Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Priti Patel may just have changed the Tory leadership rules and this has major betting implications

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 21 in General
imagePriti Patel may just have changed the Tory leadership rules and this has major betting implications – politicalbetting.com

Voting systems matter when it comes to betting

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    I like First Past the Post.

    But I also think that local authorities with... say... 48 Labour and 1 Conservative and no-one else, despite the Labour Party getting less than 50% of the votes are...

    ...not great for democracy and accountability.

    So, I'm not sure I agree with Ms Patel here.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,577
    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 64,142
    Non FPTP votes were brought in post the referendum. It is hilariously cheeky to argue for years the 2011 result means we dont need to consider reforming voting systems, then use it as justification as to why we must reform voting systems.

    We really have learned nothing about extrapolating from basic referendum questions it seems, let alone a basic question 10 years old.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    edited March 21
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925
    edited March 21
    Good morning everyone. Grey day yesterday and the sports results did little to lighten things.

    With the greatest of respect to Mr Eagles, his piece is based on the supposition that the present Conservative leadership would wish to avoid accusations of illogicality and hypocrisy.

    I see no reason why they should wish anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't care.

    And while the Inverness etc result might be an excellent example of the excesses of FPTP, Ynys Mon runs it fairly close.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,639
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    Indeed perhaps we should have had a referendum on voting reform, including STV or the Holyrood system and ranked the choices by AV.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.

    The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.

    Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.

    Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.

    But it is bad for democracy - particularly local democracy - where there is one party that gets 40-45% across a district, but gets 85-90% of the seats.

    It's also profoundly dishonest to say that the electorate voted against something more proportional in all elections, when they voted against AV.

    AV is not a proportional system.

    The electorate - including me - said AV is worse than FPTP. For General Elections.

    But I must admit that I think local democracy would probably be served by less partisanship and more forced practicality.
  • MalcolmDunnMalcolmDunn Posts: 23
    Wasnt aware that Patel had done that but if she did that's good. FPTP is by far the best voting system. Hopefully the government will ensure that all elections over which it has control use it.
  • Priti's making it politically more feasible for Labour to, say, introduce AV+ for Westminster without a referendum.

    (Granted they probably wouldn't want to, and voters would penalise them for it.)
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 21
    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,306
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    Well, we don't know without asking the question. Certainly the Holyrood system seems to work well to provide alternative voices. Under FPTP the SNP would have an overwhelming majority, and a new Indyref.

    I suspect that opposition to AV has shifted. Not everyone is a fan of perpetual hegemony of an authoritarian Tory party on a minority of the vote.
    The alternative is to be an electable party as opposed to unelectable in a majority of constituencies.
    It is more logical for the party to adapt than changing the voting system.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.
    AV was the ditch the LibDems decided to die in.

    The party of the "messy middle"...

    Nick Clegg had the Holy Grail of PR within his grasp. And yet -

    "He chose......poorly."
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    I would also suggest that if you gave people a sheet numbering 1-100 of things bothering them right now electoral reform wouldn't even appear.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    The important thing to remember is that when in opposition, the Tories didn't complain about FPTP.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.
    "He chose......poorly."
    I love that line. It was delivered perfectly and always makes me smile.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    We're not talking about national government, we're talking about local government.

    National government in the UK is never 99-1 (albeit Scotland has gone rather that way in recent years). Plus, of course, we always had the House of Lords as a stabilizer.

    Local authorities in the UK with records of one party rule have not performed well. Pretty much every scandal has happened in places where one party was essentially unchallenged.

    Maybe the problem is that local elections are too politicized.

    But there is a problem there. Too many people are elected, irrespective of their competence or honesty, because of the colour of their rosette.

    Different elections require different electoral systems. It's why the Conservative Party doesn't use FPTP to elect their leaders.

    Local elections are ill served by FPTP. And it's time to find an alternative.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    As a matter of interest, what are the electoral systems of italy and Belgium?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    rcs1000 said:

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    We're not talking about national government, we're talking about local government.

    National government in the UK is never 99-1 (albeit Scotland has gone rather that way in recent years). Plus, of course, we always had the House of Lords as a stabilizer.

    Local authorities in the UK with records of one party rule have not performed well. Pretty much every scandal has happened in places where one party was essentially unchallenged.

    Maybe the problem is that local elections are too politicized.

    But there is a problem there. Too many people are elected, irrespective of their competence or honesty, because of the colour of their rosette.

    Different elections require different electoral systems. It's why the Conservative Party doesn't use FPTP to elect their leaders.

    Local elections are ill served by FPTP. And it's time to find an alternative.
    The argument for FPTP is that it gives voters the power to kick out a bad administration. But if the voters in Newham or wherever are satisfied with their councillors, who are we to criticize? Do you think a few opposition councillors would make all the difference?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    FPTP has delivered pretty lousy governments; either detached majority administrations governing as if they had absolute authority despite inspiring about 30% to turn out to vote for it, o minority administrations dominated by empower extremists.

    Time for something else.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,357
    There's quite a good little book about the maths of voting systems called 'Chaotic Elections'. It essentially concludes that all systems have issues and the are probably equally bad.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,979
    Someone could look very foolish by August if no charges are pressed in Liverpool.

    https://twitter.com/JonTonge/status/1373421162563264512
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.
    AV was the ditch the LibDems decided to die in.

    The party of the "messy middle"...

    Nick Clegg had the Holy Grail of PR within his grasp. And yet -

    "He chose......poorly."
    Clegg made a number of poor choices during the coalition, but it takes two to tango, and Cameron wasn't willing to allow consideration of any alternative system other than AV.
    After all the Conservative party exists to make sure it's leaders and their friends stay on the gravy train, and any other system might threaten that. Of course they'll lose at FPTP election now and then, but generally speaking ........
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,437
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    We're not talking about national government, we're talking about local government.

    National government in the UK is never 99-1 (albeit Scotland has gone rather that way in recent years). Plus, of course, we always had the House of Lords as a stabilizer.

    Local authorities in the UK with records of one party rule have not performed well. Pretty much every scandal has happened in places where one party was essentially unchallenged.

    Maybe the problem is that local elections are too politicized.

    But there is a problem there. Too many people are elected, irrespective of their competence or honesty, because of the colour of their rosette.

    Different elections require different electoral systems. It's why the Conservative Party doesn't use FPTP to elect their leaders.

    Local elections are ill served by FPTP. And it's time to find an alternative.
    The argument for FPTP is that it gives voters the power to kick out a bad administration. But if the voters in Newham or wherever are satisfied with their councillors, who are we to criticize? Do you think a few opposition councillors would make all the difference?
    That's an excellent point.

    But imagine that the majority of people in Scotland vote, election after election, for people who want to preserve the Union.

    And yet 95% of MPs oppose the Union.

    That's not really my point, though.

    National politics should be about distinctive positions and genuine choices.

    Local government should be about holding unelected officials to account. The Chief Executive of a local council has a lot more day to day power than the Cabinet Secretary.

    And I don't think systems where a single party dominates despite only having a minority of votes encourages proper oversight of local officials.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    We're not talking about national government, we're talking about local government.

    National government in the UK is never 99-1 (albeit Scotland has gone rather that way in recent years). Plus, of course, we always had the House of Lords as a stabilizer.

    Local authorities in the UK with records of one party rule have not performed well. Pretty much every scandal has happened in places where one party was essentially unchallenged.

    Maybe the problem is that local elections are too politicized.

    But there is a problem there. Too many people are elected, irrespective of their competence or honesty, because of the colour of their rosette.

    Different elections require different electoral systems. It's why the Conservative Party doesn't use FPTP to elect their leaders.

    Local elections are ill served by FPTP. And it's time to find an alternative.
    ? Do you think a few opposition councillors would make all the difference?
    An incredibly dangerous sentiment.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.
    AV was the ditch the LibDems decided to die in.

    The party of the "messy middle"...

    Nick Clegg had the Holy Grail of PR within his grasp. And yet -

    "He chose......poorly."
    Clegg made a number of poor choices during the coalition, but it takes two to tango, and Cameron wasn't willing to allow consideration of any alternative system other than AV.
    After all the Conservative party exists to make sure it's leaders and their friends stay on the gravy train, and any other system might threaten that. Of course they'll lose at FPTP election now and then, but generally speaking ........
    They should have insisted instead on STV for local elections. It would have harmonised England (&Wales) with Scotland and NI, not required a referendum, and represented a significant step forward for genuinely representative politics. Taking an AV referendum from Cameron (together with the promise that Cameron would stand back from it, subsequently broken) was a mistake on a par with tuition fees.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    We're not talking about national government, we're talking about local government.

    National government in the UK is never 99-1 (albeit Scotland has gone rather that way in recent years). Plus, of course, we always had the House of Lords as a stabilizer.

    Local authorities in the UK with records of one party rule have not performed well. Pretty much every scandal has happened in places where one party was essentially unchallenged.

    Maybe the problem is that local elections are too politicized.

    But there is a problem there. Too many people are elected, irrespective of their competence or honesty, because of the colour of their rosette.

    Different elections require different electoral systems. It's why the Conservative Party doesn't use FPTP to elect their leaders.

    Local elections are ill served by FPTP. And it's time to find an alternative.
    The argument for FPTP is that it gives voters the power to kick out a bad administration. But if the voters in Newham or wherever are satisfied with their councillors, who are we to criticize? Do you think a few opposition councillors would make all the difference?
    That's an excellent point.

    But imagine that the majority of people in Scotland vote, election after election, for people who want to preserve the Union.

    And yet 95% of MPs oppose the Union.

    That's not really my point, though.

    National politics should be about distinctive positions and genuine choices.

    Local government should be about holding unelected officials to account. The Chief Executive of a local council has a lot more day to day power than the Cabinet Secretary.

    And I don't think systems where a single party dominates despite only having a minority of votes encourages proper oversight of local officials.
    Scotland isn't leaving the Union without a referendum, so it's not an issue in that respect. That said, FPTP does reward regional parties, that is a drawback I admit.

    But ultimately, it comes down to the voters. The behaviour of voters in Scotland is a function of Scotland having the safety net of the Union. I can absolutely guarantee that the SNP would not dominate an independent Scotland in quite the same way. Why? MONEY

    Perhaps what would be better is to have fewer councils. Does London really need 33 boroughs? I don't think so.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    Nick Clegg in his quieter moments must look at the Pandora’s box he opened and the destruction of his party and shudder. A more compelling example of hubris leading to nemesis is hard to find. Should have given confidence and supply and nothing more.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. Perhaps the slightly strange approach of a pro-coalition party not being abled to handle coalition was the problem.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    The people made it quite clear what they think of AV.

    Yes, but it wasn't a referendum on STV, or on a Holyrood type system. It was purely on AV.
    You think they wouldn't blow a similar raspberry to the rest of PR too? All those legions of voters poised their pencil over the ballot paper going "Well, I think AV an abomination, but if only they had adopted STV, I would happily be voting in favour..." Yeah, right.

    Anything but FPTP would have had a Labour-SNP-LibDem government with Jeremy Corbyn as PM on 50.4% of the vote. That stat alone kills PR for the next 30 years....
    AV *is* an abomination. It's a voting system designed to solely benefit the messy middle.
    AV was the ditch the LibDems decided to die in.

    The party of the "messy middle"...

    Nick Clegg had the Holy Grail of PR within his grasp. And yet -

    "He chose......poorly."
    Clegg made a number of poor choices during the coalition, but it takes two to tango, and Cameron wasn't willing to allow consideration of any alternative system other than AV.
    After all the Conservative party exists to make sure it's leaders and their friends stay on the gravy train, and any other system might threaten that. Of course they'll lose at FPTP election now and then, but generally speaking ........
    They should have insisted instead on STV for local elections. It would have harmonised England (&Wales) with Scotland and NI, not required a referendum, and represented a significant step forward for genuinely representative politics. Taking an AV referendum from Cameron (together with the promise that Cameron would stand back from it, subsequently broken) was a mistake on a par with tuition fees.
    Just ticking 'Like' isn't adequate for my agreement with this. Most Councils, below County level have multimember constituencies, too; STV is much more logical in those. circumstances.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494
    Jonathan said:

    FPTP doesn’t give you the power to chuck out a bad administration. You just need a minority distributed in a few seats and you can forget the majority of the electorate. Only about 29% of voters turned out for Boris.

    Here's a real example of FPTP going mad. (What happens in Gosport is that the Conservatives win the posh seaside bits with high turnouts and majorities and lose the town bits on massively smaller turnouts.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gosport_Borough_Council_election
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. Perhaps the slightly strange approach of a pro-coalition party not being abled to handle coalition was the problem.

    Indeed. If you take LibDem values and policy objectives at face-value the last 11 years have been utterly disastrous. Hard to imagine a worse turn of events. Even the bar charts can’t hide the total abject failure. The fact their erstwhile coalition partners are now free to promote FPTP is a mere cherry on the cake.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    dr_spyn said:

    Someone could look very foolish by August if no charges are pressed in Liverpool.

    https://twitter.com/JonTonge/status/1373421162563264512

    AFAIK nobody was dragged before the courts in Northamptonshire. It doesn't follow that nothing went wrong there.

    Let's wait and see what's in the report on Liverpool when it's published shortly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    Jonathan said:

    FPTP doesn’t give you the power to chuck out a bad administration. You just need a minority distributed in a few seats and you can forget the majority of the electorate. Only about 29% of voters turned out for Boris.

    Here's a real example of FPTP going mad. (What happens in Gosport is that the Conservatives win the posh seaside bits with high turnouts and majorities and lose the town bits on massively smaller turnouts.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gosport_Borough_Council_election
    So a bit like the UK in 2005. Well, 14 years later and the Tories are winning in those lower turnout areas. I don't have a problem with giving more power to voters in the not so prosperous parts of the country/district.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925

    dr_spyn said:

    Someone could look very foolish by August if no charges are pressed in Liverpool.

    https://twitter.com/JonTonge/status/1373421162563264512

    AFAIK nobody was dragged before the courts in Northamptonshire. It doesn't follow that nothing went wrong there.

    Let's wait and see what's in the report on Liverpool when it's published shortly.
    But Northants was Tory controlled.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    FPTP doesn’t give you the power to chuck out a bad administration. You just need a minority distributed in a few seats and you can forget the majority of the electorate. Only about 29% of voters turned out for Boris.

    Here's a real example of FPTP going mad. (What happens in Gosport is that the Conservatives win the posh seaside bits with high turnouts and majorities and lose the town bits on massively smaller turnouts.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gosport_Borough_Council_election
    So a bit like the UK in 2005. Well, 14 years later and the Tories are winning in those lower turnout areas. I don't have a problem with giving more power to voters in the not so prosperous parts of the country/district.
    Representing different areas- great.

    But a result where 4700 votes beats 10700 votes is a silly result.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    IanB2 said:

    The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.

    The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.

    Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.

    Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%

    Yes for Christianity but as previously pointed out on here with regard to the kerfuffle over Jewish ethnicity, the lack of choice under ethnicity will lead to overstating the number of religious Jews, Muslims, and every other non-Christian group.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    FPTP doesn’t give you the power to chuck out a bad administration. You just need a minority distributed in a few seats and you can forget the majority of the electorate. Only about 29% of voters turned out for Boris.

    Here's a real example of FPTP going mad. (What happens in Gosport is that the Conservatives win the posh seaside bits with high turnouts and majorities and lose the town bits on massively smaller turnouts.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gosport_Borough_Council_election
    So a bit like the UK in 2005. Well, 14 years later and the Tories are winning in those lower turnout areas. I don't have a problem with giving more power to voters in the not so prosperous parts of the country/district.
    Representing different areas- great.

    But a result where 4700 votes beats 10700 votes is a silly result.
    No more silly than the 2005 GE in England:

    Votes:

    Con: 35.7%
    Lab: 35.5%
    LD: 22.9%


    Seats:

    Con: 36.7%
    Lab: 54.1%
    LD: 8.9%

    Of course, voters do tend to change their votes in GEs. I think @rcs1000 's argument for PR in local elections is stronger in that there are some places where the same party wins every time.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    Omnium said:

    There's quite a good little book about the maths of voting systems called 'Chaotic Elections'. It essentially concludes that all systems have issues and they are probably equally bad.

    It's arguable that the only mechanism of election likely to produce a broadly representative outcome (assuming that the number of representatives to be chosen is reasonably large) is sortition. But this, of course, removes both politicians and organised political parties from the system and would result in atomization, amateurism and sclerosis. Hence the fact that the ancient Athenians ended up drawing lots for the lower magistracies - but chose their generals by FPTP!

    So yes, I suppose that there's no ideal system, hence the fact that so many alternatives are in use somewhere in the world.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494
    Jonathan said:

    Nick Clegg in his quieter moments must look at the Pandora’s box he opened and the destruction of his party and shudder. A more compelling example of hubris leading to nemesis is hard to find. Should have given confidence and supply and nothing more.

    Though how much of Dave's legacy is left, either? The rosette colour remains, but not much else.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. Romford, he'd probably cite gay marriage, but leaving the EU is, ultimately, a legacy of Cameron's too.

    May's is rushed through and not-considered green legislation. And the worst electoral campaign in history.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,630
    On the census, the Ministry of Defence is telling its people not to answer some questions in case foreign spies have infiltrated the government.

    ... the Ministry of Defence has taken a curious line against the census, urging defence personnel and contractors to give incomplete answers to four questions –- and to ignore one altogether.

    An Industry Security Notice issued on 15 March and aimed at defence contractors urges them not to give full and complete answers to questions 41-42, 44, and 50. When filling in 41 ("What is (was) the name of the organisation or business you work (worked) for?") contractors should not "give details about the place where you work", according to the MoD.

    Job titles* should simply become "MoD contractor", while question 43, which asks what you do in your main job, "should not be answered" at all in the ministry's view. Even the location of one's workplace shouldn't be revealed in the census, with the MoD urging people to give only the postcode.

    https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/ministry_defence_tells_staff_dont_answer_census/

    Let's hope those pesky Russian tourists don't know the postcodes of Britain's cathedrals and naval bases.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798

    dr_spyn said:

    Someone could look very foolish by August if no charges are pressed in Liverpool.

    https://twitter.com/JonTonge/status/1373421162563264512

    AFAIK nobody was dragged before the courts in Northamptonshire. It doesn't follow that nothing went wrong there.

    Let's wait and see what's in the report on Liverpool when it's published shortly.
    But Northants was Tory controlled.
    So what? How that makes any difference to the Government exercising its statutory obligations is quite beyond me. There's nothing to say that it has no right to intervene just because the local authority in question is controlled by members of a different party.

    Of course, you could argue that it's embarrassing because the Government could be accused of over-riding the will of the Liverpudlian electorate, but OTOH you could just as easily argue that Northamptonshire was embarrassing because it had to send in the commissioners to clear up a mess presided over by its own politicians. Whatever.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052

    I would also suggest that if you gave people a sheet numbering 1-100 of things bothering them right now electoral reform wouldn't even appear.

    I think you underestimate the number of PBers out there
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
    Too many, just look at a map. My favourite flavour is a small town divided into wards that extend out into the country just enough to rope in sufficient rural votes to swing the wards away from the LibDems, rather than say creating more geographically coherent wards in the town itself.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112
    I didn't vote in the AV referendum because AV is crap but I've long been a supporter of STV — even when Labour were in power.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
    Too many, just look at a map. My favourite flavour is a small town divided into wards that extend out into the country just enough to rope in sufficient rural votes to swing the wards away from the LibDems, rather than say creating more geographically coherent wards in the town itself.
    Just one example, will do.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 9,242

    On the census, the Ministry of Defence is telling its people not to answer some questions in case foreign spies have infiltrated the government.

    ... the Ministry of Defence has taken a curious line against the census, urging defence personnel and contractors to give incomplete answers to four questions –- and to ignore one altogether.

    An Industry Security Notice issued on 15 March and aimed at defence contractors urges them not to give full and complete answers to questions 41-42, 44, and 50. When filling in 41 ("What is (was) the name of the organisation or business you work (worked) for?") contractors should not "give details about the place where you work", according to the MoD.

    Job titles* should simply become "MoD contractor", while question 43, which asks what you do in your main job, "should not be answered" at all in the ministry's view. Even the location of one's workplace shouldn't be revealed in the census, with the MoD urging people to give only the postcode.

    https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/ministry_defence_tells_staff_dont_answer_census/

    Let's hope those pesky Russian tourists don't know the postcodes of Britain's cathedrals and naval bases.

    Couldnt they just play tennis with the PM for another £100k and ask him directly?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Roger said:

    I would also suggest that if you gave people a sheet numbering 1-100 of things bothering them right now electoral reform wouldn't even appear.

    I think you underestimate the number of PBers out there
    I think you overestimate the number of LibDems out there
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    I want whatever voting system gives the party I like least the best chance of losing.

    As that party is invariably the Tory Party any proportional system will do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    On the census, the Ministry of Defence is telling its people not to answer some questions in case foreign spies have infiltrated the government.

    ... the Ministry of Defence has taken a curious line against the census, urging defence personnel and contractors to give incomplete answers to four questions –- and to ignore one altogether.

    An Industry Security Notice issued on 15 March and aimed at defence contractors urges them not to give full and complete answers to questions 41-42, 44, and 50. When filling in 41 ("What is (was) the name of the organisation or business you work (worked) for?") contractors should not "give details about the place where you work", according to the MoD.

    Job titles* should simply become "MoD contractor", while question 43, which asks what you do in your main job, "should not be answered" at all in the ministry's view. Even the location of one's workplace shouldn't be revealed in the census, with the MoD urging people to give only the postcode.

    https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/ministry_defence_tells_staff_dont_answer_census/

    Let's hope those pesky Russian tourists don't know the postcodes of Britain's cathedrals and naval bases.

    Such obfuscation will only in spire them.
  • Italy and Israel have or had pure list PR systems, which cause a lot of instability and are rarely advocated. Most of the problems with PR are really problems with these very fragmenting systems that lead to 4+ party coalitions.

    But AV+ is very stable and generally produces 5 parties including two big parties, leading to two- or sometimes three-party coalitions. By party of PM they're extremely stable.

    There are exceptions, like Scotland with its single dominant party (not that that's causing problems)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    They're not cultivated, but they are nudged by the resources the two big parties put into the boundary reviews, backed by a batch of representations farmed from party members and activists. Over time there has been a slow trend toward safer seats, with fewer marginals, as a consequence. The catch for the parties is that this has tended to have been done working from class-based politics, whereas the more recent shift toward education/age based divisions may argue for different geography, and the process will shift accordingly.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,695
    Roger said:

    I want whatever voting system gives the party I like least the best chance of losing.

    As that party is invariably the Tory Party any proportional system will do.

    The Far Right thanks you for their participation in the system.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. Roger, wanting a system because it helps your side or damages the opposition is just an overt desire to gerrymander the rules.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Quiz time. The current GE boundaries have been used for the last four elections. How many of the 632 seats in England and Wales have changed hands at least once since 2010 (excluding speaker changes)?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 14,112

    Italy and Israel have or had pure list PR systems, which cause a lot of instability and are rarely advocated. Most of the problems with PR are really problems with these very fragmenting systems that lead to 4+ party coalitions.

    But AV+ is very stable and generally produces 5 parties including two big parties, leading to two- or sometimes three-party coalitions. By party of PM they're extremely stable.

    There are exceptions, like Scotland with its single dominant party (not that that's causing problems)

    Israel unstable you say. Bibi has been in power for longer than the Conservative Party has in the UK. ;)
  • In the end voting systems don't make that much difference to policy outcomes in the long run, though of course they do in the detail.

    For instance the UK is usually ruled by a coalition of practical centre-right, tax and regulation hawks, and nationalists called the Tories. (E.g. Ken Clarke, Peter Lilley and Boris respectively) And sometimes by a coalition of socialists and social democrats called the Labour party.

    Sometimes it's stable and effectively governed, like Germany under AV+. And sometimes it's not, like the last 5 years.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 9,242
    tlg86 said:

    Quiz time. The current GE boundaries have been used for the last four elections. How many of the 632 seats in England and Wales have changed hands at least once since 2010 (excluding speaker changes)?

    163?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Welcome to PB, Mr. Gambit.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,052
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    FPTP doesn’t give you the power to chuck out a bad administration. You just need a minority distributed in a few seats and you can forget the majority of the electorate. Only about 29% of voters turned out for Boris.

    Here's a real example of FPTP going mad. (What happens in Gosport is that the Conservatives win the posh seaside bits with high turnouts and majorities and lose the town bits on massively smaller turnouts.)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gosport_Borough_Council_election
    So a bit like the UK in 2005. Well, 14 years later and the Tories are winning in those lower turnout areas. I don't have a problem with giving more power to voters in the not so prosperous parts of the country/district.
    Representing different areas- great.

    But a result where 4700 votes beats 10700 votes is a silly result.
    No more silly than the 2005 GE in England:

    Votes:

    Con: 35.7%
    Lab: 35.5%
    LD: 22.9%

    Of course, voters do tend to change their votes in GEs. I think @rcs1000 's argument for PR in local elections is stronger in that there are some places where the same party wins every time.
    Is that right? That's probably a town the size of Hartlepool
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,925

    Mr. Roger, wanting a system because it helps your side or damages the opposition is just an overt desire to gerrymander the rules.

    Read the header.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    IanB2 said:

    The “post-Christian era” in the UK will be cemented by data emerging from Sunday’s census which is expected to show further generational disengagement from organised religion, according to a leading academic.

    The once-a-decade snapshot of the country has included a voluntary question about religion since 2001. In 2011, returns across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland showed 59.3% ticking Christianity, a fall from 71.6% a decade earlier.

    Abby Day, professor of race, faith and culture at Goldsmiths, University of London, expects this year’s census to show a further erosion in Christian identity, mainly because postwar generations regard the church as irrelevant and immoral.

    Day predicted the proportion of people ticking Christianity “could drop below 50%”. Peter Brierley, an expert on religion statistics, said he predicted 48% or 49% identifying as Christian, but David Voas, head of the social sciences department at University College London, said he would be surprised if the figure fell below 50%

    This "UK census" doesn't include Scotland as a part of the SNP differentiation policy (see Covid et al). I think we are doing our census next year. My wild guess is that Scotland may just be a bit more Christian than the rest of the UK (fewer immigrants from non Christian countries, quite a lot (proportionally) from Catholic ones, the wee Free nutters, etc) so that might just tip the balance.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    This old chestnut.

    Sedgefield being lost to the Tories and Finchley to Labour (both inside 25 years) shows there are no such things as safe seats and the electoral landscape can, and does, radically change. Everyone starts on zero at each and every election.

    I'm unconvinced by alternative voting systems because no-one's ever demonstrated to me that countries that have them are any more satisfied with their politics than we are.

    Next.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    ydoethur said:

    On the census, the Ministry of Defence is telling its people not to answer some questions in case foreign spies have infiltrated the government.

    ... the Ministry of Defence has taken a curious line against the census, urging defence personnel and contractors to give incomplete answers to four questions –- and to ignore one altogether.

    An Industry Security Notice issued on 15 March and aimed at defence contractors urges them not to give full and complete answers to questions 41-42, 44, and 50. When filling in 41 ("What is (was) the name of the organisation or business you work (worked) for?") contractors should not "give details about the place where you work", according to the MoD.

    Job titles* should simply become "MoD contractor", while question 43, which asks what you do in your main job, "should not be answered" at all in the ministry's view. Even the location of one's workplace shouldn't be revealed in the census, with the MoD urging people to give only the postcode.

    https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/ministry_defence_tells_staff_dont_answer_census/

    Let's hope those pesky Russian tourists don't know the postcodes of Britain's cathedrals and naval bases.

    Such obfuscation will only in spire them.
    Not a lot to see here.

    "this has been the advice to contractors since the last census in 2011"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
    I always remember the '93 review in my patch of East London. Redbridge and Waltham Forest had been paired and the number of seats needed to be reduced from six to five. The Commission had come up with a reasonably sensible proposal with one bridging seat combining four Tory wards from Wanstead and South Woodford with four Labour wards from Leytonstone. Which would have created a knife edge marginal seat, which neither Tory nor Labour wanted to fight.

    So both parties brought in the big guns with their MPs and councillors lining up to oppose the Commission proposal - which was thereby doomed - in favour of their own respective proposals, the Tory one creating a bridging seat bringing in some Tory wards from Chingford, that the Tories would have won along with the rest of Chingford and Ilford North, whereas Labour's proposal dispersed these Tory wards between various seats, leaving them with three safe seats, Ilford South, Walthamstow, and Leyton & Wanstead. Given the flood of representations from both sides, the Commission had to choose between the two alternatives, and chose the Labour one - which was objectively the more sensible of the two, if not as neat as the Commission's own opening proposal.

    At the time this represented a net gain for Labour of one seat. Of course times have moved on, and Ilford North is now also safe for Labour, and Chingford is becoming marginal. Indeed a by-product of the Labour proposal is that IDS acquired a couple of safe Tory wards to shore up his at that time already big majority; had the Tory proposal been adopted IDS would by now have been toast (or more likely chicken-ran to the Home Counties, as did another local Tory MP at the time).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    edited March 21

    tlg86 said:

    Quiz time. The current GE boundaries have been used for the last four elections. How many of the 632 seats in England and Wales have changed hands at least once since 2010 (excluding speaker changes)?

    163?
    That's a pretty good guess. The answer is 187 or 29.5% of seats.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,494

    Mr. Romford, he'd probably cite gay marriage, but leaving the EU is, ultimately, a legacy of Cameron's too.

    May's is rushed through and not-considered green legislation. And the worst electoral campaign in history.

    Gay marriage... Significant, but it's not much to show for six years as PM, is it? And in terms of other social mores, the Conservative Party has pretty decisively turned their back on other reforms to superserve their new core vote.

    Leaving the EU... That's an interesting one. Dave's plan was to cement the UK on the fringe of the EU- just, but decisively, inside. We all know how that ended up. Maybe, like picking at a hole in a jumper, once started, the thing was always going to keep unravelling.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,784

    I didn't vote in the AV referendum because AV is crap but I've long been a supporter of STV — even when Labour were in power.

    What I want to see in a voting system is that a person who receives many second place votes but no first place votes at all going forward into later rounds.

    AFAIA, under any voting system currently in use, a person could be a unanimous second choice but never get near election.

    Good morning, everybody.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
    Too many, just look at a map. My favourite flavour is a small town divided into wards that extend out into the country just enough to rope in sufficient rural votes to swing the wards away from the LibDems, rather than say creating more geographically coherent wards in the town itself.
    Just one example, will do.
    How about MidSussex for a constituency that makes little geographical sense, where if drawn more naturally there is a marginal Lib Dem, Tory seat in that part of Sussex.

    In West Sussex overall the libdems get about 30% of the vote and have never won an MP. Only Crawley occasionally stops it being a constant clean sweep for Tories, who get about 40%.




  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,962
    The reality is that nobody outside Westminster and political obsessives cares about electoral reform (and why should they?) - That was proved in the low turn out but heavy rejection of the AV referendum. If you want to get really out of touch with the average joe in the UK start making electoral reform a big issue in your head
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,488
    Ben "Swain" Wallace on Sophy.

    STOP BLINKING
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796

    In the end voting systems don't make that much difference to policy outcomes in the long run, though of course they do in the detail.

    For instance the UK is usually ruled by a coalition of practical centre-right, tax and regulation hawks, and nationalists called the Tories. (E.g. Ken Clarke, Peter Lilley and Boris respectively) And sometimes by a coalition of socialists and social democrats called the Labour party.

    Sometimes it's stable and effectively governed, like Germany under AV+. And sometimes it's not, like the last 5 years.

    I don't agree. FPTP ensures that 'safe' areas of the country are neglected, particularly for the opposing party (since internal party pressures make sure that 'own' areas get looked after), with attention focusing on the areas and demographics perceived to be the swing voters - Basildon man then Worcester woman and the rest.

    You only have to see the money being driven up the A1 and M1 now to see this in effect.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,357
    The BBC are reporting that Mandelson is urging Starmer to have a policy review. It definitely makes sense to do so, but I wonder when Starmer will risk it. Quite odd that he's not done so in his first year.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. Romford, to be fair, Cameron was responding to a changing political landscape rather than ignoring it. I suspect the promise was designed to be electorally helpful (it undoubtedly was) and then jettisoned in coalition negotiations with the Lib Dems.

    Of course, that nuclear option could've been avoided had Brown and Labour not reneged upon the promised referendum on Lisbon, but there we are.

    Also, Cameron and Osborne, and Clegg and Alexander, did great work clearing up the economy. It's unfortunate that it's just been whacked again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796

    This old chestnut.

    Sedgefield being lost to the Tories and Finchley to Labour (both inside 25 years) shows there are no such things as safe seats and the electoral landscape can, and does, radically change. Everyone starts on zero at each and every election.

    I'm unconvinced by alternative voting systems because no-one's ever demonstrated to me that countries that have them are any more satisfied with their politics than we are.

    Next.

    Did you miss the recent survey with all those happy Scandinavian countries coming top in it?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    edited March 21

    No voting system is perfect. They all have flaws. I think most Brits are quite content with FPTP. It leads to decisive Government. And whilst I personally liked the coalition most people now loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg who managed between them to deliver two of the most egregious decisions in the history of these isles (on Brexit and student loans).

    When Brits look at places like Italy and Belgium they will never vote for any form of AV, STV, STD etc.

    Our system works. It's not perfect but it works. The only people complaining are those who don't like the current Conservative majority: Polly Toynbee for instance who is now suddenly campaigning for voting reform. I don't remember Labour pushing hard for electoral reform all the years they were in power. Why now? Hmmm ... let me see.

    Best thing Labour can do is focus on the task in hand. Try and beat the Conservatives by having winning policies and a winning leader.

    Val Policella does that every time she does not like the previous result and has some spare time.

    This is the third cycle (I think) since I have been watching politics.

    Once stayed in a B&B with a parrot that was just the same, but less tiring.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,951
    PS. If we ever did (must) have PR I'd go for open list by county.

    STV is the work of the devil. I can't stand it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 2,935
    There is one key thing that a system must deliver, and that is the chance to kick the rascals out and put another lot in. If democracy does that it meets its main function as a pillar against tyranny and arbitrary power.

    FPTP is best at doing that one thing at UK level. All the alternatives involve a greater chance of whoever the rascals are retaining a degree of power by negotiating a different coalition, and places greater power in the hands of horse traders and less in the hands of voters.

    The idea that FPTP is best at everything else is of course nonsense.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The brutal truth about FPTP is that in broad swathes of the country there is very little point in turning out to vote. The boundaries have been carefully cultivated over many years to deliver safe seats.

    Surely if the boundaries are cultivated (they're not), then it is to swing the non-safe seats?
    The influence of local power to nudge the design of seats is real. It’s a long game, but there’s some really weird, creatively drawn seats out there, which somehow as if by magic manage to re-enforce local power bases. You end up with the distorted electoral outcomes that we have today.
    Examples?
    Too many, just look at a map. My favourite flavour is a small town divided into wards that extend out into the country just enough to rope in sufficient rural votes to swing the wards away from the LibDems, rather than say creating more geographically coherent wards in the town itself.
    Just one example, will do.
    How about MidSussex for a constituency that makes little geographical sense, where if drawn more naturally there is a marginal Lib Dem, Tory seat in that part of Sussex.

    In West Sussex overall the libdems get about 30% of the vote and have never won an MP. Only Crawley occasionally stops it being a constant clean sweep for Tories, who get about 40%.
    Mid Sussex looks fairly sensible to me. It covers three urban areas in East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,893
    edited March 21

    This old chestnut.

    Sedgefield being lost to the Tories and Finchley to Labour (both inside 25 years) shows there are no such things as safe seats and the electoral landscape can, and does, radically change. Everyone starts on zero at each and every election.

    I'm unconvinced by alternative voting systems because no-one's ever demonstrated to me that countries that have them are any more satisfied with their politics than we are.

    Next.

    Most seats are safe. Calling out 2 out of 650 doesn’t change that. In a very good year about 100 can change hands. That leaves about 500 that don’t change hands. Meanwhile many seats have had the same party for over one hundred years. Nothing changes. I may be naive but in so far as any thing is safe in life, they seem pretty safe to me.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796

    The reality is that nobody outside Westminster and political obsessives cares about electoral reform (and why should they?) - That was proved in the low turn out but heavy rejection of the AV referendum. If you want to get really out of touch with the average joe in the UK start making electoral reform a big issue in your head

    The AV referendum didn't prove any such thing. It did prove how easy it was to turn the fire on the junior coalition partner and also to win a referendum by fighting on lies of your own choosing rather than the question on the ballot paper. The "babies will die" stuff if AV were chosen was as dishonest as the queue-free NHS we were promised with Brexit, and equally irrelevant to the decision at hand.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,280
    Mr. B2, aye. Cultish worship of the NHS is not a good thing.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,962
    Jonathan said:

    This old chestnut.

    Sedgefield being lost to the Tories and Finchley to Labour (both inside 25 years) shows there are no such things as safe seats and the electoral landscape can, and does, radically change. Everyone starts on zero at each and every election.

    I'm unconvinced by alternative voting systems because no-one's ever demonstrated to me that countries that have them are any more satisfied with their politics than we are.

    Next.

    Most seats are safe. Calling out 2 out of 650 doesn’t change that. In a very good year about 100 can change hands. That leaves about 500 that don’t change hands. Meanwhile many seats have had the same party for over one hundred years. Nothing changes. I may be naive but in so far as any thing is safe in life, they seem pretty safe to me.
    Not sure what is wrong with having safe seats anyway. By definition they are places where the population is satisfied with their MP and the party they represent. Is that a bad thing.Surely its a good thing? As a punter it narrows the seats worth punting on for sure but that is a side issue
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 16,914
    Jonathan said:

    This old chestnut.

    Sedgefield being lost to the Tories and Finchley to Labour (both inside 25 years) shows there are no such things as safe seats and the electoral landscape can, and does, radically change. Everyone starts on zero at each and every election.

    I'm unconvinced by alternative voting systems because no-one's ever demonstrated to me that countries that have them are any more satisfied with their politics than we are.

    Next.

    Most seats are safe. Calling out 2 out of 650 doesn’t change that. In a very good year about 100 can change hands. That leaves about 500 that don’t change hands. Meanwhile many seats have had the same party for over one hundred years. Nothing changes. I may be naive but in so far as any thing is safe in life, they seem pretty safe to me.
    Well, 187 have changed hands at least once since 2010. And Scotland shows that in reality, no seat is safe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,376

    Mr. Roger, wanting a system because it helps your side or damages the opposition is just an overt desire to gerrymander the rules.

    That’s been true of every reform to Parliament since (checks notes) 1265. None of them have been in the national interest, they’ve all been about getting one over on the opposition.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,381
    Upsides of FPTP:

    encourages big tents with a range of views inside a party.
    Much more likely to generate decisive governments.

    Downsides
    Safe seats that are barely democratic
    Silencing of minority views
    limits meaningful choice

    For me, in local government, the downsides exceed the benefits. For regional government such as Holyrood it is pretty evenly matched, you can make a case either way. For central government FPTP wins. Patel's one size fits all approach is just stupid.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,732
    Omnium said:

    The BBC are reporting that Mandelson is urging Starmer to have a policy review. It definitely makes sense to do so, but I wonder when Starmer will risk it. Quite odd that he's not done so in his first year.

    Given that few if any have any idea of what Labour's policies are bar opposing or not opposing.. a review that dredged up some policies that might appeal to the electorate seems to be a sound idea.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,796
    The Sunday Rawnsley:

    My conversations with people inside government suggest that many ministers appreciate that [vaccination] gloating is unedifying and self-defeating. At the same time, a Brexiter cabinet finds it hard to resist the temptation to exploit the EU’s distress for partisan advantage. The NHS-delivered distribution of the vaccine is the only aspect of the handling of the crisis in which this government can claim to have a record that is impressive. Brexiters want to claim that success, however bogusly, as a justification for their experiment. There are also Tories who believe that a steady drumbeat of cross-Channel conflict serves their electoral interests by keeping the Brexit vote aroused and distracted from the punishing damage the rupture is inflicting on the economy.

    A government with an enlightened perspective on the long-term interests of Britain would see value in offering expressions of sympathy and gestures of solidarity with the EU at its time of severe trial. That could generate a lot of goodwill among European voters and leaders. It might be the more effective in winning friends for Britain for being so unexpected from a Brexiter government. Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, instead prefers to play tit for tat.

    There is a problem with this attempt by ministers to seize the title deeds to the moral high ground. Their behaviour has robbed them of any claims on it. No one is worse qualified to lecture others about contract-breaking than a member of Mr Johnson’s government.

    The chances of avoiding a mutually destructive struggle with the EU over vaccine supplies would be much better had Britain a prime minister who was regarded as a trustworthy international partner by his peer group. An escalation into a full-blown “vaccine war” between Britain and the EU would be a disaster for both on many levels.

    Vaccine nationalism is already a dimension of this crisis. It would set a terrible example to the world if countries that advertise themselves as mature, sophisticated and internationalist democracies were to unleash a vaccine war in Europe. Britain and her near neighbours are going to have to live and work with each other long after Covid-19 has become history. The UK’s security and prosperity still depend in great part on what happens within the EU. It cannot be in the EU’s interests to have permanently toxified relations with such a substantial country on its border. A vaccine war would be a conflict without a winner, only many losers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,058
    I predict these changes will not happen as Patel will be rotated out of Home Office in reshuffle in July and the long, long green grass will beckon for this policy change.
Sign In or Register to comment.