politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third day of Christmas, our MPs sent to me – a general
Options
Comments
-
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
Schulze is a mathematically elegant way to count a preferential vote, but it can't (practically) be counted by hand. Which means the UK would either have to use electronic counting machines or, unthinkably, electronic voting machines.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
I'll stick to Virgin. You know the service will be consistently indifferenteek said:
Given that BT are rapidly replacing the Huawei core network systems with Ericsson replacements are you sure that's a good idea.TheScreamingEagles said:o2 are really boiling my piss today.
Off to the EE shop now.0 -
Oh. I wish you hadn't made that last point. Our parliament would never make an irresponsible choice would it?Chameleon said:A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
0 -
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
So, in PV's gets 50-52, and the UK stays in:Jonathan said:
Define absolute carnage.Chameleon said:A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
NuKIP storms back stronger than ever, resulting in an SNP-eque wave in leave areas.
Strikes or large scale protests, potentially leading to widespread civil disorder, 'they've betrayed us' rhetoric becoming common.
and if the UK stays out:
Some pro EU party must surely surge
Strikes and protests, not leading to disorder, but a bitterly fragmented nation.0 -
...-1
-
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
Softbank went down today as well, also the Ericsson system apparently.eek said:
Given that BT are rapidly replacing the Huawei core network systems with Ericsson replacements are you sure that's a good idea.TheScreamingEagles said:o2 are really boiling my piss today.
Off to the EE shop now.
This is right after the Huawei CFO (and founder's daughter) got arrested in Vancouver for the US over Iranian sanctions - I wonder if we're finally seeing proper corporate-nation-state cyber warfare kicking off.0 -
Just wondering what's the point of continuing the MV debate today and on Monday. Is anybody listening? Will anybody's opiniion be changed?
Even the Norway Deabate only lasted two days!
(PS Just had a thought - we could be having another 'Norway;' debate soon!)0 -
Are the electorate not allowed to change their minds, two and a half years on when options have become much clearer.Chameleon said:A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
0 -
Aye but the the establishment elite decided they didn't want PR and got their pet newspapers to kill it.Pulpstar said:
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
I also 'rebelled' from my party in opposing AV. It's fine for options on a specific issue, or if we were to elect a head of state. But it's a lousy way of electing representatives, where a change really has to be to a proportional system of some form.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
The Irish system of STV and frequent referendums is amazing. Our FPTP and referendums for political convienience only has lead to much frustration.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.0 -
Is Monday when all the amendments be debated and disposed of?Benpointer said:Just wondering what's the point of continuing the MV debate today and on Monday. Is anybody listening? Will anybody's opiniion be changed?
Even the Norway Deabate only lasted two days!
(PS Just had a thought - we could be having another 'Norway;' debate soon!)0 -
AV is still poor, but it is superior to FPTP I think.Benpointer said:
Aye but the the establishment elite decided they didn't want PR and got their pet newspapers to kill it.Pulpstar said:
AV has huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. Tories in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
0
-
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
Did anyone point out the sunk cost fallacy on that one ?Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
Only because your money is in reality overseas, and anything abroad is worth a lot more of our pitifully devalued £s than it was before. Ironically, if any sort of solution emerges from the current chaos, the £ will rise and the value of your investments will plummet.Brom said:UK stocks have been doing rather well in the past 18 months. For many of us investors the highs reached earlier this year will far outweigh any drops.
0 -
With all the effort that had been put into planning for coalition Clegg did make rather a mess of his chance. I understand that deep in the LD background coaltion had been discussed quite a lot.IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
I believe so.grabcocque said:
Is Monday when all the amendments be debated and disposed of?Benpointer said:Just wondering what's the point of continuing the MV debate today and on Monday. Is anybody listening? Will anybody's opiniion be changed?
Even the Norway Deabate only lasted two days!
(PS Just had a thought - we could be having another 'Norway;' debate soon!)
Come Christmas, when they are missing their turkey and stuffing, MPs will be wishing they had compressed this piece of theatre a bit.0 -
I really think that a Corbyn government will be persuadable to change the electoral system for Westminster.
STV would be easy to introduce because you wouldn't need a boundary review. You'd just clump existing constituencies together in blobs of 6-8.0 -
Yes they are, but don't pretend that the remaining 48-9% who voted leave would understand that.logical_song said:
Are the electorate not allowed to change their minds, two and a half years on when options have become much clearer.Chameleon said:A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
0 -
Yes. Letwin and IDS aren't in the cabinet, but are privy councillors.Benpointer said:0 -
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
So no change either way.Chameleon said:
So, in PV's gets 50-52, and the UK stays in:Jonathan said:
Define absolute carnage.Chameleon said:A PV that won by less than 52% would be absolute carnage, and is the only thing that could worsen our current state. If following that the UK continued to leave then there would be mass demonstrations. If a PV of 50-52% resulted in the UK not leaving then leavers will justifiably ask why, and that will lead to disorder. A PV's would be an utterly irresponsible choice.
NuKIP storms back stronger than ever, resulting in an SNP-eque wave in leave areas.
Strikes or large scale protests, potentially leading to widespread civil disorder, 'they've betrayed us' rhetoric becoming common.
and if the UK stays out:
Some pro EU party must surely surge
Strikes and protests, not leading to disorder, but a bitterly fragmented nation.0 -
The Canvey Island Indepence Party could have it's way, too.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, there is such an organisation. Controls the Canvey Island Parish Council.0 -
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
They want to keep the Estuary for the fish people.OldKingCole said:
The Canvey Island Indepence Party could have it's way, too.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, there is such an organisation. Controls the Canvey Island Parish Council.0 -
Yet IDS is barely master of his own privy.grabcocque said:
Yes. Letwin and IDS aren't in the cabinet, but are privy councillors.Benpointer said:0 -
China have got some cheek to complain about possible violation of human rights in relation to this.edmundintokyo said:
Softbank went down today as well, also the Ericsson system apparently.eek said:
Given that BT are rapidly replacing the Huawei core network systems with Ericsson replacements are you sure that's a good idea.TheScreamingEagles said:o2 are really boiling my piss today.
Off to the EE shop now.
This is right after the Huawei CFO (and founder's daughter) got arrested in Vancouver for the US over Iranian sanctions - I wonder if we're finally seeing proper corporate-nation-state cyber warfare kicking off.0 -
Never been a fan of Nicholas Soames but he sounds like the voice of reason these days.0
-
Which neatly illustrates the imperative for an AV referendum.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Areas with strongest opposition to AV were the strongest leave areas.0
-
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.IanB2 said:
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
-
Yep I did it as well. I see my vote swung it for Lincolnshire.IanB2 said:
I did that poll just this morning.grabcocque said:Let's have a People's Vote, they said.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?0 -
-
If the government is disseminating something under Privy Council terms, it's usually some pretty serious shit.
May think that means May has decided she will resign when she loses. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd brief under Privy Council terms to minimise the chances of chaos.0 -
Well, it's in the agreement:OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."0 -
AV is not acceptable in the UK; there was a clear majority against using it in the referendum a few years ago. If there is a 2nd referendum, assuming that A50 can be withdrawn unilaterally (which is likely), it should be FPTP with the 3 options of remain/deal/no deal. This map shows that this would give a clear unequivocal result which would settle the matter.Nigelb said:
Which neatly illustrates the imperative for an AV referendum.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Good on him.Slackbladder said:0 -
It had, but - understandably but tragically - the MPs were concerned foremost with their own fate and wanted something that would help them retain their seats (ironic, since when it came to it, AV wouldn't have helped them at all). Whereas, as in Scotland, establishing a fairer more representive voting system for local government across the UK (i.e. harmonising England and Wales with Scotland and NI) wouldn't have required a referendum and would have given the LibDems a solid base in local government, whereas now the LibDems are only significantly active in a handful of seats.OldKingCole said:
With all the effort that had been put into planning for coalition Clegg did make rather a mess of his chance. I understand that deep in the LD background coaltion had been discussed quite a lot.IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Compare Scotland, where the enhanced profile and finance that came from the SNPs enhanced local government base has played a key role in enabling them to become their nation's principal party.0 -
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer.OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.0 -
As I recall AV was opposed largely because it was thought that the public would not understand it. And the public agreed, rejecting it by a large margin in a referendum on the matter. That's assuming the public understood what they were voting against of course. Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they didn't understand that AV is too complex for them to understand. But let's say they did. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. The public was clever enough to realize that AV was too sophisticated for them to mess with.Pulpstar said:Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)
So if adopted for a 2nd EU referendum we would have the prospect of this same public weighing the merits of a 585 page legal text plus a 26 page aspirational but non binding political declaration, as against an undefinable thing called 'no deal' which almost every MP considers would be catastrophic but which half the public thinks means status quo, as against remaining in the European Union, which most of them vaguely remember voting against a couple of years back and which a fair few of them thought we'd already done.
C'mon powers that be. Shape up for heaven's sake. It's make your mind up time. Cancel brexit or implement the wretched thing. Do not turn tragedy into farce.0 -
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleadingAndy_Cooke said:
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.Jonathan said:
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.Andy_Cooke said:
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats.grabcocque said:
It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.0 -
Honouring a commitment to his electors?grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
He's in Eastbourne, God's waiting room won't be a Remainers paradise. I wonder if he'll defect to the Tories/grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
Fishermen not getting much traction in Scotland for their Brexit position outside Peterhead. Even Aberdeen is unimpressed.Tissue_Price said:
No, the map is first preferences. This is the head-to-head map for Remain vs Deal:IanB2 said:
I did that poll just this morning.grabcocque said:Let's have a People's Vote, they said.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?
0 -
It was the way that the Tories fought the AV referendum - using Clegg's concessions to achieve the coalition agreement against him - that poisoned the relationship and opened their eyes to the true nature of their partners. But it was refusal to honour the agreement on Lords reform that led to the boundary changes being abandoned.Tissue_Price said:
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.IanB2 said:
As I recall the LibDems abandoned the boundary changes (which they were idiots to have agreed to in the first place, our corrupt electoral system presenting them with enough adverse bias as things are) because the Tories refused to carry through on Lords reform.Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading0 -
If this is Privy Council, where are all the non-Tories?rottenborough said:0 -
If you want STV to be in any way proportional you'll need much bigger constituencies than three members. It's all down to droop quotas (stop sniggering at the back).logical_song said:
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer.OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
For example, in a 3-member STV constituency, you need to get 25% of the vote after redistributions to get a seat. This would squeeze small parties *hard*. Whereas in a 6-member constituency is 14.3%. That's a bit fairer to small parties and therefore more representative.0 -
Which is a remarkable symptom of how loopy loo much of the Tory party has become nowadays.Benpointer said:Never been a fan of Nicholas Soames but he sounds like the voice of reason these days.
0 -
I disagree.Andy_Cooke said:
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleadingAndy_Cooke said:
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.Jonathan said:
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.Andy_Cooke said:
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats.grabcocque said:
It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.0 -
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.Tissue_Price said:
Well, it's in the agreement:OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."0 -
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.tpfkar said:
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.Tissue_Price said:
Well, it's in the agreement:OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."0 -
I read on Twitter last night (but I can't remember who said it) that the Labour privy councillors all graciously decline to attend as it was transparent political theatre.Benpointer said:
If this is Privy Council, where are all the non-Tories?rottenborough said:0 -
so the woman who by her own admission didnt know what she was doing when she nominated Corbyn and wrecked her own party now thinks she fit to advise otherswilliamglenn said:
you couldnt make it up0 -
A cabal of Lib Dem loons, including some fairly prominent ones on federal committees, have been calling for Stephen Lloyd's head for a while (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/liberal-democrats/news/99964/excl-calls-lib-dem-mp-stephen-lloyd-lose). I hope they're proud of themselves.
One of the sadnesses of the implosion of the Lib Dems is that a lot of experienced, sensible heads have been lost, which means the never-quite-grown-up student politicians have a greater say.0 -
University town now. Part of Brighton Uni; and I didn't realise there's a Hastings campus too.Slackbladder said:
He's in Eastbourne, God's waiting room won't be a Remainers paradise. I wonder if he'll defect to the Tories/grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.
0 -
Hardly. AV's nature is that possible compromise candidates get eliminated early. It's the divisive candidates that win.Nigelb said:
Hardly a surprise.Pulpstar said:Areas with strongest opposition to AV were the strongest leave areas.
Views at either extreme are most often a minority unwilling to compromise - something which AV is a means of achieving.
AV is not a Condorcet system. It can and frequently does eliminate the Condorcet winner in the transfers.0 -
It wouldn't settle anything, as it's entirely possible that remain would win with less than 50% of the vote. As a means of reversing a 52/48 referendum vote, it would lead to many more years of bitter, destructive political conflict.daodao said:
AV is not acceptable in the UK; there was a clear majority against using it in the referendum a few years ago. If there is a 2nd referendum, assuming that A50 can be withdrawn unilaterally (which is likely), it should be FPTP with the 3 options of remain/deal/no deal. This map shows that this would give a clear unequivocal result which would settle the matter.Nigelb said:
Which neatly illustrates the imperative for an AV referendum.TheScreamingEagles said:
A decisive second referendum would have to be won by an option a significant majority finds at least tolerable.0 -
I am not sure there is any fishing out of Aberdeen these days. It is all supply vessels for the rigs. Indeed they are just building a big new port next door to cope with the increased capacityFF43 said:
Fishermen not getting much traction in Scotland for their Brexit position outside Peterhead. Even Aberdeen is unimpressed.Tissue_Price said:
No, the map is first preferences. This is the head-to-head map for Remain vs Deal:IanB2 said:
I did that poll just this morning.grabcocque said:Let's have a People's Vote, they said.
They'll be able to resolve it when Parliament can't they said.
The Remain v no deal result is way too close for comfort.
Edit/ Yet the position looks hugely different on YouGov's map than it does from the aggregate figures. Does Remain really have a wafer thin margin across most of the country?0 -
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.Norm said:
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
Not really. The Tories (and Cameron specificlally) would have been much better off if they had realised the long term opportunity that the coalition presented them with, rather than taking the short term political advantage of exploiting their partner's vulnerability, which has led pretty directly to the current fine mess.Tissue_Price said:
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.tpfkar said:
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.Tissue_Price said:
Well, it's in the agreement:OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it .Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcingg
"The parties will bring forward a referendum bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their parliamentary parties in both houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum."0 -
AV is less proportional than FPTP.Nigelb said:
Hardly a surprise.Pulpstar said:Areas with strongest opposition to AV were the strongest leave areas.
Views at either extreme are most often a minority unwilling to compromise - something which AV is a means of achieving.
If you want enrage voters in safe seats, whose vote hasn't counted since 1974 or earlier, you're doing very well.0 -
So would you all like a thread on AV and how it works?0
-
In which case (assuming the disagreement is with the MPs being interested in what their electors think on this), the entire thing is moot - they'll ignore it.Jonathan said:
I disagree.Andy_Cooke said:
Actually, the difference between the maps shows the issues with FPTP - the first map (the almost-all-purple one, with only two Deal winners) is FPTP. The latter shows which option is more truly preferred in all the seats. It's rather intriguing.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleadingAndy_Cooke said:
They aren't when informing MPs for their decision.Jonathan said:
Seats are irrelevant. They certainly were in 2016.Andy_Cooke said:
From that, we should definitely take the Deal. It's the Concordet winner in a majority of seats.grabcocque said:
It also shows that Remain-versus-No Deal is nip and tuck; Remain-vs-Deal is a photo finish. Reinforcing the article from yesterday.
And, of course, MPs are going to be considering how their electorates are thinking and which one would be the least repugnant to their own voters. This helps inform them.
0 -
No, he'll be the Dick Taverne for the 21st century.grabcocque said:
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.Norm said:
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
So would you all like a thread on AV and how it works?
With these AV threads you are really spoiling us. 0 -
Only if you also explain why using the Schulze method is categorically better.TheScreamingEagles said:So would you all like a thread on AV and how it works?
0 -
I've just been accused of being pro Brexit on twitter.
Next I'll be accused of liking Hawaiian pizzas.0 -
Yup, it's all out of Fraserburgh and Peterhead.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am not sure there is any fishing out of Aberdeen these days. It is all supply vessels for the rigs. Indeed they are just building a big new port next door to cope with the increased capacity
p17: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742793/UK_Sea_Fisheries_Statistics_2017.pdf
0 -
The law was written very carefully.Tissue_Price said:The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
0 -
There must be more "independents" in the Commons enforced or otherwise than there's been since days well before Dick Taverne.IanB2 said:
No, he'll be the Dick Taverne for the 21st century.grabcocque said:
I mean, he's gonna need it, if he plans to stand as an Independent. He'll split the vote and it'll be a Tory gain.Norm said:
Not sure about that. In 2017 he stood on a platform saying he'd honour the 2016 referendum result, his narrow win over the sitting Tory reflected that . He's also has a high personal support base in Eastbourne.grabcocque said:
He was facing almost certain deselection for it anyway.Slackbladder said:
What a weird and quixotic hill for a Lib Dem to die on.0 -
I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.0
-
The thing is, if they're coming round to the view that No Brexit is better than a Bad Deal, then it's not so much snatching defeat, as coming to their senses.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
In what way will they not accept it? Are you suggesting violence?currystar said:I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
0 -
Indeed. But surely it would have been cleverer to do the boundary changes first? Did the Government think AV would win?MikeL said:
The law was written very carefully.Tissue_Price said:
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.0 -
So what should the LDs have done? Said "we're sorry our house of Lords proposals weren't good enough for you, we won't do it again" or "we're so angry we are going to abstain on the boundary changes bill now - that'll show you!"Tissue_Price said:
Quite so. But it was still the Lib Dems reneging on the deal, as I initially stated downthread. More fool the Tories for holding the referendum before the boundaries had gone through.tpfkar said:
As I recall it, it was more a punishment beating for the Tories for preventing Lords reform. An issue was needed where the Tories really wanted it, and the voters didn't care. It happened to be the perfect one at the time. But the need to give the Tories a very painful kick in he b****cks was very real - coalition would have been unmanageable had the backbenchers simply got away with it.Tissue_Price said:OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
r)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
Put it this way, imagine the Lib Dems had voted the boundary changes down in response to the Lords proposals being lost, but ahead of the referendum legislation. Reckon that would have still gone through?
A real sadness that there was so much reforming zeal from across the coalition, but we only ended up with a feeble recall bill to show for it.0 -
The details could be argued over, but STV would be much more proportional than FPTP. The problem with having too large constituencies is that the local connection gets diluted, However it would be nice to have the possibility of an MP from the party you support to represent you.grabcocque said:
If you want STV to be in any way proportional you'll need much bigger constituencies than three members. It's all down to droop quotas (stop sniggering at the back).logical_song said:
Hague offered an AV referendum, that's all that was on offer.OldKingCole said:
Why would boundary changes have needed as a quid pro quo?Tissue_Price said:
And the Westminster boundary changes that would have gone along with it. Or would the Lib Dems still have reneged on that?IanB2 said:
That should have been the LibDem demand for the coalition, in place of Clegg's pitiful referendum on AV. Politics might be rather different had we had properly representative local councils.Tissue_Price said:
As would STV for councils, something I have come round to.Pulpstar said:
AV would have huge value for party members in no hoper seats (e.g. a Tory in Hallam)Tissue_Price said:
Well at least the baby got her incubator.Pulpstar said:
I voted for FPTP.Tissue_Price said:
Did you vote against? I voted in favour - a bit of a niche position that in the Conservative party.Pulpstar said:
Seeing it all as starkly laid out as this, I have to say I regret my vote in the AV referendum. Although that was for parliamentary seats not this - but yes this clearly hows why AV is superior (Still STV or Schulz is superior)edmundintokyo said:
Agree, but it would be good if this referendum proposal at least got put up for discussion, so we get to hear various Tories explain why FPTP is stupid.Jonathan said:
Modelling a referendum by seats, forcing a binary fptp style view is hugely misleading
STV would operate on multi-member constituencies made of of several existing constituencies, e.g. maybe two or three in Hampshire each returning 3 or more MPs.
For example, in a 3-member STV constituency, you need to get 25% of the vote after redistributions to get a seat. This would squeeze small parties *hard*. Whereas in a 6-member constituency is 14.3%. That's a bit fairer to small parties and therefore more representative.0 -
Actually I'd rather our elected representatives chose not to "fuck the country", regardless. Your attitude exemplifies why the country is heading toward disaster.currystar said:I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. F, most of them do sound immensely stupid. But there can be exceptions. Breivik[sp] stands out as an alarmingly intelligent lunatic.0 -
It is just possible that enough Tory MPs will realise this argument by next week.TheScreamingEagles said:
Seems highly unlikely, and, indeed, I suspect some ultras would rather lose Brexit and spend years moaning about the stab in the back than vote for May.
0 -
I believe Clegg had a personal understanding with Cameron that the Tories would officially play soft on the AV referendum which Cammo was forced by his people to abandon.MikeL said:
The law was written very carefully.Tissue_Price said:The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.0 -
How do you know. For a start 48% will be bloody delighted to have another go.currystar said:I simply cannot believe what I am hearing in parliament. First you get John Mcdonnell saying that of course the EU will renogotiate with him??? Then you get MP after MP and Lord after Lord saying that we must ignore the referendum and stay in the EU. WFT are these people on. We voted to leave, thats it. If it fucks the country so be it. We voted to leave, therefore we must leave.Len McCluskey ia arguing againts a second referendum as he knows that Leave will win massive. British people will not accept having their democratic decision rejected.
0 -
Why is a major trade union arguing for something that will stuff its members and their jobs?0
-
Yes, in May to August 2010 gold standard ICM had Yes2AV winning around 62% to No2AV's 38%.Tissue_Price said:
Indeed. But surely it would have been cleverer to do the boundary changes first? Did the Government think AV would win?MikeL said:
The law was written very carefully.Tissue_Price said:
The deal was AV referendum for boundary changes, which was clearly reneged on (if AV had won the boundaries would presumably have gone through). The Lib Dems pivoted to the non-progress of the Lords' proposals as a fig leaf. I would have done the same in Clegg's shoes as fresh boundaries would have made the ensuing massacre (which wasn't fully foreseen at that time) even worse.
If the AV referendum had been Yes in 2011, AV would not have become law immediately.
Instead, the Boundary Review which was due to report in 2013 would have had to have been completed, the Statutory Instruments for the boundary changes approved by Commons and Lords and only then (presumably in late 2013 / early 2014) the Orders in Council to implement AV and the boundary changes would have been laid before the Queen in the same Privy Council meeting - so it had to be both or neither.
This was very clever - it meant that if AV had won, the Lib Dems could not have got AV into law and then reneged on the boundary changes.
They weren't the only pollsters showing Yes2AV winning.0 -
I think, after the YouGov poll, we need to have a thread:
WHAT THE FRICK IS WRONG WITH LINCOLNSHIRE?
Anyone from Lincolnshire want to have a stab?0
This discussion has been closed.