to be clearer, The political class are pushing people out of the cities and the new housing they're escaping to is built on flood plains - because that's why that land wasn't built on already.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited December 2013
    surbiton said:

    London Euro 14 - 8 seats

    Votes: Lab 40%, Tory 30%, LD 15%, UKIP 10%, Others 5%.

    1st Lab
    2nd Con
    3rd Lab
    4th LD
    5th Con
    6th Lab
    7th and 8th between Lab, Con and UKIP

    Am I correct ?

    Yes, for the 4th party not to win a seat, at least two out of three of the following have to hold:-

    a) 1st party is >4x 4th
    b) 2nd party is >3x 4th
    c) 3rd party is >2x 4th
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    anothernick said:

    UKIP's white male xenophobia.

    There are many Londoners of non-English origin who are at least somewhat hesitant about the current wave of immigration. It is Xenophobia, but its not as you describe.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    oldnat said:

    I'll wait till the last moment to decide how to vote in May. My preferred outcome is for the Greens to win the 6th Scottish seat. 2nd preference is for the SNP to gain a 3rd seat. Worst option is for UKIP to win one. Hopefully there will be some Scottish polling nearer the time so that I can calculate the best way to cast my vote.

    Nice to see you back Oldnat
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    MrJones said:

    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

    People aren't choosing to live in a swamp. The political class are pushing people out of the cities into new housing built on flood plains.

    edit: to be clearer, The political class are pushing people out of the cities and the new housing they're escaping to is built on flood plains - because that's why that land wasn't built on already.

    Nonsense (well somewhat) - people are clearly choosing to live in these places. Some of these places are such that people have avoided them in the past. It's not the 'political class' that's pushing them out, it's you and me.

    It'd be bad if what is happening is that UK plc subsidises developments there, subsidises people to move there, subsidises the flooding defences, and then finishes up bailing people out anyway.

    There's no risk at all of something so daft happening though is there!

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    RodCrosby said:


    Yes, for the 4th party not to win a seat, at least two out of three of the following have to hold:-

    a) 1st party is >4x 4th
    b) 2nd party is >3x 4th
    c) 3rd party is >2x 4th


    It's something along those lines. I'm supposed to be a mathematician, so if I can work out a nice pattern I'll let you know. In the meantime a nice whisky is distracting me from joined-up thinking.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

    People aren't choosing to live in a swamp. The political class are pushing people out of the cities into new housing built on flood plains.

    edit: to be clearer, The political class are pushing people out of the cities and the new housing they're escaping to is built on flood plains - because that's why that land wasn't built on already.

    Nonsense (well somewhat) - people are clearly choosing to live in these places. Some of these places are such that people have avoided them in the past. It's not the 'political class' that's pushing them out, it's you and me.

    It'd be bad if what is happening is that UK plc subsidises developments there, subsidises people to move there, subsidises the flooding defences, and then finishes up bailing people out anyway.

    There's no risk at all of something so daft happening though is there!

    Hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas!

    A surprising amount of flooding is localised and not on floodplains - usually where the downstream pumping stations or ditches cannot cope with an excessive flow. This often happens where drainage ditches have not been dug or cleaned out, meaning that water backs up, or in poorly-designed developments (cough)Cambourne(cough).

    Even then, flash floods can easily overwhelm ancient defences, as happened at Boscastle.

    It's not as simple as just building on floodplains.

    And it's not the b/s phrase "political class": it's people wanting semi-detached houses with as much garden as possible which they than tarmac over to park their cars. Rightly or wrongly, those are the sort of houses that most of us in the UK dream of, and they are massively wasteful of space and resources. The flight from town to city (the reverse of what happened pre-WWII) is down to the supposedly superior suburban or country lifestyle.

    Add in the fact that family sizes tend to be smaller than before (many singles or couples lives in three, four or five bedroom houses), and the demand for development grows.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

    People aren't choosing to live in a swamp. The political class are pushing people out of the cities into new housing built on flood plains.

    edit: to be clearer, The political class are pushing people out of the cities and the new housing they're escaping to is built on flood plains - because that's why that land wasn't built on already.

    Nonsense (well somewhat) - people are clearly choosing to live in these places. Some of these places are such that people have avoided them in the past. It's not the 'political class' that's pushing them out, it's you and me.

    It'd be bad if what is happening is that UK plc subsidises developments there, subsidises people to move there, subsidises the flooding defences, and then finishes up bailing people out anyway.

    There's no risk at all of something so daft happening though is there!

    "people are clearly choosing to live in these places"

    They are choosing to move away from the cities. Once that choice is made - a choice forced on them by the political class - then the options are mostly limited to new housing most of it built places that weren't built on during the massive population explosion during the industrial revolution - and mostly not built on during that time for a reason e.g. flooding.

    "It's not the 'political class' that's pushing them out, it's you and me."

    Are you part of a youth gang culture that the BBC and political class pretend doesn't exist? I'm not.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Yalding flooded in 2000.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/27/david-cameron-heckled-flood-yalding-kent

    Cameron turns up gets heckled, but flood defences not improved 13 years.

    Reference to Yalding and Blair.

    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2005_08_12/nodoi.4571878606665301635
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-12-27/abandoned-the-rescue-services-left-when-cameron-did/

    Nice one guys.

    I think Yalding is built on a flood plain,hence the residents won`t get flood insurance.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Richard_Tyndall said:



    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    I really don't agree with this beyond the word "Yes". Parties already "control the system" as you put it. Every constituency election is essentially a contest between representatives chosen by individual parties - I accept open primaries are coming in some areas but so far it's not much more than a gimmick.

    In local contests, an Independent has a chance but I live in a Ward of 7,500 electors. Even if I had a few friends to help, reaching the bulk of these electors is almost impossible. Even the local Labour party machine struggles.

    Reducing Wards to say 1,000 electors or less might help but that would mean Newham would have 450 Councillors - now, there's a thought.

    One option to increase democratic accountability would be for there to be more Councillors and MPs but that seems to flow contrary to opinion which seems to want fewer MPs covering even larger populations than now.

    I disagree - we need to change the rules of the game so that instead of effectively full-time politicians as Councillors we have a lot more local elected representatives who would be able to combine work and life with looking after their small patch.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,684
    Omnium said:

    MrJones said:

    That's why people didn't used to build houses there.

    And if you choose to live in a swamp I'm not sure that the public should continually bail you out (in both senses).

    Its not just a case of choosing to live on flood plains. A lot of places that are flooding now are exactly the sorts of places that flood plains used to protect from flooding. It is a sad fact of life that if you build on flood plains and then put protection up to prevent those flood plains from flooding then the water has to go somewhere else. In the end it goes to places which did not previously flood either upstream or downstream of the flood plains.

    This is the idiocy of modern building combined with councils who utterly fail to understand the basics of hydrology and so don't keep ditches and culverts cleared or as in ,many cases recently actively stop farmers from clearing out ditches because of damage to wildlife. .
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,684
    stodge said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:



    Yes it is absolutely important as it is one of the last barriers against the total control of our electoral system by the parties. That is why PR is such a pernicious and undemocratic idea as it implies that parties are more important than individual constituency representatives.

    What we really need to be doing is anything we can to destroy the party system, or at least limit the terrible damage it does to our democracy.

    Parties are at the root cause of the utter disconnect between the political classes and much of the electorate. Those who espouse giving even more power to the parties through increasing 'fairness' in elections are the ones who are doing the most damage to democracy.

    I really don't agree with this beyond the word "Yes". Parties already "control the system" as you put it. Every constituency election is essentially a contest between representatives chosen by individual parties - I accept open primaries are coming in some areas but so far it's not much more than a gimmick.

    In local contests, an Independent has a chance but I live in a Ward of 7,500 electors. Even if I had a few friends to help, reaching the bulk of these electors is almost impossible. Even the local Labour party machine struggles.

    Reducing Wards to say 1,000 electors or less might help but that would mean Newham would have 450 Councillors - now, there's a thought.

    One option to increase democratic accountability would be for there to be more Councillors and MPs but that seems to flow contrary to opinion which seems to want fewer MPs covering even larger populations than now.

    I disagree - we need to change the rules of the game so that instead of effectively full-time politicians as Councillors we have a lot more local elected representatives who would be able to combine work and life with looking after their small patch.
    If you bothered to read the other exchanges I have had on this subject this evening you would have seen that I also think that parties control the system. The whole point is to change the system fundamentally so they can no longer control it. Hence the idea that whips should no longer be able to threaten or bribe MPs and that all votes in Parliament should, in effect, be free votes. The same would apply - even more so - at local level.

    If anyone wants to get a law change or a proposal through Parliament or the council they should have to do it by force of argument not force of threat or bribe.

    We already have laws preventing organisations and individuals outside Parliament threatening or bribing MPs. The same should apply within Parliament.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    dr_spyn said:

    Yalding flooded in 2000.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/27/david-cameron-heckled-flood-yalding-kent

    Cameron turns up gets heckled, but flood defences not improved 13 years.

    Reference to Yalding and Blair.

    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2005_08_12/nodoi.4571878606665301635

    It was a weak heckle. A very angry constituent who wasnt really annoyed at the PM, just annoyed at the impotence of public authorities. Cameron handled pretty slickly. He pacified her, she felt like her concerns had been listened to.

    There were two other ways it could have turned out:
    Bigotgate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTr8IVWBuPE

    or the thick of it's
    "Do you know what it's like to clean-up your mother's piss?"

    But it didnt...
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    notme said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Yalding flooded in 2000.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/27/david-cameron-heckled-flood-yalding-kent

    Cameron turns up gets heckled, but flood defences not improved 13 years.

    Reference to Yalding and Blair.

    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2005_08_12/nodoi.4571878606665301635

    It was a weak heckle. A very angry constituent who wasnt really annoyed at the PM, just annoyed at the impotence of public authorities. Cameron handled pretty slickly. He pacified her, she felt like her concerns had been listened to.

    There were two other ways it could have turned out:
    Bigotgate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTr8IVWBuPE

    or the thick of it's
    "Do you know what it's like to clean-up your mother's piss?"

    But it didnt...
    I applaud Cameron for atleast going to Yalding.

    But `don`t tell me,I am only the prime minister` line shows him as rather weak.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    RodCrosby said:

    On the Europoll, UNS would give:-

    LAB 28 (+15)
    UKIP 20 (+7)
    CON 17 (-9)
    SNP 2 (n/c)
    GRN 1 (-1)
    LD 1 (-10)
    PC 1 (n/c)
    BNP 0 (-2)

    So, the SNP, who only contest the Scottish constituency, would have 100% more MEPs than the Lib Dems, who contest every seat in Great Britain. Who'd've thunk it?
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    malcolmg said:

    oldnat said:

    I'll wait till the last moment to decide how to vote in May. My preferred outcome is for the Greens to win the 6th Scottish seat. 2nd preference is for the SNP to gain a 3rd seat. Worst option is for UKIP to win one. Hopefully there will be some Scottish polling nearer the time so that I can calculate the best way to cast my vote.

    Nice to see you back Oldnat
    I concur.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    DavidL The European Elections may not be thrilling, but with more legislation being made in Brussels it is the only direct vote UK voters get on EU policymaking!
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    DavidL said:

    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.

    The Lib Dems won't lose their seat to the Tories in Scotland. The Greens aren't out of the question but they'd be most likely to lose it to Labour or the SNP. A split of, say, 35/30/15/10/5/5 would produce a 3/2/1 outcome for the first three parties and none for the rest.
    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    I wouldn't rule out UKIP bizarrely winning a seat in Scotland...
    I would have agreed with you, if this hadn't happened last month:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-wiped-out-north-of-the-border-after-its-scots-leader-is-sacked.22833054

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/ukip-at-war-in-scotland.22719662

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/11/18/ukip-s-scotland-operation-falls-apart
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    MrJones said:


    Are you part of a youth gang culture that the BBC and political class pretend doesn't exist? I'm not.

    The mere suggestion has me warming to you. My youth is long behind me, and no gang would ever have me (far too fierce clearly!).

    @RTyndall: Yes, choosing to live there albeit unknowingly.The gaff was cheap for a reason.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    looks like things are hotting up in Turkey:

    Incredible photo from #Turkey via @Istanbultelaviv @esinefe RT @05Ocak1970: Kızılay - Ankara pic.twitter.com/Iewter9btL

    — Nervana Mahmoud (@Nervana_1) December 27, 2013

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    surbiton said:

    RodCrosby said:

    On the Europoll, UNS would give:-

    LAB 28 (+15)
    UKIP 20 (+7)
    CON 17 (-9)
    LD 1 (-10)
    GRN 1 (-1)
    SNP 2 (-)
    PC 1 (-)
    BNP 0 (-2)

    First time I have seen Rod Crosby NOT predicting the Conservatives will sweep the board !
    You obviously weren't around in 2007-8, when, almost alone around here, Rod was predicting that the Tories would not win a majority. Can't remember the usual assholes giving him an apology for the years of abuse he was subjected to.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited December 2013
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    DavidL said:

    And what's more in Scotland we have 6 MEPs. At the last election there were 2 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 tory and 1 Lib Dem.

    Even with the Lib Dems falling apart I suspect there will be no change. It is possible that the Lib Dems might lose their seat to the greens or the tories but not very likely. And who would notice anyway? It really is the most pointless election we hold in the UK.

    The Lib Dems won't lose their seat to the Tories in Scotland. The Greens aren't out of the question but they'd be most likely to lose it to Labour or the SNP. A split of, say, 35/30/15/10/5/5 would produce a 3/2/1 outcome for the first three parties and none for the rest.
    Providing the leading party does not get >3x the votes of the 4th party, the sixth seat will go to whoever is highest from LD, UKIP or Green.

    I wouldn't rule out UKIP bizarrely winning a seat in Scotland...
    I would have agreed with you, if this hadn't happened last month:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-wiped-out-north-of-the-border-after-its-scots-leader-is-sacked.22833054

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/ukip-at-war-in-scotland.22719662

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/11/18/ukip-s-scotland-operation-falls-apart
    Yeah, but have you forgotten the time the Lib Dems gained Dunfermline in 2006, when they didn't have a leader, after stabbing the alcoholic Scotsman they had as leader in the front.

    They also had leadership contenders embroiled in scandals that boggled the mind whilst the by-election campaign was on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    David Blunkett calls for satirical TV shows such as Mock the Week to face tighter regulation

    Satirical shows such as Have I Got News For You which mock politicians should be reclassified as “current affairs” and face tougher scrutiny from libel lawyers, David Blunkett has suggested.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/david-blunkett-calls-for-satirical-tv-shows-such-as-mock-the-week-to-face-tighter-regulation-9027372.html
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Stuart_Dickson said:


    I would have agreed with you, if this hadn't happened last month:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-wiped-out-north-of-the-border-after-its-scots-leader-is-sacked.22833054

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/ukip-at-war-in-scotland.22719662

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/11/18/ukip-s-scotland-operation-falls-apart

    I wonder how may people will care/remember it in May 2014?
  • oldnatoldnat Posts: 136
    Stuart/Malcolm

    Just came back for the festive season - BUT posting can be addictive!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    oldnat said:

    Stuart/Malcolm

    Just came back for the festive season - BUT posting can be addictive!

    Every day is a festive season somewhere in the world.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    I'd rather "Current affairs" should be re-classified as comedy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Omnium said:

    I'd rather "Current affairs" should be re-classified as comedy.

    Is this current affairs or comedy?

    Thomas the Tank Engine has come under attack from Labour for not having enough female train drivers.

    Shadow Transport Secretary Mary Creagh MP says the popular series “sets a poor example” to children.

    She says more women characters should be introduced to encourage girls to become train drivers and conductors.

    Ms Creagh, a mother of two, said the lack of women drivers was a “national scandal” and the “negative stereotypes” on children’s TV was partly to blame.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/thomas-tank-engine-a-poor-2964776
This discussion has been closed.