politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why Mrs May will be unlikely to hold an early elect
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why Mrs May will be unlikely to hold an early election
The Guardian are reporting that leading psephologist and former Tory MP Lord Hayward has looked at the forthcoming boundary review/reduction in the number of MPs,
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9cWgkpIZ4
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/guest-slot-the-boundaries-of-reason/
"The seat reorganisation would be relatively minor in the Eastern, South East and South West regions, given the minor adjustments in seat counts, and these are, as it happens, all overwhelmingly Conservative areas. They would, however, be very extensive in Wales, the North West and the North East: all Labour areas (Scotland also would be seriously affected). Of the Conservative-leaning areas, only the West Midlands would see heavy reorganisation.
It gets worse for Labour. Many of the constituencies with the lowest number of registered voters are in contiguous Labour-held areas. On a shrinking seat count determined by numbers of registered voters, that is the worst permutation for a party, because there is much less scope to recoup lost seats in the area by taking seats of a rival party. Leeds, Bradford, Hull and Liverpool are all stuffed full of constituencies with very low numbers of registered voters, all with large Labour majorities. If the seat count in those areas is reduced, that will probably come straight off the top of the Labour seat total."
Whether this is enough to deter Theresa May from an early election, I'm less certain.
The Tory whips could start planning for this now, lining up retirements, those to be kicked to the red benches or given a gong, accommodating redundant MEPs and rising stars, identifying the new marginal seats etc etc, all in a civilised manner.
Meanwhile Labour will be in the middle of a civil war of deselections and party rule making, completely unfit for the campaign.
Result, a 100 majority for Theresa.
Typical, no mention of the Dublin Agreement. All of the requests should be denied since they are coming from a safe country (France).
"Under section 7(4)–(6), the prime minister is obliged to establish a committee to review the operation of the Act and to make recommendations for its amendment or repeal, if appropriate. The committee must be established between 1 June and 30 November 2020, and the majority of its members must be members of the House of Commons."
Implementation of boundary changes, 5 year fixed terms, 2 years min negotiating Brexit and claims by the PM herself, all indicate there will not be an early General election imho, no matter how tempting the prospect of adding to Labour’s troubles. – I thought 2016 couldn’t get any worse for the opposition party, however the pending intercine war over deselections in 2018 looks set to be a real humdinger.
The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.
Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.
I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.
It also strikes me that we should have fixed terms between boundary reviews - this is a far better candidate for a Fixed Term Act than the length of Parliaments. The way Clegg played politics with this in the 2010-15 Parliament was a disgrace.
Finally, I think we should end the exemption for the few constituencies that have their own seats regardless of population. Why should somebody's vote be worth twice somebody else's just because they live on an island off Scotland rather than on the mainland?
Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...
Besides, the point is moot. We had the chance to change the voting system and resoundingly rejected it.
If we abandon the constituency link, we can critically assess other 'interesting' voting methods.
Mr Bertrand said he wanted a new deal in which migrants hoping to claim asylum in the UK would be able to do so at a "hotspot" in France. Those who failed would be deported directly to their country of origin"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211267
Ok .....Let's do it that way.
First move.......Anyone in these channel camps now or in future is automatically refused entry. France then has to return them as they should be doing anyway right now.
Refusals on grounds
1) They have already shown they have no respect for our laws by circumventing immigration and by not applying to emigrate legally from their country of origin.
2) They have threatened violence against law abiding citizens of many nationalities (including British) crossing the borders land caused no end of intentional disruption to our freight and services.
3)They have crossed safe countries to get to the French coast and remain in a safe country while failing to claim asylum as the convention requires.
The EU and Merkel created this problem, France chose to allow these people to cross the country and establish themselves at the coat so so it is for them and them alone to resolve. We are not responsible.
Genuine asylum seekers from persecution etc remain protected as they are in and have crossed safe countries so have ample opportunity to secure safety.
Of course, if I'm wrong, that would mean that different options are available. The key, though, is to figure out what we want from the political system as a whole and then choose a voting system or systems to match. Otherwise you risk what happened with AV: the voters perceived that the LDs wanted it for the sole purpose of getting more LD MPs. This was never going to go down well.
Breaking news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211788
Shortly before 02:30 local time (00:30 GMT), a car rammed through three fences, RTL Belgium reports.
"One or more" suspects then reportedly detonated a bomb near the laboratories"
BBC news
My post-race ramble is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/belgium-post-race-analysis-2016.html
We're at Monza in four days, so not much of a turn around time. Because the F1 website, last time I checked, was still massively inferior in every way to the old one [which I rather miss] checking sector times will be a bit tricky but I'm reasonably sure Red Bull and McLaren were the relatively tasty chaps in the twisty section. So, my expectation is roughly as Spa, with those teams going backwards. Which is rather nice for Force India.
I'd guess Toro Rosso will continue to suffer. Kvyat's been off the boil since his demotion and the car's 2015 Ferrari engine is now looking a bit weak and weedy.
Looks very similar to the "active shooter" scare at JFK a couple of weeks ago.
Does he ever engage his brain first?
Dare one enquire as to the nature of Smith's latest abuse of the English language?
Miss Lass, wasn't the reduction in the Conservative manifesto? (I think in 2010 all parties had reductions in their manifestos but it didn't pass because the Lib Dems didn't want it).
Since then, listening to various radio interviews on music, and reading his comments on politics, I have become uncomfortably aware that were he leading the Labour Party and I judged his policies rather than his personality, I would have to consider voting for him.
If he were standing against Corbyn, maybe there would be hope for Labour. But I rather think, like Portillo, his national humiliation has sated his appetite for taking part personally in politics.
I have long wished that the government would move away from London to somewhere sensible, cheaper and possessed of adequate supplies of water. In which case a new Parliament building would be required. But that is an entirely separate question.
Or should we ask him and Trump to compare hands to see if he's just making it up?
Edit - someone at the HP didn't think before writing this subheading on the subject;
'The Labour leadership race is hotting up'.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c3426fe4b0ba22a4d48b7f
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1677140/teen-billionaire-whose-goldplated-100k-maserati-was-towed-by-cops-says-ill-just-learn-to-drive-in-a-rolls-royce/
Priceless.
Still a good proposal, even better than AV...
What isn't explored in that article is whether the revised seats will be more vulnerable to a UKIP attack, especially if, now the Tory Civil war is over UKIP reposition as a socially conservative version of Old Labour. A sort of Frank Field & Kate Hoey on Steroids party or GB version of the Democratic Unionists.
But even if he doesn't I think he is on to a attack line that could grow: Corbynism is totally out of touch with real lives. Whilst it feeds idealists with joy about the idea of every industry been run by the state, real people are suffering disability benefit cuts, losing their jobs because of Brexit, NHS operations cancelled, social care lost etc etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762820/Good-deal-Britain-kill-EU-say-Germans-Vice-Chancellor-warns-union-drain.html
If us leaving destroyed the whole EU that really would be the icing on the cake.
He's now twice the dick he was yesterday
The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.
If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.
Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.
Another remaitor bullshit nailed.
As an aside, if us leaving means the end of the EU, they might have considered proposing a better deal. Arguably, that was more Cameron's fault than theirs, of course.
Mr. Borough, I prefer robber buttons, myself.
Mr. Topping, if France were in control, they'd be accepting or rejecting/deporting the illegal immigrants themselves.
Mr. Bedfordshire (2), interesting point on UKIP, although they seem intent upon embuggering themselves.
And in those two problems lies the paradox. I think the nearest anyone came to resolving it was Cook, with his 80% elected, but that was effectively stymied following quiet work by Blair and Brown who wanted 100% appointed.
A Unicameral parliament with independent experts coopted onto select committees to scrutinise legislation.
Turn the Lords into a bingo hall.
I'd better get back to my schemes of work!
These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.
You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?
I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.
This would incentivise the ferries and Eurotunnel to undertake even more thorough searches at Calais before any of the trucks, cars and foot passengers are allowed on.
It would of course cause a lot of delays for road traffic which would benefit the airlines, rail freight operators and eurostar and encourage RoW trade to use British ports rather than be trucked to Rotterdam and Hamburg. It would also make French/Belgian lorries doing domestic work in the UK untenable.
In short it would boost the UK and screw the northern French economy. Of course it would also mean long delays for Remaitors visiting their second home in France for the weekend. Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, get me a miniature violin.
At the moment we are not able to engage with other countries in the outside world in many fields due to EU membership, which is why I voted Brexit.
The whole point of setting out plans to institute a border regime as outlined above if France pull the plug on UK border checks at Calais is to deter France from pulling the plug on UK border checks at Calais.
It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.
Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.
As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.
Owen and his alleged penis joke, following his ISIS thoughts and other incidents, illustrates the perils of an ABC strategy. If you pick someone random whose big selling point is that he's not someone else, problems may emerge. The cnetre-left really needs someone (at this point probably for 2020) who (a) is heavyweight enough to carry conviction and (b) actually has the guts to stand. If they haven't got anyone like that, they should find a different profession.
But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.
We either take the delays and cost or ask France to simply honour the rules and remove the small number of people causing the problem. France have no excuse really.
Yet we expect France to adhere to one of them to the letter.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/23/danish-politicians-seek-to-visit-nauru-site-at-heart-of-offshore-detention-outcry
The problem is the prolonged process that occurs when the asylum applicant gets a toe on British soil and the ease of evading removal.
The system is perverse in many ways, not least that it is impossible to legitimately claim asylum without having entered the country, combined with refusal of entry if that is what the object of entry is. Catch 22.
A lot of illegals get in on tourist visas then overstay, but that is a different issue.