Howdy, Stranger!

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

Tory elections expert Lord Hayward reckons that new boundaries give a 5-10 seat bonus to his party –

SystemSystem Posts: 12,168
edited June 2021 in General
Tory elections expert Lord Hayward reckons that new boundaries give a 5-10 seat bonus to his party – politicalbetting.com

Surprise, surprise – Proposed electoral map boundary changes will benefit the Tories. pic.twitter.com/wNadBcIfDI

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,905
    First....
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,905
    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,657

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264
    Bristol Central looks juicy for the Greens.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,349
    COVID Summary

    Still seeing the same things - cases up in the younger groups, hospitalisations up in the younger groups.

    Deaths are still falling

    image
    image
    image
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    I had a look at the BCE website earlier. My seat Bury South loses one recently Tory voting ward but secures another recent Tory gain (from Salford no less - crossing authority boundaries), whereas Bury N in gaining the newly Tory voting ward Bury S loses probably comes a little less ultra-marginal. Longer term i imagine both will go back Labour but I can see Bury N being the more Tory of the two for the foreseeable. The 2013 changes which bit the dust would have had my ward move into Bury N, where I think it belongs, so i'm a little miffed at what's proposed. I may end up in a fairly likely long term Labour seat once everyone reverts back to type in the decades to come.

    The changes in what is these days called Lancashire look a complete dogs breakfast though, designed to alienate everyone in every seat! Not as bad as 2013's shambles, but still not going to go down well. Hyndburn probably more likely to stay Tory, the others harder to say and one Tory seat (Wyre & Preston N, Ben Wallace) goes completely.

    Not sure NW Tories are going to be massively enthused by what the BC has thrown up here...
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    There's also the point that any delay should not be prolonged past three or four weeks max - because if any exit wave gets pushed into winter, it will be far uglier than having it in late summer/autumn.

    (See James Ward's modelling)

    Unfortunately, once the delays start the scientists will always find another excuse to keep putting it off and off and off - and they know full well that anything they can keep in place until September they then have an excellent chance of being able to inflict on people permanently.

    The glittering prize of a biosecurity state (to "protect the NHS") is now just three months away. Of course the scare stories are going to get more lurid and the screaming ever louder between now and then.

    Meanwhile, it's already blindingly obvious to anyone who can read the NHS stats that the Delta variant isn't a serious threat. You only have to compare the hospitalisation and death counts for March-April 20 and September-October 20 with April-May 21 to see that the first two were genuinely powerful surges, whereas the third (and I chose this interval because the initial seeding of Delta into the UK reportedly happened in late March-early April) is a barely noticeable blip by comparison.

    The only real excuse for further prevarication is to pursue an utterly mad Zero Covid policy, i.e. to attempt total suppression of the disease forever. If that's what the public health establishment and the Government wants then they ought at least to have the decency to say so.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,725

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218
    edited June 2021
    FPT:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    I get the impression from my European colleagues that basically covid is over.

    In fact, they think we are still riddled with it via the “Indian variant” and express pity, concern etc.

    Are they not able to look at case rate figures?
    They’re not reading the figures.
    They’re just responding to:

    A - the opening up they see locally
    B - their own interaction with vaccines
    C - the scary stuff on the news about the U.K.
    Perhaps they are better at handling risk than we are.
    I agree.

    I think - like in the US - they're happy with a certain base level of Covid as they reopen their economies. They're not aiming for zero, they're asking "can we reopen our economies, and have a level of infections and hospitalisations we can deal with?"

    And they're coming up with the answer "yes".
    The history of the last winter might have a mental impact there. Most Western European countries did a moderately reasonable job of keeping Covid cases and deaths from getting out of hand over the winter. Grim numbers of lives lost, but manageable, without the huge peak that the UK experienced in January. At this point, I'm not blaming anyone for that peak, but just noting that it happened.

    And whilst it might be that the situation in June isn't what it was in December, it would be inhuman for that experience not to have an impact and engender an excess of caution.
    Agree on the mental impact of winter for some, but most of them had essentially one bimodal wave of cases in the winter/spring. Why the WE European lockdowns did not really succeed in most places is a really interesting question, when they did succeed in a small number of countries.

    AFAICS most of them had bigger second waves than wave one, and a good number have never really got case levels back under control after that at all until now - and several are still running at 100-150 now.

    Only perhaps Germany / Portugal got their spring case rates on a 7-day basis (normally our numbers are 14 days) below our current peak spot in Bolton. Germany /Portugal had horrific peaks at Christmas - in Germany's case an awful peak relative to wave 1. Belgium too, but they did not take the lessons.







  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    With the exception of the referendum forcing his immediate early resignation...
    And ushering in another nine years of Conservative government.

    Dave’s only mistake was to back the wrong horse.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    As I have said before, what matters is not the change in seats (new boundaries for old) when the Tories win an election with a significant vote share lead and won a majority anyway.

    What matters is the difference the new boundaries would make in a range of credible scenarios where there is a genuine contest for power - I.e. where the two main parties are at least close in terms of support.

    If the Tories are going to win anyway, then it’s academic.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
    I see that the LDs are already pointing out Tory benefits :smile: .
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218
    Chameleon said:

    Bristol Central looks juicy for the Greens.

    I wonder if Bristol Central is really that mad?

    Very possible, though.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
    Well quite.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    5-10? Trivial. And some of it will change from here anyway.

    They are far too out of date, and the process is independent and provides challenge. Yes, the parameters are there, but I'm not sure that opening the range of division size a little more would benefit anyone really and the principle is sound.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218
    edited June 2021
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    I get the impression from my European colleagues that basically covid is over.

    In fact, they think we are still riddled with it via the “Indian variant” and express pity, concern etc.

    Are they not able to look at case rate figures?
    They’re not reading the figures.
    They’re just responding to:

    A - the opening up they see locally
    B - their own interaction with vaccines
    C - the scary stuff on the news about the U.K.
    Perhaps they are better at handling risk than we are.
    I agree.

    I think - like in the US - they're happy with a certain base level of Covid as they reopen their economies. They're not aiming for zero, they're asking "can we reopen our economies, and have a level of infections and hospitalisations we can deal with?"

    And they're coming up with the answer "yes".
    The history of the last winter might have a mental impact there. Most Western European countries did a moderately reasonable job of keeping Covid cases and deaths from getting out of hand over the winter. Grim numbers of lives lost, but manageable, without the huge peak that the UK experienced in January. At this point, I'm not blaming anyone for that peak, but just noting that it happened.

    And whilst it might be that the situation in June isn't what it was in December, it would be inhuman for that experience not to have an impact and engender an excess of caution.
    Agree on the mental impact of winter for some, but most of them had essentially one bimodal wave of cases in the winter/spring. Why the WE European lockdowns did not really succeed in most places is a really interesting question, when they did succeed in a small number of countries.

    AFAICS most of them had bigger second waves than wave one, and a good number have never really got case levels back under control after that at all until now - and several are still running at 100-150 now.

    Only perhaps Germany / Portugal got their spring case rates on a 7-day basis (normally our numbers are 14 days) below our current peak spot in Bolton. Germany /Portugal had horrific peaks at Christmas - in Germany's case an awful peak relative to wave 1. Belgium too, but they did not take the lessons.



    Cumulative cases are very revealing. For most WE countries it just continued since Christmas. Part of that is the late vaccination campaign, but part of it is lockdowns not working - in some places lockdowns alone did do it.

    There's also something about movement / borders being kept open.

    Do these numbers tell us something about different likely levels of 'Long Covid'.


  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,905

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
    Well quite.
    But it'snot just Parliamentary boundaries, is it? It is everything....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    ClippP said:

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
    Well quite.
    But it'snot just Parliamentary boundaries, is it? It is everything....
    Everything? You are sounding a little paranoid.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920
    London reopens. The Waterloo and City line (aka the drain) reopened yesterday, brought forward from 21st June.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88cihHeNBkU
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920
    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,238
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    I get the impression from my European colleagues that basically covid is over.

    In fact, they think we are still riddled with it via the “Indian variant” and express pity, concern etc.

    Are they not able to look at case rate figures?
    They’re not reading the figures.
    They’re just responding to:

    A - the opening up they see locally
    B - their own interaction with vaccines
    C - the scary stuff on the news about the U.K.
    Perhaps they are better at handling risk than we are.
    I agree.

    I think - like in the US - they're happy with a certain base level of Covid as they reopen their economies. They're not aiming for zero, they're asking "can we reopen our economies, and have a level of infections and hospitalisations we can deal with?"

    And they're coming up with the answer "yes".
    The history of the last winter might have a mental impact there. Most Western European countries did a moderately reasonable job of keeping Covid cases and deaths from getting out of hand over the winter. Grim numbers of lives lost, but manageable, without the huge peak that the UK experienced in January. At this point, I'm not blaming anyone for that peak, but just noting that it happened.

    And whilst it might be that the situation in June isn't what it was in December, it would be inhuman for that experience not to have an impact and engender an excess of caution.
    Agree on the mental impact of winter for some, but most of them had essentially one bimodal wave of cases in the winter/spring. Why the WE European lockdowns did not really succeed in most places is a really interesting question, when they did succeed in a small number of countries.

    AFAICS most of them had bigger second waves than wave one, and a good number have never really got case levels back under control after that at all until now - and several are still running at 100-150 now.

    Only perhaps Germany / Portugal got their spring case rates on a 7-day basis (normally our numbers are 14 days) below our current peak spot in Bolton. Germany /Portugal had horrific peaks at Christmas - in Germany's case an awful peak relative to wave 1. Belgium too, but they did not take the lessons.







    True, though Germany's Christmas peak was around a third of the height of the UK's in cases and their deaths peaked at about half the rate of the UK's. The thing that I don't think our nearish neighbours had was a huge peak (which damn near did get out of hand) followed by a stiff lockdown to get things back under control. In other words, much closer to "protect the health system whilst keeping the economy as open as possible" than the UK has managed.

    But yes, a long low wave can contain as many deaths as a shorter higher one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,098
    edited June 2021
    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,349
    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Many of the differences in the US System,are attempts to solve problems in 18th Cent UK politics.

    Elected {everything} was an attempt to avoid a Squirearchy.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,725
    MattW said:

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    I look forward to years of Labour complaints about the boundaries. There there was not a peep out of them when it favoured Labour.
    I see that the LDs are already pointing out Tory benefits :smile: .
    ... from the coalition ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,080
    edited June 2021

    COVID Summary

    Still seeing the same things - cases up in the younger groups, hospitalisations up in the younger groups.

    Deaths are still falling

    image
    image
    image

    I imagine the argument against opening up will be even more relaxations will be for things like nightclubs, which people 20s tend to go to (and won't be vaccinated).
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    Everything? Count yourself lucky that I'm not the one drawing the boundaries... :smile:
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    Everything? Count yourself lucky that I'm not the one drawing the boundaries... :smile:
    Indeed, as per the American system. Coming soon to a city near you: an exciting new range of districts in the shape of Greek letters...
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    I suspect the Boost to the Tories will not be as big as statistically it should,

    Why?

    Dilution of the new encomenacy boost, as is often talked about on the site, a new MP, and especially a new party, can expect to gain a few hundred votes above the national trend. a few hundred votes may not be a lot, but if its concentrated in the marginals, then it does.

    The Tories picked up 58 seats last time, so could expect a boost in each of those, but if now some are safe seats and some are hopeless, and the others lose one bit and gain another then it will not have the same affect.

    (P.S. Sorry for the spelling of encomabancy, spell check does not recognise it as a word)
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    Everything? Count yourself lucky that I'm not the one drawing the boundaries... :smile:
    If you are laying the groundwork for a thousand year Tory reich, you are going to ruffle a few feathers.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20

    The LibDems had a noticeably poor performance in E&W at both County and Borough levels on May 6th.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
    All of the boundaries in the proposal are irrational? I think you are over-egging it somewhat.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20

    I dare say that some threatened senior figures will be gently shunted over to various sinecures, either created out of nothing by the redrawing process, or vacated by the elevation of their former occupants to the Lords.

    On the basis of these boundaries there ought, presumably, to be more than enough of them to go around?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,657
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20

    The LibDems had a noticeably poor performance in E&W at both County and Borough levels on May 6th.
    Why do I get the feeling Labour and Lib Dems will expend so much energy in Uxbridge & South Ruislip and Esher & Walton at the next election when they should focus on more winnable seats.

    Shades of Charlie Kennedy's decapitation strategy?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    Sandpit said:

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    With the exception of the referendum forcing his immediate early resignation...
    And ushering in another nine years of Conservative government.

    Dave’s only mistake was to back the wrong horse.
    Unlike his old mate from school I think he actually believed in the horse he was backing, rather than backing what might most improve his career prospects.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218
    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    It was certainly a heffalump trap, but due to the unique position of NI, where the citizens can pretend to choose which country that they live in.

    I don't see much that sets a precedent elsewhere in the EU.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,349

    COVID Summary

    Still seeing the same things - cases up in the younger groups, hospitalisations up in the younger groups.

    Deaths are still falling

    image
    image
    image

    I imagine the argument against opening up will be even more relaxations will be for things like nightclubs, which people 20s tend to go to (and won't be vaccinated).
    If we carry on vaccinating at the same rate we are doing now, by the 21st of June, we will be at 82% first, 63% second vaccinations. Which means we will be running out of vulnerable people to a great extent.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,080

    COVID Summary

    Still seeing the same things - cases up in the younger groups, hospitalisations up in the younger groups.

    Deaths are still falling

    image
    image
    image

    I imagine the argument against opening up will be even more relaxations will be for things like nightclubs, which people 20s tend to go to (and won't be vaccinated).
    If we carry on vaccinating at the same rate we are doing now, by the 21st of June, we will be at 82% first, 63% second vaccinations. Which means we will be running out of vulnerable people to a great extent.
    I am not saying we should, just what I imagine the zero Covidians will be saying...arhhh but those people only got their first shot less than 3 weeks ago, we can't have all these places opening.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,585
    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Do most European countries have an independent boundary commission?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,657
    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Nah, he's just like Christian Jessen. He had opportunities to avoid this but declined them because he knew better/thought he had right on his side.

    At the time of Murray’s sentencing at the High Court in Edinburgh last month, Lady Dorrian said his repeated breaches, which included refusing to remove blog posts despite legal warnings from the Crown Office, represented a "contempt of considerable gravity".

    Murray's offending posts were written over a period of a month and remained up, unredacted, despite him being told they could potentially lead to the identification of women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond, who was eventually acquitted of all 13 charges.

    Lady Dorrian explained: "It appears from the posts and articles that he was in fact relishing the task he set himself, which was essentially to allow the identities of complainers to be discerned – which he thought was in the public interest – in a way which did not attract sanction."
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,585
    MattW said:

    Chameleon said:

    Bristol Central looks juicy for the Greens.

    I wonder if Bristol Central is really that mad?

    Very possible, though.
    If the Greens get a second seat, this seems the most likely place.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
    All of the boundaries in the proposal are irrational? I think you are over-egging it somewhat.
    I was referring to the system of constituencies as irrational in itself as they do not reflect anything historical or geographically relevant. I certainly agree that they should not give advantage to one party over another as they did for Labour previously, I am just questioning its rationality as a system. I am not sure what the solution is though! I would like to see a whole redrawing of our constitution, it is a dog's dinner!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,098
    edited June 2021

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20

    The LibDems had a noticeably poor performance in E&W at both County and Borough levels on May 6th.
    Why do I get the feeling Labour and Lib Dems will expend so much energy in Uxbridge & South Ruislip and Esher & Walton at the next election when they should focus on more winnable seats.

    Shades of Charlie Kennedy's decapitation strategy?
    Esher and Walton is just 9th on the LD target list, if they cannot win there they cannot win new seats anywhere
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218

    MattW said:

    FPT:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    I get the impression from my European colleagues that basically covid is over.

    In fact, they think we are still riddled with it via the “Indian variant” and express pity, concern etc.

    Are they not able to look at case rate figures?
    They’re not reading the figures.
    They’re just responding to:

    A - the opening up they see locally
    B - their own interaction with vaccines
    C - the scary stuff on the news about the U.K.
    Perhaps they are better at handling risk than we are.
    I agree.

    I think - like in the US - they're happy with a certain base level of Covid as they reopen their economies. They're not aiming for zero, they're asking "can we reopen our economies, and have a level of infections and hospitalisations we can deal with?"

    And they're coming up with the answer "yes".
    The history of the last winter might have a mental impact there. Most Western European countries did a moderately reasonable job of keeping Covid cases and deaths from getting out of hand over the winter. Grim numbers of lives lost, but manageable, without the huge peak that the UK experienced in January. At this point, I'm not blaming anyone for that peak, but just noting that it happened.

    And whilst it might be that the situation in June isn't what it was in December, it would be inhuman for that experience not to have an impact and engender an excess of caution.
    Agree on the mental impact of winter for some, but most of them had essentially one bimodal wave of cases in the winter/spring. Why the WE European lockdowns did not really succeed in most places is a really interesting question, when they did succeed in a small number of countries.

    AFAICS most of them had bigger second waves than wave one, and a good number have never really got case levels back under control after that at all until now - and several are still running at 100-150 now.

    Only perhaps Germany / Portugal got their spring case rates on a 7-day basis (normally our numbers are 14 days) below our current peak spot in Bolton. Germany /Portugal had horrific peaks at Christmas - in Germany's case an awful peak relative to wave 1. Belgium too, but they did not take the lessons.

    True, though Germany's Christmas peak was around a third of the height of the UK's in cases and their deaths peaked at about half the rate of the UK's. The thing that I don't think our nearish neighbours had was a huge peak (which damn near did get out of hand) followed by a stiff lockdown to get things back under control. In other words, much closer to "protect the health system whilst keeping the economy as open as possible" than the UK has managed.

    But yes, a long low wave can contain as many deaths as a shorter higher one.
    But Germany's peak was iirc 6x as high as their first peak. I think it rattled Mutti quite badly.

    I think it makes the long low wave very clear to reduce the number of countries:



  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    The point is that Wales has not received the same devolved powers as Scotland. That is why overweighting remained there but not in Scotland.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,585
    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    You know the current boundaries are more than 20 years old?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,080
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,205

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    Hang on: in what way is having more people with powers over us an increase in individual rights?

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218
    Foxy said:

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    It was certainly a heffalump trap, but due to the unique position of NI, where the citizens can pretend to choose which country that they live in.

    I don't see much that sets a precedent elsewhere in the EU.
    Will the dynamics of NI politics be altered much if the ROI gets clobbered by G7 tax reforms?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Broadly sympathetic to man described by his own QC as a bully and a sex pest. Interesting person to have sympathy for. Young cricketers have their careers finished for writing tweets when they were teenagers, but some Scots think that sex pests are worthy of their undying allegiance and appropriate to lead political movements.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,657
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    It was certainly a heffalump trap, but due to the unique position of NI, where the citizens can pretend to choose which country that they live in.

    I don't see much that sets a precedent elsewhere in the EU.
    Will the dynamics of NI politics be altered much if the ROI gets clobbered by G7 tax reforms?
    Nah.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
    All of the boundaries in the proposal are irrational? I think you are over-egging it somewhat.
    I was referring to the system of constituencies as irrational in itself as they do not reflect anything historical or geographically relevant. I certainly agree that they should not give advantage to one party over another as they did for Labour previously, I am just questioning its rationality as a system. I am not sure what the solution is though! I would like to see a whole redrawing of our constitution, it is a dog's dinner!
    What has history got to do with the electoral district for the current parliament? As for geographically relevant, how do you define that? They encompass contiguous regions, and aren't gerrymandered to buggery like some US seats.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Nah, he's just like Christian Jessen. He had opportunities to avoid this but declined them because he knew better/thought he had right on his side.

    At the time of Murray’s sentencing at the High Court in Edinburgh last month, Lady Dorrian said his repeated breaches, which included refusing to remove blog posts despite legal warnings from the Crown Office, represented a "contempt of considerable gravity".

    Murray's offending posts were written over a period of a month and remained up, unredacted, despite him being told they could potentially lead to the identification of women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond, who was eventually acquitted of all 13 charges.

    Lady Dorrian explained: "It appears from the posts and articles that he was in fact relishing the task he set himself, which was essentially to allow the identities of complainers to be discerned – which he thought was in the public interest – in a way which did not attract sanction."
    Hmmm.

    Scotland's Crown Office is hardly Credibility Central.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,098
    edited June 2021
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Raab's seat of Esher and Walton would have a LD MP based on the new boundaries, the first time ever it has not had a Tory MP. So while there would be a tiny net Tory gain overall, there would be Tory casualties too

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1402303375732006912?s=20

    The LibDems had a noticeably poor performance in E&W at both County and Borough levels on May 6th.
    Seats wise at county level maybe but the 46% the Tories got overall in the county elections and the 39% they got in the borough elections in Elmbridge in May was actually lower than the 49% Raab got in Esher and Walton in 2019.

    It seems Residents' Association candidates picked up a fair number of votes too

    http://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=43&RPID=524517817
    http://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=42&RPID=524517828
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,595
    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    Well, you could "fix" that - by crafting a LibDems that people actually wanted to vote for.

    Instead, you just whinge. It's no wonder Boris keeps winning....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,710
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    It was certainly a heffalump trap, but due to the unique position of NI, where the citizens can pretend to choose which country that they live in.

    I don't see much that sets a precedent elsewhere in the EU.
    Will the dynamics of NI politics be altered much if the ROI gets clobbered by G7 tax reforms?
    Almost certainly not. Voting in NI is quite independent of economic factors.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    The point is that Wales has not received the same devolved powers as Scotland. That is why overweighting remained there but not in Scotland.
    And then we just go around in circles. Wales is entitled to a 40% overweighting in Parliament because, despite having extensive autonomy, it has less than Scotland? Fine. England doesn't get to have a Parliament at all: can we have an extra 500 MPs?

    The Blair Government's original excuse for leaving the Welsh MPs alone was that Scotland got a Parliament whereas Wales, essentially, got a turbo-charged county council. That situation no longer applies. So, bye bye extra Welsh MPs. This does not seem unreasonable.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    edited June 2021

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Nah, he's just like Christian Jessen. He had opportunities to avoid this but declined them because he knew better/thought he had right on his side.

    At the time of Murray’s sentencing at the High Court in Edinburgh last month, Lady Dorrian said his repeated breaches, which included refusing to remove blog posts despite legal warnings from the Crown Office, represented a "contempt of considerable gravity".

    Murray's offending posts were written over a period of a month and remained up, unredacted, despite him being told they could potentially lead to the identification of women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond, who was eventually acquitted of all 13 charges.

    Lady Dorrian explained: "It appears from the posts and articles that he was in fact relishing the task he set himself, which was essentially to allow the identities of complainers to be discerned – which he thought was in the public interest – in a way which did not attract sanction."
    So in truth the idiot was warned. He will be a martyr.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,657
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Nah, he's just like Christian Jessen. He had opportunities to avoid this but declined them because he knew better/thought he had right on his side.

    At the time of Murray’s sentencing at the High Court in Edinburgh last month, Lady Dorrian said his repeated breaches, which included refusing to remove blog posts despite legal warnings from the Crown Office, represented a "contempt of considerable gravity".

    Murray's offending posts were written over a period of a month and remained up, unredacted, despite him being told they could potentially lead to the identification of women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond, who was eventually acquitted of all 13 charges.

    Lady Dorrian explained: "It appears from the posts and articles that he was in fact relishing the task he set himself, which was essentially to allow the identities of complainers to be discerned – which he thought was in the public interest – in a way which did not attract sanction."
    Hmmm.

    Scotland's Crown Office is hardly Credibility Central.
    You raise that afterwards.

    Those Salmond supporters who defend Murray also need to ask themselves would they be fine with this if another prominent blogger during the trial posted things which painted Salmond badly/guilty?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Do most European countries have an independent boundary commission?
    Most EU nations have PR at a national level (for at lest one house of their Parliaments) so not as relevant.

    I don't know how Germany allocates the seats to the provinces for the Senate, the boundaries do not change, but I assume the number of seats as based on population.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    Broadly sympathetic to man described by his own QC as a bully and a sex pest. Interesting person to have sympathy for. Young cricketers have their careers finished for writing tweets when they were teenagers, but some Scots think that sex pests are worthy of their undying allegiance and appropriate to lead political movements.
    That's a small issue compared to the Governance of the whole system.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,349

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    It was certainly a heffalump trap, but due to the unique position of NI, where the citizens can pretend to choose which country that they live in.

    I don't see much that sets a precedent elsewhere in the EU.
    Will the dynamics of NI politics be altered much if the ROI gets clobbered by G7 tax reforms?
    Nah.
    Actually, they might. That kind of thing might have an effect in the South, if it hits the economy.... my guess is the Shinners would try and take advantage of that.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,595
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,218

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
    That's where he's just been refused leave to Appeal...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Theresa May saw that the Irish Protocol was a toxic trap. Why couldn't Boris?

    Agreeing to a deal which drew a border down the Irish Sea was pure Johnson: no attention to detail

    ...
    The [Northern Ireland] protocol was yet one more device dreamed up by the EU to try to punish Britain, to make life so miserable that other countries would think twice before emulating Britain and holding an in-out referendum. Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in 2018 to frustrate the Chequers agreement because he could see Theresa May was falling into a trap – the backstop – which would enable the EU to keep Britain within its regulatory orbit. But then he stumbled headlong into a trap that was just as deep, and contained just as many sharpened sticks.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/08/theresa-may-saw-irish-protocol-toxic-trap-couldnt-boris/ (£££)

    Oh what absolute nonsense on stilts.

    Britain is out of the EU's regulatory orbit now, which wasn't possible under the backstop.

    Now instead of Britain being trapped, all we have left to sort out is the Protocol, which its now in our interests to make as unworkable and irritating and frustrating as possible for the EU until it gets scrapped. Britain isn't going back into the EU's orbit so the reason for dealing with the Protocol is gone now.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,585
    edited June 2021
    "@PoliticsForAlI

    Oxford University's Magdalen college has voted to remove a portrait of the Queen from a common room because she 'represents recent colonial history'"

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1402303448524148737
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    rcs1000 said:

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    Hang on: in what way is having more people with powers over us an increase in individual rights?

    WLQ: you can vote for a representative to fuck about with business elsewhere, whereas people elsewhere lack the reciprocal right.

    Especially relevant when exercising control of elsewhere permits you to help yourself to its citizens' money, at zero cost to you.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
    All of the boundaries in the proposal are irrational? I think you are over-egging it somewhat.
    I was referring to the system of constituencies as irrational in itself as they do not reflect anything historical or geographically relevant. I certainly agree that they should not give advantage to one party over another as they did for Labour previously, I am just questioning its rationality as a system. I am not sure what the solution is though! I would like to see a whole redrawing of our constitution, it is a dog's dinner!
    What has history got to do with the electoral district for the current parliament? As for geographically relevant, how do you define that? They encompass contiguous regions, and aren't gerrymandered to buggery like some US seats.
    I am not sure what the solution is, and I have not studied the criteria that the boundary commission use, but the reality is that we almost certainly have far too many MPs (IMO) and the system of constituencies is an attempt to adapt a very old system that was not built on rationality and certainly not democracy. As a person who is instinctively right of centre I am probably unusual in that I think a system of PR would be far better. If people also want some regional representation then there could be a much better way than we currently have.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,595
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
    That's where he's just been refused leave to Appeal...
    By three High Court judges in Edinburgh. He will appeal above their heads....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    edited June 2021
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
    That's where he's just been refused leave to Appeal...
    And where he intends to appeal directly himself, presumably under the grounds that the Crown Office and Scottish judicial system is out to get him.

    Could be quite the showdown, if the UK Supreme Court are forced to rule that his prosecution in Scotland was politically motivated.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,989
    rcs1000 said:

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    Hang on: in what way is having more people with powers over us an increase in individual rights?

    More people to moan to/about, an inalienable right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,595
    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    You've missed the outrage bus.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599
    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    Politicians keeping to their pre-election promises, that’s a massive scandal.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,378

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    ...until Dave was defeated over Brexit by his duplicitous former chum Boris Johnson, who it has to be said has given Dave and Dave's brand of Conservatism an absolute spanking.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    I guess it will depend on whether all such towns are given development aid or just ones that voted Tory. There is a significant difference.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    The secret funding formula mysteriously favours Tory electorates?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
    That's where he's just been refused leave to Appeal...
    By three High Court judges in Edinburgh. He will appeal above their heads....
    No he won’t, he can’t, There is no chance of the U.K. Supreme Court touching this. From the UKSC’s own website “Scotland has a distinctive tradition of criminal law and procedure. The High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an Appeal Court, is the final court of appeal in Scottish criminal cases and its decisions are not subject to review by any court whatsoever”. The UKSC inherited the jurisdiction of the HoL which, for historical reasons, did not and could not hear criminal appeals from Scotland.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,595

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    We should be thankful that we have a politically independent Boundary Commission in the UK. Much better than letting the politicians themselves draw the lines, as we see elsewhere.

    Yes indeed, but I still fail to see how it is justifiable. I am sure they do their best to be impartial, but I still fail to see how one can define these boundaries on a rational basis. The only rational one to me would be the Isle of Wight!
    All of the boundaries in the proposal are irrational? I think you are over-egging it somewhat.
    I was referring to the system of constituencies as irrational in itself as they do not reflect anything historical or geographically relevant. I certainly agree that they should not give advantage to one party over another as they did for Labour previously, I am just questioning its rationality as a system. I am not sure what the solution is though! I would like to see a whole redrawing of our constitution, it is a dog's dinner!
    What has history got to do with the electoral district for the current parliament? As for geographically relevant, how do you define that? They encompass contiguous regions, and aren't gerrymandered to buggery like some US seats.
    I am not sure what the solution is, and I have not studied the criteria that the boundary commission use, but the reality is that we almost certainly have far too many MPs (IMO) and the system of constituencies is an attempt to adapt a very old system that was not built on rationality and certainly not democracy. As a person who is instinctively right of centre I am probably unusual in that I think a system of PR would be far better. If people also want some regional representation then there could be a much better way than we currently have.
    Imagine the squealing though if we went down to 600 MPs "I simply REFUSE to have that shithole/those stuck-up ***** in MY constituency..."
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930

    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    The secret funding formula mysteriously favours Tory electorates?
    That's described in steps 1, 2, and 3.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    Andy_JS said:

    "@PoliticsForAlI

    Oxford University's Magdalen college has voted to remove a portrait of the Queen from a common room because she 'represents recent colonial history'"

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1402303448524148737

    Magdalen College also represents outdated gender relations, theocracy and unwonted elitism.

    I think they should just dissolve themselves and be done with it.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313

    Is is really a surprise when these boundaries were so unfriendly to the Tories and so old?

    Back in 2005 a 2% Lab lead resulted in a Lab majority of 66 whilst in 2010 a Tory lead of 7% led to the Tories to being just short of a majority,

    Everything changed for the Tories with the post-coalition collapse of the LDs.
    My boy Dave played a blinder.
    ...until Dave was defeated over Brexit by his duplicitous former chum Boris Johnson, who it has to be said has given Dave and Dave's brand of Conservatism an absolute spanking.
    He has given Conservatism in general "a spanking". Boris Johnson is not a Conservative. He is a Johnsonist, Egotist, or a right wing populist, but he is not a Conservative.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,127

    Chameleon said:

    'm really struggling to get the 'scandal' with the Towns Fund.

    Conservatives run election on promise to level up left behind towns.
    Those towns flip and vote for the Conservatives in massive numbers.
    Conservatives follow up by giving development money to said left behind towns.

    Is there something I'm missing?

    The secret funding formula mysteriously favours Tory electorates?
    This is one of those 350m for the NHS sorts of things.

    The opposition keep moaning, and in so doing actually help the Tories - who are shown as levelling up Towns.....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    I can't tell whether you are playing a tiny violin about Craig Murray losing, or Scotland's high judicial system going to hell in a handcart.

    Malc is right imo on this - Murray did no more than nearly a whole football team of journalists, and I think the only ones that have been gone for are Murray and one other who are both broadly sympathetic to Salmond.
    The U.K. Supreme Court is going to kick that straight out, surely?

    He didn’t name names, and you couldn’t work out names from his posts.

    You could, if you already knew the names, work backwards, but that’s the wrong way around.
    Gotta love the irony of UK justice coming to the rescue of a Scottish Nationalist though....
    That's where he's just been refused leave to Appeal...
    By three High Court judges in Edinburgh. He will appeal above their heads....
    No he won’t, he can’t, There is no chance of the U.K. Supreme Court touching this. From the UKSC’s own website “Scotland has a distinctive tradition of criminal law and procedure. The High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an Appeal Court, is the final court of appeal in Scottish criminal cases and its decisions are not subject to review by any court whatsoever”. The UKSC inherited the jurisdiction of the HoL which, for historical reasons, did not and could not hear criminal appeals from Scotland.
    What about the European Court of Human Rights?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,920

    ClippP said:

    Nowadays it seems that everything is being "fixed" in order to benefit Johnson and his Gang.

    To be fair, in this particular case action is long overdue. For how many decades exactly ought the boundaries to reflect the distribution of the people around the time of the 2001 Census, plus an overweighting for Wales based on historical considerations which have long since ceased to apply?
    The reason for overweighting Wales has not ceased to apply, since Wales has not devolved to the same extent as Scotland.

    CCHQ in the Cameron/Osborne era convinced itself Labour was cheating, by grabbing all the Welsh seats. Since then, the Conservatives have tried actually campaigning in Wales, and in 2019 won 14 seats against Labour's 22 (with the remaining 4 for Plaid Cymru).
    Wales has either benefited or suffered (depending upon your point of view) from extensive national devolution. England has had the square root of fuck all. By your measure the overweighting needs to happen here, not there.
    What is the point of this rant? Historically, Wales and Scotland were overweighted as some sort of mitigation against England being far larger. It is the same reasoning as the American Senate having two senators per state, regardless of their size.
    The unitary state has, for most practical purposes, ceased to exist. The Welsh and the Scots MPs (and, by extension, their citizens) now both enjoy superior rights as it is. You would think that cutting the Welsh contingent down to size (as the Scottish one already has been) would be wholly uncontroversial under the circumstances, but apparently not...
    The point is that Wales has not received the same devolved powers as Scotland. That is why overweighting remained there but not in Scotland.
    And then we just go around in circles. Wales is entitled to a 40% overweighting in Parliament because, despite having extensive autonomy, it has less than Scotland? Fine. England doesn't get to have a Parliament at all: can we have an extra 500 MPs?

    The Blair Government's original excuse for leaving the Welsh MPs alone was that Scotland got a Parliament whereas Wales, essentially, got a turbo-charged county council. That situation no longer applies. So, bye bye extra Welsh MPs. This does not seem unreasonable.
    But England does have hundreds more MPs than Wales, so would not need an extra 500. Think of the American system where the House has representatives based on each state's population, and the Senate has two senators per state. Yes, this means Wyoming is over-represented compared to its population but that is the intention.
This discussion has been closed.