Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » History suggests the Tories will see their share of the vot

2»

Comments

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    Neil said:



    However, the fact still remains that they torpedoed the measure to correct it. That is the outrage.

    They torpedoed a measure that did a number of things as well as correcting the Wales situation. They can legitimately argue they were more concerned with those other issues. If the Coalition had just come forward with a measure equivalent to the moves to cut the over-representation in Scotland then Labour may well have supported it. After all it was a Labour government that reduced Scotland's over-representation.
    Yes, and one of the things that it also did was to reduce the importance of "natural boundaries" when determining constituency boundaries.

    I believe that the general use of natural boundaries in determining UK constituencies has done a lot to save us from gerrymandering, and throwing it out in order to make a net difference of a handful of seats seemed to me too much harm for too little good.

    Now, I am in favour of relatively large multi-member STV seats. This would do a lot more to give each voter's vote an equal weight, as it would vastly reduce the number of no-hope/no-effort areas for each party.

    I can buy into some" STVness". We cannot have the prospect of electing governments with solid majorities on 35% or so (or less?) of the vote and not store up trouble long term. FPTP is fine with two or two and a bit parties. But with both Con and Lab declining over decades to the present 65-70%ish it creates a problem about how the will of the people is expressed. "35% strategies" should fill us with horror whoever is pushing them really.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    "35% strategies" should fill us with horror whoever is pushing them really.

    100% agree.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    GIN1138 said:

    Will there ever again be good news for the Tories?

    Labours lead with YouGov was just 3% this morning LOL but its still all terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for the Tories here. Has Prof. King taken over and we haven't been told? ;)

    Twas always thus, any good news is either nothing to do with the tories or is actually bad news, and all bad news is entirely the tories fault. Thats why we currently have bad growth. If we had zero unemployment it would be argued on here to be bad. If you look back at the most regular posters on here you will see that that ridicule the tories for any perceived failure, such as lack of growth, when growth happens its also terrible and its all the tories fault.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT@YouGov 60% against lowering voting age to 16, including 57% of those aged 18-24 y-g.co/14ZQdcn < another vote winner by #Labour
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    welshowl said:

    Even with 650 seats, Wales ahould have eight less (See table upthread)

    Ultimately you can properly federalise a la USA/Australia but of course that leaves England as a colossus of 85% of the whole by population (and growing as a proportion) and the "UK PM" not much more than Foreign Secretary.
    I don't think Federations where one constituent is that dominant have a good record of success - look at how Yugoslavia fell apart when the others decided they didn't want the Serbians running the show.

    I think there are only three theoretically stable outcomes:

    1. The old status quo where the English subsume their identity into a British whole and give some perks to the smaller nations [over-representation at Westminster, separate legal system in Scotland, etc] to reassure them that they aren't being exploited.

    2. A proper federation where England divides into something approaching the old Heptarchy. Something like Cornwall, Wessex, Mercia, Sussex (including Kent), Greater London (including the Thames River catchment), East Anglia, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northumbria could work, as the largest single constituent would not be too large, and the average size would be about the same as Scotland's five million.

    3. Dissolution of the Union.

    That said, we've lived with the West Lothian Question for nearly 15 years now, I believe Scottish votes have been used to force through legislation that only affects England, and we've kept on muddling through.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013

    @AveryLP - They tried number 5 of the birthday tribute ideas before. It wasn't a great success, or at least not for William Hague.

    I think Hague lacked what Obama would call Putin's "inner child".

    I have higher hopes for Dave.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,654
    welshowl said:

    Neil said:



    However, the fact still remains that they torpedoed the measure to correct it. That is the outrage.

    They torpedoed a measure that did a number of things as well as correcting the Wales situation. They can legitimately argue they were more concerned with those other issues. If the Coalition had just come forward with a measure equivalent to the moves to cut the over-representation in Scotland then Labour may well have supported it. After all it was a Labour government that reduced Scotland's over-representation.
    Yes, and one of the things that it also did was to reduce the importance of "natural boundaries" when determining constituency boundaries.

    I believe that the general use of natural boundaries in determining UK constituencies has done a lot to save us from gerrymandering, and throwing it out in order to make a net difference of a handful of seats seemed to me too much harm for too little good.

    Now, I am in favour of relatively large multi-member STV seats. This would do a lot more to give each voter's vote an equal weight, as it would vastly reduce the number of no-hope/no-effort areas for each party.

    I can buy into some" STVness". We cannot have the prospect of electing governments with solid majorities on 35% or so (or less?) of the vote and not store up trouble long term. FPTP is fine with two or two and a bit parties. But with both Con and Lab declining over decades to the present 65-70%ish it creates a problem about how the will of the people is expressed. "35% strategies" should fill us with horror whoever is pushing them really.
    Could easily be less than 35%. Plausibly UKIP dig in at 10%+, the LibDems in opposition get back to 20%, Greens and Nats 10% between them, and that leaves the big two are below 60%. In 2020 you could easily get a Labour majority government on 30%.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    That said, we've lived with the West Lothian Question for nearly 15 years now

    Far longer than that - Northern Irish MPs have been voting on issues that have nothing to do with them for almost a century now.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:

    AveryLP said:

    21 Reasons why Russian Girls Love Vladimir Putin

    I'm sure they're exaggerating.
    Never been my experience, Neil.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    currystar said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Will there ever again be good news for the Tories?

    Labours lead with YouGov was just 3% this morning LOL but its still all terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible for the Tories here. Has Prof. King taken over and we haven't been told? ;)

    Twas always thus, any good news is either nothing to do with the tories or is actually bad news, and all bad news is entirely the tories fault. Thats why we currently have bad growth. If we had zero unemployment it would be argued on here to be bad. If you look back at the most regular posters on here you will see that that ridicule the tories for any perceived failure, such as lack of growth, when growth happens its also terrible and its all the tories fault.
    Earlier in the year I was giving credit to Osborne for shielding the British population from the decline in living standards - his increases to the personal allowance have ensured that when you look beyond the crude comparison of inflation to wage increases, living standards overall have not suffered.
  • antifrank said:

    On topic, 1966 and October 1974 have something in common: the largest party in the previous Parliament had taken over the reins of Government at the previous election, but lacked an effective majority and sought a proper mandate. The Conservatives will be in this position in 2015.

    /devil's advocate

    What's your hourly rate to Satan and how many billable hours have you invoiced him for ?

    (Assuming Satan can afford you?)

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited August 2013


    What's your hourly rate to Satan and how many billable hours have you invoiced him for ?

    (Assuming Satan can afford you?)

    I doubt if Satan needs to afford antifrank - he's got plenty of talented lawyers in-house.

  • What's your hourly rate to Satan and how many billable hours have you invoiced him for ?

    (Assuming Satan can afford you?)

    I doubt if Satan needs to afford antifrank - he's got plenty of talented lawyers in-house.
    Reminds me of the joke


    The Devil said to the solicitor, "I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try, for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife's soul, your children's souls and I want you to kill a nun"

    The solicitor thought about this for a moment, then asked, "So, what's the catch?"
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Ben Page, Ipsos MORI @benatipsosmori
    41% in South East worried about immigration - compared to 24% in London ipsos-mori.com/researchpublic…

    Concern about race/immigration has now increased to 38%; its highest level since May 2010 ow.ly/oaz7M
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,302
    Neil said:


    That said, we've lived with the West Lothian Question for nearly 15 years now

    Far longer than that - Northern Irish MPs have been voting on issues that have nothing to do with them for almost a century now.
    That's very ignoble of you Neil, our shinners don't bother to turn up and the DUP just vote no to everything. In any case the current set up is undemocratic we should have 533 MPs the same as England. Parity of esteem etc.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited August 2013


    That's very ignoble of you Neil

    Not as ignoble as the sight and sound of Jim Shannon talking rubbish about things that have nothing to do with his constituents! ;)
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - Or Godfrey Bloom, of course.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013
    tim said:

    @MSmithsonPB: The 3 most recent polls from YouGov, Populus and ComRes have seen UKIP shares increasing - suggesting a trend


    Tories get riled about immigration UKIP benefit

    tim

    Interesting that MORI show immigration is of greatest concern in the North of England (47%) and the Midlands (43%) and of least concern in London (24%), South East (33%) and Scotland (21%).

    If UKIP are getting the benefit, who is paying the cost?

    Could explain why Labour's "impenetrable" VI share of 40%+ has been tumbling over the summer.

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,286
    Chris Bryant much more likely.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    welshowl said:

    Even with 650 seats, Wales ahould have eight less (See table upthread)

    Ultimately you can properly federalise a la USA/Australia but of course that leaves England as a colossus of 85% of the whole by population (and growing as a proportion) and the "UK PM" not much more than Foreign Secretary.
    I don't think Federations where one constituent is that dominant have a good record of success - look at how Yugoslavia fell apart when the others decided they didn't want the Serbians running the show.

    I think there are only three theoretically stable outcomes:

    1. The old status quo where the English subsume their identity into a British whole and give some perks to the smaller nations [over-representation at Westminster, separate legal system in Scotland, etc] to reassure them that they aren't being exploited.

    2. A proper federation where England divides into something approaching the old Heptarchy. Something like Cornwall, Wessex, Mercia, Sussex (including Kent), Greater London (including the Thames River catchment), East Anglia, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northumbria could work, as the largest single constituent would not be too large, and the average size would be about the same as Scotland's five million.

    3. Dissolution of the Union.

    That said, we've lived with the West Lothian Question for nearly 15 years now, I believe Scottish votes have been used to force through legislation that only affects England, and we've kept on muddling through.
    I rather like the Carswell/Hannan solution to the WLQ, devolve the same powers currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament /Welsh assembly to the county councils of England.

    http://www.douglascarswell.com/publications/the-localist-papers-1-open-politics/106
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,302
    Neil said:


    That's very ignoble of you Neil

    Not as ignoble as the sight and sound of Jim Shannon talking rubbish about things that have nothing to do with his constituents! ;)
    Tsk you fail to understand the attraction of Irish whimsy. The DUP just add to the gaiety of the nation.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    The DUP just add to the gaiety of the nation.

    The DUP spends most of its time condemning the gaiety of the nation!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,302
    Neil said:

    The DUP just add to the gaiety of the nation.

    The DUP spends most of its time condemning the gaiety of the nation!
    They're targetting the gay S&M vote.
  • Plato said:

    Ben Page, Ipsos MORI @benatipsosmori
    41% in South East worried about immigration - compared to 24% in London ipsos-mori.com/researchpublic…

    Concern about race/immigration has now increased to 38%; its highest level since May 2010 ow.ly/oaz7M

    Concern about the economy might help Labour. I everyone forgets what a mess they made last time, it might help them.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    welshowl said:

    Even with 650 seats, Wales ahould have eight less (See table upthread)

    Ultimately you can properly federalise a la USA/Australia but of course that leaves England as a colossus of 85% of the whole by population (and growing as a proportion) and the "UK PM" not much more than Foreign Secretary.
    I don't think Federations where one constituent is that dominant have a good record of success - look at how Yugoslavia fell apart when the others decided they didn't want the Serbians running the show.

    I think there are only three theoretically stable outcomes:

    1. The old status quo where the English subsume their identity into a British whole and give some perks to the smaller nations [over-representation at Westminster, separate legal system in Scotland, etc] to reassure them that they aren't being exploited.

    2. A proper federation where England divides into something approaching the old Heptarchy. Something like Cornwall, Wessex, Mercia, Sussex (including Kent), Greater London (including the Thames River catchment), East Anglia, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northumbria could work, as the largest single constituent would not be too large, and the average size would be about the same as Scotland's five million.

    3. Dissolution of the Union.

    That said, we've lived with the West Lothian Question for nearly 15 years now, I believe Scottish votes have been used to force through legislation that only affects England, and we've kept on muddling through.


    I'd agree. Prussia and Germany is another. But it's still a plain injustice that a Celtic MPs have a slice of votes with no comparable responsibility .

    Also England has been a political entity since the mid 10th century and a nation for 500 years before that. What gives anyone the rightto carve it up?

    Nobody's going to suggest that for Wales or Scotland (" hey Alex you can have the bit north of the Highland line"), so why England?

    I always thought Prescott's bonkers regional assemblies idea were a tacit nod to the fact that once you have devolution England became " too big ".
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Plato said:

    Because Mr Senior was so charming - I've paid my £25 and joined the Tories.

    Feel free to include me as an official member of PB Tories - you only have yourselves to blame :^ )

    Not sure I can respect you quite as much, joining a party in a fit of pique rather than genuine conviction.
    Not sure you quite get the joke of a fake 'libertarian floating voter 'pretending' to join the tories after spending all her time on here foaming at the mouth about lefties.

    Unspoofable in fact. ;^ )

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,005
    Australia have finally declared on 492-9. England just need to get 600 now...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,302
    Mick_Pork said:

    Plato said:

    Because Mr Senior was so charming - I've paid my £25 and joined the Tories.

    Feel free to include me as an official member of PB Tories - you only have yourselves to blame :^ )

    Not sure I can respect you quite as much, joining a party in a fit of pique rather than genuine conviction.
    Not sure you quite get the joke of a fake 'libertarian floating voter 'pretending' to join the tories after spending all her time on here foaming at the mouth about lefties.

    Unspoofable in fact. ;^ )

    Not quite as funny as the PB Lefties who obsess about it.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited August 2013
    The kippers quite obviously change things.

    When the swivel eyed loons in the tory party stop banging on about core kipper issues then the kipper polling drops as we've seen very clearly since after the May local elections.

    That was the time to push hard on issues the kippers struggle with and get the kipper vote down as low as possible. Instead the master strategy appears to have been to focus on little Ed and labour (who were busy doing more than enough damage to themselves without anyone else's help) while occassionally returning to core kipper issues like immigration.

    Sooner or later it's finally going to sink in at CCHQ that NF and the kippers are still taking a big chunk of voters from the tories that they need and trying to outkip the kippers is utterly futile.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Mick_Pork said:

    Plato said:

    Because Mr Senior was so charming - I've paid my £25 and joined the Tories.

    Feel free to include me as an official member of PB Tories - you only have yourselves to blame :^ )

    Not sure I can respect you quite as much, joining a party in a fit of pique rather than genuine conviction.
    Not sure you quite get the joke of a fake 'libertarian floating voter 'pretending' to join the tories after spending all her time on here foaming at the mouth about lefties.

    Unspoofable in fact. ;^ )

    Not quite as funny as the PB Lefties who obsess about it.
    Or indeed as funny as the PB rightwingers who in turn obsess about them.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,597
    Anyone tried the GCSE maths test?

    When I was at school we would have been expected to get 100% on questions like that by age 11.

    GCSE has been reduced to what would have been a pretty basic primary school test.

    But has anybody got the guts to sort it out? Obviously not - because if they did the pass rate would fall to about 20% or 30%.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23779549
  • MikeL said:

    Anyone tried the GCSE maths test?

    When I was at school we would have been expected to get 100% on questions like that by age 11.

    GCSE has been reduced to what would have been a pretty basic primary school test.

    But has anybody got the guts to sort it out? Obviously not - because if they did the pass rate would fall to about 20% or 30%.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23779549

    [swaggering] Man, I got an A at GCSE and I passed the Extension Paper too, back in the 1990s - I even took the whole exam a year early :)
  • Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:



    Scotland and Wales have 15% more seats than they're entitled to at present.

    Scotland and Wales may have 15% more seats than you would like them to have at present but they have exactly the number of seats they are entitled to.
    Why? If the seats were allocated proportionate to electorate, England should have 13 more than it does currently (546 v. 533).
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:



    Scotland and Wales have 15% more seats than they're entitled to at present.

    Scotland and Wales may have 15% more seats than you would like them to have at present but they have exactly the number of seats they are entitled to.
    Why?
    Because the number of seats each country is entitled to is set out in legislation and reports etc. carried out under that legislation.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    edited August 2013
    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:



    Scotland and Wales have 15% more seats than they're entitled to at present.

    Scotland and Wales may have 15% more seats than you would like them to have at present but they have exactly the number of seats they are entitled to.
    Why? If the seats were allocated proportionate to electorate, England should have 13 more than it does currently (546 v. 533).
    Because the number of seats each country is entitled to is set out in legislation and reports etc. carried out under that legislation.
    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    UK average electorate (650) = 70,151
    English average electorate (533) = 71,554
    Scottish average electorate (59) = 65,499
    Welsh average electorate (40) = 56,146
    NI average electorate (18) = 64,955
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:



    Scotland and Wales have 15% more seats than they're entitled to at present.

    Scotland and Wales may have 15% more seats than you would like them to have at present but they have exactly the number of seats they are entitled to.
    Why? If the seats were allocated proportionate to electorate, England should have 13 more than it does currently (546 v. 533).
    Why should the deciding factor in the distribution of seats be the proportionality of the electorates . It was not accepted that that was important for several hundred years until quite recently in fact .
  • New Thread
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,732

    Why should the deciding factor in the distribution of seats be the proportionality of the electorates . It was not accepted that that was important for several hundred years until quite recently in fact .

    So you admit it is now actually important?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983



    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    The legislation is decided by the people who are elected to make these decisions. Not according to what random posters on a politics blog think should happen!
  • Neil said:



    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    The legislation is decided by the people who are elected to make these decisions. Not according to what random posters on a politics blog think should happen!
    But the electorates are not equal across the regions/nations, is that fair?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    PB 'ers must remember that at all times Mick Pork speaks as a tartan swivel eyed loon.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    RobD said:

    Why should the deciding factor in the distribution of seats be the proportionality of the electorates . It was not accepted that that was important for several hundred years until quite recently in fact .

    So you admit it is now actually important?
    It is not of great importance to me . FWIW I think Wales is somewhat over represented but Scotland is about right . I see that it is of far greater importance to Conservatives who are dissatisfied with the current system which only gives them 48% of the seats for 36% of the votes .
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:



    Scotland and Wales have 15% more seats than they're entitled to at present.

    Scotland and Wales may have 15% more seats than you would like them to have at present but they have exactly the number of seats they are entitled to.
    Why? If the seats were allocated proportionate to electorate, England should have 13 more than it does currently (546 v. 533).
    Why should the deciding factor in the distribution of seats be the proportionality of the electorates . It was not accepted that that was important for several hundred years until quite recently in fact .
    I know, we could go back to a property based vote. That was accepted till quite recently in the grand sweep of time. 250k should equate to 40s freehold? :-)
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:



    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    The legislation is decided by the people who are elected to make these decisions. Not according to what random posters on a politics blog think should happen!
    But the electorates are not equal across the regions/nations, is that fair?
    My opinion on whether it is fair or not is irrelevant to the point I made.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited August 2013

    Neil said:



    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    The legislation is decided by the people who are elected to make these decisions. Not according to what random posters on a politics blog think should happen!
    But the electorates are not equal across the regions/nations, is that fair?
    It can be fair in some circumstances . If you go back to previous eras when representation was based on recognised communities rather than semi random numbers of electors cobbled together to meet a numerical target then it could be considered not just fair but desirable .

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited August 2013

    PB 'ers must remember that at all times Mick Pork speaks as a tartan swivel eyed loon.

    Calm down dear and go and have a nap old timer. You really do sound quite deranged when you're all grumpy and petulant Doddy.

    Are you really so stupid not to know where "swivel-eyed loon" comes from? What about "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists"? Still clueless are you?

    Here's a hint. It wasn't me who caused them to be plastered all over the papers. If you still can't work out where they come from maybe a politicalbetting site just isn't for you Doddy, you silly old sausage. ;)
  • Neil said:

    Neil said:



    Obviously the legislation doesn't account for the distortions that produces:

    The legislation is decided by the people who are elected to make these decisions. Not according to what random posters on a politics blog think should happen!
    But the electorates are not equal across the regions/nations, is that fair?
    My opinion on whether it is fair or not is irrelevant to the point I made.
    I don't understand why you like mentioning "legislation"? Legislation once banned Catholics from voting!
  • StephenStephen Posts: 1
    One major difference this time is UKIP who have hemorrhaged votes from both parties. however will UKIPpers return to the Conservative fold but not Labour? What a disaster that will be.
This discussion has been closed.