Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories are aping DTrump when they claim the electoral system’s
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories are aping DTrump when they claim the electoral system’s rigged against them
It is bollocks for minsters to suggest that electoral system favours LAB. Now CON main beneficiary .GE17CON win 48.9% of MPs with 42.4% voteLAB win 40.3% of MPs with 40% of voteLDs 1.8% of MPs with 7.4% of votehttps://t.co/AaCXsFOWOx
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
- "There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime."
- "There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion."
- "But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times. So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they’ll be loving me because they’re saying, “Please, please, don’t lose Donald Trump.” O.K."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts.html
Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.
Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?
Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage
Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice
Historically speaking, there has been a long delay since the last boundary changes
One the one side, 'gerrymandering' seems inaccurate and hyperbolic - and the Tory 'outrage' on the other utterly synthetic.
If we are to retain a first past the post system, then boundary changes have to happen from time to time. Quit the posturing and get it done.
Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?
The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
Apologies if I’m wrong.
AV would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 2015.
In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.
The result?
2005 - Lab majority of 66
2010 - Tories just short of a majority.
Like most New Labour constitutional innovations they were I'll thought through and have had unintended consequences
He was Correspondence Secretary and polling analyst for William Hague, IDS, and Michael Howard.
Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
Edit to add: the current boundaries are ridiculously out of date, and need to be redrawn. I also agree there should be much tighter banding of constituency size, with all seats within 7.5% of average. However, I do not believe that the reduction in the number of seats to 600 is a good idea.
You asked me yesterday why I was so critical of Thatcher's conduct after leaving office.
I had in mind things like this:
National Archives: Thatcher and Major clashed over economy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42508809
By her constant meddling and carping - and I could add the poll tax, Pinochet, the 1997 Tory leadership election, even the tail fins of BA aircraft - not only did she keep her shall we say controversial premiership firmly in the public mind but she made it almost impossible for her successor (successors, plural, as Tory leader) to move on, which was one factor leading to their severe ossification.
I don't think that was good politics or good statesmanship. It definitely tarnished her legacy.
On topic, unusually strong language by OGH. One point perhaps to consider is to what extent that is the traditional leading party bonus under FPTP. How many seats would Labour have won on a 42-40 (well, technically 39.99 but we'll go with 40) split of the vote?
The key problem is that except in unusual circumstances seats you lose are made up on the list system. So although Labour in Wales have at times dipped to around a third of the vote, they have always hovered between 27 and 30 seats.
UK wide such a system would be utterly disastrous.
They give parties far too much power.
Multi member STV is the answer.
The register used to set boundaries was in 2001. By the likely date of the next election that will be more than 20 years out of date.
Parliament has set down in law the fact that it wants these updated and the method that should be used.
Labour is attempting to block the changes because it believes it will be disadvantaged by them. *That* is attempting to rig the system. The Tories are simply trying to implement the law as it stands: if you don't like the 600 seat law or the 5% variance limitation go and change the law.
Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated to reflect the changes in population size and location.
By blaming Corbyn she and her team are covering up their own ineptness.
She really is damaging the long term interests of the party.
They politely declined.
Sometimes you have to work within the framework the boss sets, even it is "unfair" or "unreasonable"
Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Remind me how that's going...
Happy New Year.
Labour will be happy to keep the present boundaries as new ones will be even more favourable to the Tories than the present ones. That's why Cameron wanted to reduce the number of MPs in the first place.
I regard coffin dodging as a most pleasurable pastime and seem to have enjoyed a modest amount of success recently.
Sadly I noted that Lord Elibank died recently. A Scottish peerage dating back to 1643. He also held the Jacobite peerage of the Earl of Westminster. Perhaps appropriately he passed away on St Andrew's Day.
It rains when it suits them, stays dry when it suits them. Lucky gits.
Now we have the prospect of leaving I would agree the reduction should be abandoned.
The plain fact is that any change to the boundaries will be subject to this kind of posturing on both sides, as the existing electoral system is manifestly unfair to someone whatever the current political weather, and whatever the current boundary proposals.
Edited extra bit: also, welcome to PB.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
1) The electoral roll is kept up to date - the census is a decennial snapshot;
2) The census includes everyone, and large numbers of them (foreign nationals, children, prisoners) are not voters.
This does of course mean the electoral roll is heavily biased against those areas with large numbers of foreign nationals, asylum seekers etc.
1 National vote tallies and percentages are an irrelevance under FPTP. Complaining that party X gets seats Z despite votes Z misunderstands how our (utterly stupid) system works. This also means that complaints about vote counts vs votes for the government / opposition are also flawed
2 The boundaries are in desperate need of reform. The issue being the means being used for the reform. Both the failed attempt in the last parliament and the soon to fail attempt in the current parliament decided that people favour equivalence over communities. Seat boundaries have to respect geography, and in both cases there are swathes of seats where the proposed changes are fundamentally stupid to anyone who knows the area. Being less hell-bent on equal size has to be the way forward
3 The current review is already dead - it will not command a majority in the Commons. The government barely has a working majority (favouring abstaining over losing), the proposals ask its DUP partner to give seats up to Sinn Fein, the proposals ask Tory MPs to give up even more seats on top of the ones Mrs May lost them in June. It won't pass.
4 The Commission is non partisan. The criteria it is set for the review is partisan. The rules for boundaries (see point 2) were drawn up by Tories looking to favour their chances. That is the very definition of gerrymandering. The only solution has to be to remove party politics from the equation. Parliament empowers the Commission to draw up its own criteria independently, then make recommendations on a fixed period (every 10 years perhaps). Take meddling ministers of both parties out of the loop.
The consequence of more marginal seats would be to increase the winner's bonus and give the party winning the most votes across the country the best chance of forming a majority government. The Blair 2005 and SNP 2010 examples were extreme but the system should reward those that are able or try to win a plurality of votes across the country.
Personally, I always thought that the 600 seat idea was a ridiculously silly response to the HoC having a fair share of crooks and people dipping into the till. Resistance to that idea should not be allowed to derail (again) a realignment of the boundaries which is chronically overdue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/28/revealed-conservatives-denied-last-election-voting-system-slanted/
Sam Hartley, the secretary for the Boundary Commission for England, said the changes would “make a more equal distribution of voters across the country”.
He added: “At the moment the smallest mainland constituency in England is 55,000 and the largest is 90,000.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/946680911243956224