politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some pretty grim polling in London for the Tories, Labour, and
Comments
-
Yes they do.Pulpstar said:
When's that story come out ?rottenborough said:
Last 5 minutes. Do those grade A shits in the ERG want Corbyn to be PM ?0 -
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Well, that's the thing isn't it? We're unusual in that the legislature also supplies the executive. If we did away with that, then I think there'd be an excellent case for cutting the size of the chamber further. But that's not the way the UK works.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Dissent will not be tolerated by the party formally known as the Labour party, now the institutionally racist party, with added nuts.oxfordsimon said:MP for Canterbury is facing a vote of censure for her recent behaviour
#purgecontinues
https://twitter.com/Rajdeep1/status/10391675052212756490 -
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
She managed to win a Tory seat so that should immediately raise suspicions that she doesn't belong in the party.FrancisUrquhart said:
Dissent will not be tolerated by the party formally known as the Labour party, now the institutionally racist party, with added nuts.oxfordsimon said:MP for Canterbury is facing a vote of censure for her recent behaviour
#purgecontinues
https://twitter.com/Rajdeep1/status/10391675052212756490 -
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Yes, but the decision to reduce the number of MPs was far from neutralMorris_Dancer said:Mr. JohnL, were the boundaries not drawn up by a neutral body?
0 -
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
And was taken a long, long time ago. Failing to pass these changes would be a bad day for Parliament.not_on_fire said:
Yes, but the decision to reduce the number of MPs was far from neutralMorris_Dancer said:Mr. JohnL, were the boundaries not drawn up by a neutral body?
0 -
That does not make it right. You could generally accept that there is no appetite for any constitutional reform, but it shouldn't stop people who recognise our democratic deficit from (maybe hopelessly) advancing its causeoxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?
Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.0 -
Hear hear. And if it is good enough for people to bang on about the democratic inadequacies of the EU then it is time we sorted out our extremely flawed systemTheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Well, I think that rejecting another non-proportional system (and usually less proportional than FPTP) means people can still advocate for a proportional one instead, really.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
I know some describe any change or any other system as "Proportional Representation", but that doesn't make it so.0 -
Perhaps we can have a thread on AV during your stint in the hot seatTheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
It's a decent system to elect an individual; a lousy one to elect a representative body, unless you only have 2 national parties.TheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
I'm pretty sure it will pass.rottenborough said:Not sure this age well:
https://twitter.com/mikelovestweets/status/1039138961317421056
But after Brexit.0 -
..or perhaps suggesting he is an Anti-SemiteMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?
Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.0 -
Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.0 -
Gaza.felix said:
Yup - various alternatives suggested - my favourite would be Jerusalem NW.rottenborough said:Have we covered the loss of Jezza's seat under boundary review?
0 -
Aboundary review should be initiated after each GE. With fixed term parliaments the new boundaries could be in place for the next GE. It should be an automatic process and this way would work on the latest registrations.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.0 -
... not even if he's made interim PM by the new Centre Party?rottenborough said:Ken Clarke's is interesting. Seems to have been cut in half and the Clifton estate added.
Not that he'll stand again.0 -
Thou shalt love the Lord Jeremy with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, provided they are a member of Momentum, and if they are not you should hate them and abuse them for being Tory/Jewish scum.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?
Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.0 -
Post of the decade.rcs1000 said:
Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.0 -
+1Freggles said:
Post of the decade.rcs1000 said:
Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.0 -
Because it is clearly intended to favour the interests of the larger parties and make the system (even) less proportional. And with Brexit we need more MPs, not fewer!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?
Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.0 -
What a utopian outcome of Brexit that would be. Shame it is unlikelylogical_song said:
... not even if he's made interim PM by the new Centre Party?rottenborough said:Ken Clarke's is interesting. Seems to have been cut in half and the Clifton estate added.
Not that he'll stand again.0 -
Penrith has changed quite a bit under new proposals.0
-
I cannot see any of the 3 Tories being high profile enough or charismatic enough to beat Khan but on these falling numbers for the Mayor if Alan Sugar ran as an independent he could beat Khan0
-
0
-
Yes, so oxfordsimon's argument is incorrect.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
Is that based on evidence or HYUFD instinct?HYUFD said:I cannot see any of the 3 Tories being high profile enough or charismatic enough to beat Khan but on these falling numbers for the Mayor if Alan Sugar ran as an independent he could beat Khan
0 -
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
Shame that never applied to those that criticised Blair. That would have been a bit of a clear outoxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
What's interesting from this tweet and from the whole reaction to the anti-Semitism issue is that there seems to be a deliberate effort to push out the moderates. The Corbyn big tent is getting smaller by the day.rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.oxfordsimon said:
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/10390863976873123840 -
Mr. Fire, I agree on the perverse coincidence of decreasing the number of MPs as we leave the EU.
As for proportionality, that's not the way our system works, and pretending it is is usually the preserve of Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, and other losing parties who either fail to understand the system or seek to excuse their failure in a manner akin to a football team bragging about how many corners they got.
[If you genuinely believe we should have a proportional system, fair enough. But claiming the current one is or should take any account of that when it's designed as 650 single elections, as it were, is just daft].0 -
0
-
No and Blair simply had a propensity to think he was a Jeremy, and it was this deluded complex that caused him to do all those awful things. The other "leaders" were all the false messiahs that had to precede the coming of the true Lord in all his glory. Amenoxfordsimon said:
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
I will die laughing if they keep this up and enough do jump to form some kind of alternative. Small but enough to cost Jezza any chance of a majority or even a coalition with who knows what.Richard_Nabavi said:
What's interesting from this tweet and from the whole reaction to the anti-Semitism issue is that there seems to be a deliberate effort to push out the moderates. The Corbyn big tent is getting smaller by the day.rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1039179758372892674
The desperation for purity will have cost them.
It is all very odd, when you read in the Newstatesman that the leader's inner team are terrified of a centre party split costing them the election. Has no one told the union baron idiots, never mind the Momentum cannon fodder?0 -
-
Of course, I forgot that Labour is and always has been a Marxist, anti-semitic party. It just didn't know it until Corbyn revealed their true nature to the world.rottenborough said:
Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.oxfordsimon said:
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
The Party has been under a hundred year spell of False Consciousness.oxfordsimon said:
Of course, I forgot that Labour is and always has been a Marxist, anti-semitic party. It just didn't know it until Corbyn revealed their true nature to the world.rottenborough said:
Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.oxfordsimon said:
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
More MP's? The only bit of Parliamentary procedure I've watched recently was the DCMS Com on Fake News. The MP's on that were woefully unprepared/badly briefed, or maybe just woeful. Far too many sycophants and time servers infest the back benchesnot_on_fire said:
Because it is clearly intended to favour the interests of the larger parties and make the system (even) less proportional. And with Brexit we need more MPs, not fewer!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?
Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.0 -
Not a Cult, no way.williamglenn said:0 -
Please delete that post before the 6 minute edit window closes, and never post on PB again.williamglenn said:0 -
Anyway, time for me to sod off. Be nice, everyone, and remember to praise Jeremy thrice before bed to guarantee happy dreams.0
-
It's not true.El_Capitano said:This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
Don't think they were ever married and they split up last year.0 -
Does anyone really understand our system Mr Dancer? It has evolved from a constituency system that was originally devised to represent centres of power rather than populations. The boundaries commission have an impossible task. How can you make something look fair that is fundamentally without logic. I have been a Tory most of my adult life, but the logical part of my brain completely fails to be able to defend FPTP as it currently stands. The only FPTP that would make sense would be if we had a directly elected PM. Even then it would need to be more like AV to get to a majority position.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fire, I agree on the perverse coincidence of decreasing the number of MPs as we leave the EU.
As for proportionality, that's not the way our system works, and pretending it is is usually the preserve of Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, and other losing parties who either fail to understand the system or seek to excuse their failure in a manner akin to a football team bragging about how many corners they got.
[If you genuinely believe we should have a proportional system, fair enough. But claiming the current one is or should take any account of that when it's designed as 650 single elections, as it were, is just daft].0 -
For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/10391973586581463060 -
You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?0
-
I have been reading PB since 2009, I think, so it pains me to have to admit it, but I have just had to Google AV to remind myself what it stands for. All I could call to mind was Authorised Version. Could this possibly mean the merits of different voting systems aren't discussed often enough?TheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.rcs1000 said:
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
Good evening, everyone.0 -
0
-
He makes a very valid and disturbing pointoxfordsimon said:For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/10391973586581463060 -
That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...mikedulcero said:You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
0 -
Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?0
-
Sadiq is beatable. His excuses on crime are no longer cutting the mustard. Unfortunately we don't have a candidate that can beat him and our party brand is pretty toxic at the moment.0
-
It also sounds very British so it could work fine. 401 mps elected on fptp and 100 based on final %. Its called the 501 method or the Brian Lara system for the cricket fans.eek said:
That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...mikedulcero said:You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
0 -
It takes a heart of stone to not shed a tear - of laughter!El_Capitano said:This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
It also shows how inbred and incestuous our political bubble is, worse than a fenland village.0 -
That would depend on us caring what IDS has to say 😏Roger said:Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?
0 -
To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...oxfordsimon said:Thornberry seems tone deaf on Syria
https://twitter.com/SyriaUK/status/10391794365313515520 -
That is superb.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Shame. Because my jaw dropped when I first read it!TheScreamingEagles said:
It's not true.El_Capitano said:This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
Don't think they were ever married and they split up last year.0 -
Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?JosiasJessop said:
To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...oxfordsimon said:Thornberry seems tone deaf on Syria
https://twitter.com/SyriaUK/status/10391794365313515520 -
That’s what the evidence suggests.oxfordsimon said:Dawn Butler really is thick, isn't she?
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/10391643180703047680 -
He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.oxfordsimon said:For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306
0 -
I have a feeling that if they did just that he would be among the first to blow his top.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
That does have a certain appeal. However if often has consequences.mikedulcero said:
Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?JosiasJessop said:
To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...oxfordsimon said:Thornberry seems tone deaf on Syria
https://twitter.com/SyriaUK/status/1039179436531351552
As an example:
The Syrian civil war starts.
We say 'none of our business', even after the regime uses chemical weapons on civilians.
Vast numbers of refugees move to neighbouring countries.
After a few years, they move on to other, richer, countries.
This causes massive problems for those countries, e.g Germany.
Germany allows refugees in.
This encourages economic migrants to take advantage.
This leads to a large uptick in concern about the immigration.
This is abused by leavers in the Brexit referendum.
We leave the EU.
The situation was much more complex and multifaceted than that, but it would be hard for an early intervention in Syria to have caused *more* deaths, suffering and disruption than turning a blind eye has.
Inaction has consequences.0 -
-
Harry & Apples just dated - not married. I suspect that their break up last year might not be unconnected with BJEl_Capitano said:This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/10390863976873123840 -
There is a suggestion on Vote UK Forum from a Tory source that at least 30 Tory MPs will oppose the Boundary proposals .0
-
El_Capitano said:
This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
Is anyone else not just a bit concerned how someone’s private family life has now become so public, with so many people expressing pleasure? It seems to be all those privacy advocates and campaigning groups have lost their voice when it isn’t one of their own getting it.
The Hacked Off equivalent of “she was asking for it”
0 -
Theresa May brilliantly "solves" another problemScott_P said:0 -
And utterly wrong on several other key predictions.notme said:
He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.oxfordsimon said:For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306
Hillary to win Potus 2016.
Remain to win the Brexit referendum 55/45.
And Andy Murray to be defeated by Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final.0 -
Blair himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the lightNigel_Foremain said:
No and Blair simply had a propensity to think he was a Jeremy, and it was this deluded complex that caused him to do all those awful things. The other "leaders" were all the false messiahs that had to precede the coming of the true Lord in all his glory. Amenoxfordsimon said:
Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?rottenborough said:
What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.oxfordsimon said:Len loves to stir things
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/10391797583728926740 -
He certainly has. Probably the root of his anger ever since!Foxy said:
What's he done now.Roger said:Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?
Thanks for flagging up The White Hotel on BBC R4, it was well worth the listen. SeanT has a great writer for a dad.
IDS said the Brexiteers weren't responsible for saying what sort of Brexit they wanted. That's the governments job. They just have to say what they don't want 'and you can start with Chequers'.0 -
Yup.Anazina said:
And utterly wrong on several other key predictions.notme said:
He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.oxfordsimon said:For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306
Hillary to win Potus 2016.
Remain to win the Brexit referendum 55/45.
And Andy Murray to be defeated by Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final.
0 -
Fake news? Cole is not married to her; once dated her; (according to the Mail so treat with caution)Foxy said:
It takes a heart of stone to not shed a tear - of laughter!El_Capitano said:This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
It also shows how inbred and incestuous our political bubble is, worse than a fenland village.
0 -
Scotland is dire, poor sods in Highlands will take weeks to get round their patchrcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.0 -
Some might say that the discussion of AV on PB is indeed deeply disproportionate to the level of interest in the topic.logical_song said:
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.oxfordsimon said:
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.williamglenn said:
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.oxfordsimon said:
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.rottenborough said:
I don't agree with the reduction.rcs1000 said:I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.0 -
I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/9782499634768936960 -
Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?eek said:
That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...mikedulcero said:You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.0 -
It would only be as proportional on average as fptpNo_Offence_Alan said:
Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?eek said:
That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...mikedulcero said:You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.0 -
On topic, you do have to wonder who comprises the 26% who are supporting the Conservatives in London. Given the party's entire raison d'etre at present is to stand against everything that London stands for, it's remarkable that they poll so highly. The self-hatred among this cohort must be off the scale.0
-
I'm more worried by those parts of the graph which show probabilites of more than 100% or less than 0%.Anorak said:
I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/9782499634768936960 -
Oh actually that's not true for third parties. But disproportionality due to, e.g., turnout differences would remainStereotomy said:
It would only be as proportional on average as fptpNo_Offence_Alan said:
Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?eek said:
That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...mikedulcero said:You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.0 -
The Green party is heading towards second place in Germany.
https://twitter.com/Wahlrecht_de/status/10390397480719933450 -
Maybe we could do a Duckworth Lewis Method Brexit to bring matters to speedy conclusion?TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
If Govt really can't get Boundary review through then surely they should accept Lab Private Members Bill (currently stalled in Committee) for 650 MPs and a larger variation from quota.
If they kick-off now there is plenty of time before a 2022 GE - current review began early 2016 and ended Sept 2018 - so same timetable would be early 2019 to Sept 2021.
Separate question - can Govt have more than one shot at the vote? ie Even if Commons rejects it, can they simply relay the Statutory Instrument? That is what happened in 1969 / 1970 - Wilson Govt rejected proposals before 1970 GE and the same proposals were then passed afterwards.
If answer is "Yes" it would give Govt a bit more scope.0 -
Pfff. Details.Fysics_Teacher said:
I'm more worried by those parts of the graph which show probabilites of more than 100% or less than 0%.Anorak said:
I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696
And over-zealous smoothing software, natch.0 -
A Blind Brexit would really be just the EU enforcing the follow on, putting Dominic Raab back in to bat again until 2021.welshowl said:
Maybe we could do a Duckworth Lewis Method Brexit to bring matters to speedy conclusion?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
Ed Miliband has more blood on his hand than Tony Blair ever did, and made the decision for far more unethical reasons.JosiasJessop said:
That does have a certain appeal. However if often has consequences.mikedulcero said:
Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?JosiasJessop said:
To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...oxfordsimon said:Thornberry seems tone deaf on Syria
https://twitter.com/SyriaUK/status/1039179436531351552
As an example:
The Syrian civil war starts.
We say 'none of our business', even after the regime uses chemical weapons on civilians.
Vast numbers of refugees move to neighbouring countries.
After a few years, they move on to other, richer, countries.
This causes massive problems for those countries, e.g Germany.
Germany allows refugees in.
This encourages economic migrants to take advantage.
This leads to a large uptick in concern about the immigration.
This is abused by leavers in the Brexit referendum.
We leave the EU.
The situation was much more complex and multifaceted than that, but it would be hard for an early intervention in Syria to have caused *more* deaths, suffering and disruption than turning a blind eye has.
Inaction has consequences.0 -
I love how you bang on sanctimoniously about Labour members' "abuse", yet you feel no qualms about abusing a politician as "thick".oxfordsimon said:Dawn Butler really is thick, isn't she?
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1039164318070304768
Will you be calling on Theresa May to take "action" against yourself?0
