politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Without Scotland the electoral system would appear less bia

The system isn't biased really anyway - it's more that Labour is simply more efficient at distributing its votes. Those that moan about the vagaries of FPTP should campaign for PR, as I think @MikeSmithson does...

TheLastBoyScout said:

The system isn't biased really anyway

The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.

@Innocent_Abroad

PR isnt in the interests of the Tory party. Fptp gives them the possibility of overall majorities with less than 40% of the popular vote, PR doesnt.

Innocent_Abroad said:

One reason the Tories are known as the Stupid Party is of course their habit of campaigning against their own interests - for the Union, against PR. I'm off to play bridge now, but look forward to the Tory explanations for their own behaviour!

They did try to gerrymander FPTP but were screwed by the Liberals, who took revenge for their welching on Lords reform. Stupid in the sense I suppose that they could and should have seen it coming.

felix said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

Neil said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

The system isn't biased really anyway

The system is hugely biased towards the two biggest parties.

Yes, sorry, that is right - I meant relative to the Conservatives. You are correct though.

Hmmm - nice Freudian slip there - everything seen solely from the anti-Tory perspective

Labour and the Conservatives are like Manchester United and Manchester City - they only really care about the rivalry with each other. The Liberals (Stockport) don't really feature.
It's not a great state of affairs but such is life.

Without the far South and South East the electoral system would appear much less biased towards the flailing, unpopular Conservatives.

In 2015 we're going to see that blue enclave pushed firmly back into the south east from where it made a wheezy, doomed attempt at escaping in 2010.

Bloody lefty Jocks!

I saw a really interesting documentary last night - David Starkey on the last Stuart kings. In 1705 Scotland was nearly destitute. Their failed overseas colony attempts (Darien in Belize) had ruined their finances and England had become seriously frustrated with them and passed the Aliens Act - effectively closing England to Scottish trade. Meanwhile England was swimming in dosh, in no small measure due to the trade with its colonies.

The Act of Union killed the trade restrictions with England and, importantly, with empire - and deliberate attempts were made to ensure Scotland's success as a key part of the newly created Great Britain. Scotland finally flourished and had a great 18th century. Cities like Glasgow grew at astonishing speed.

So...back to today....can we learn anything about the prospects of an independent Scotland?
Well, firstly it is NOT going to be in Scotland's interest to antagonise England. We'll not impose a new Aliens Act but, as much the most importsant trade partner the Scots would have, they'd be very ill advised to wind the English up.
Secondly, as the chart shows, England or rUK will be a less lefty country. That implies a more successful economy down south than would otherwise be the case - which would be good for both Scotland and rUK.

Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

The Conservative Party dodged a bullet when boundary reform was killed, since its reduction in Welsh seats would have risked it being wiped out of the Principality for a generation, as Plaid Cymru and Labour would have rushed to paint the party as anti-Welsh.

As Mrs Thatcher did for Tories in Scotland, Cameron would have done in Wales.

@NickPalmer The evidence you asked for is at the end of the last thread.

Pot denies kettle is black shocker.

Bradley Dodd ‏@BradDodd 12m

Nick Clegg Denies Danny Alexander Has Tory 'Stockholm Syndrome' http://huff.to/1eQemLw via @HuffPostUKPol

Morning all

Two thoughts before I brave the oncoming tempest;

1) Didn't Scotland help prop up Tory majorities in the 1950s ?

2) I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.

The assumption that England would return Conservative majorities ad infinitum is just that - I suspect that were Scotland to leave the UK, the impact on all English parties would be considerable.

BenM said:

Without the far South and South East the electoral system would appear much less biased towards the flailing, unpopular Conservatives.

In 2015 we're going to see that blue enclave pushed firmly back into the south east from where it made a wheezy, doomed attempt at escaping in 2010.

You say that the Tory party are unpopular, and everybody wants to see the back of them. Current polling suggests the Tories are low 30s, and Labour are high 30s. Sometimes even closer.

If the Tories are unpopular, what does that make Labour? Mildly disliked? Not as unpopular as the Tories? It's hardly a ringing endorsement.
If both main parties could just get it into their, stupid, tribal heads just how much we really don't like them, they might decide to do something different.

stodge said:

Morning all

Two thoughts before I brave the oncoming tempest;

1) Didn't Scotland help prop up Tory majorities in the 1950s ?

2) I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.

The assumption that England would return Conservative majorities ad infinitum is just that - I suspect that were Scotland to leave the UK, the impact on all English parties would be considerable.

If Scotland left the Union, all the parties in the UK (with the possible exceptions of the Greens and Respect) would 'swing right'. Simply, most democracies (excepting Japan and Mexico) naturally end up swinging across the 'centre line'. If the centre line moves, then so do the parties.

david_herdson said:

1992: Ensured the Tory majority was not workable through the parliament

2005: May have made the difference between a workable Labour majority and one that was far more vulnerable.

The tory 'b***rds' and Major ensured the 92 majority was unworkable while in 2005 43 rather than 66 is hardly in whips biting their nails for every vote territory.

If it gives you comfort to look for something other than FPTP to blame for the way the seats stack up then by all means keep doing so.

Trouble for UKIP in Wythenshawe
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/row-over-misleading-ukip-by-election-6697604#.UvszuNqyeEk.twitter

DavidL said:

I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

What Micks figures show is that the absolute dominance of Scottish seats by Labour is a relatively new phenomenon. Will it last? I don't think so. If the vote is no I expect more SNP seats and a few more Tories in future. We need to take a longer view on constitutional matters

DavidL said:

I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

Leaving to one side practical questions like how often you resize and where you draw the borders, there is an important philosophical issue to be determined.

Equal size of what? Number of registered voters, or total population? Conventional wisdom is that one favours Conservatives and the other Labour, although that may be wrong.

@Marquee Mark - "A landscape of perpetual coalitions - with any number of parties able to crash a difficult policy - would, I suggest, be something the Labour Party would not wish to slide into any more than the Tories. Only Scottish independence is likely to change this in respect of governing rUK."

It should not be about what works best for Labour or Tory, but what works best for the country. We all abhor tribal politics on here - when it suits us - but FPTP guarantees that this is the kind of politics we get. Sensible discussions and decision-making on long-term issues that cannot be sorted out within the space of four or five years - energy, education, health, care for an ageing population - is next to impossible because our system does not encourage consensus or agreement.

stodge said:

...

I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.

...

The problem is more about the way the Conservative vote is inefficiently distributed. Nearly all arguments about the Tories having no support in Scotland points to the number of MPs, not the number of votes. It's translating the latter into the former that's been the problem. Look at the above figures:

Con: 16.7%, 1 MP
LD: 18.9%, 11 MPs
SNP: 19.9%, 6 MPs

Similar levels of support, very different outcomes.

Of course, the Lib Dems have seen their support collapse in Scotland since 2010 and have propelled the Conservatives into a solid third place in votes.

@MorrisDancer

Constituencies have to reflect natural geographies, otherwise you would have remote Scottish archipelagos lumped into with distant mainland areas with which they have no connection.

Charles said:

stodge said:

Morning all

Two thoughts before I brave the oncoming tempest;

1) Didn't Scotland help prop up Tory majorities in the 1950s ?

2) I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.

The assumption that England would return Conservative majorities ad infinitum is just that - I suspect that were Scotland to leave the UK, the impact on all English parties would be considerable.

It's a very interesting chart though.

On Today a few days ago, Nick Robinson made the comment in reference to Tories in Scotland "but of course there aren't very many of them up there".

Clearly that's true in terms of seats, but from a vote share perspective they are as significant (in this poll) as the SNP or the Lib Dems.

Some pretty lazy journalism...

I would be fairly confident that in 2015 the Tory vote in Scotland will exceed the Lib Dem vote by a comfortable margin. Probably not seats though although it will be closer.

DavidL said:

I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

It's not entirely unreasonable. There's no "right" electoral system, only that which currently exists (the status quo plus future changes which are hardwired into the management of the system) and potential changes to the system or the future change management process. Any change which advantages the party making it would be reasonably described as gerrymandering; and any party making such a change would naturally argue for the moral justification, indeed necessity, of the change. And the party opposite will then reverse the changes when next in power, of course.

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

Avoiding visit 217 into the argument about boundary changes (LBS is too new to have seen it all before here), there's quite an interesting article here - a Labour theme that I suspect will appeal more in principle to Richard Tyndall and other libertarians than it instinctively does to me. I'm an old-fashioned big government social democrat, but maybe it's time I had another think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

Labour will never give power away, it will simply try to exercise it in another fashion. In the policy example quoted, I expect it would be via regulation and centrally imposed policies, enforced by inspection. Delivery units, whether schools, hospitals, local councils, parents, community groups or whatever would just be implementing central policy and the government would still be running things by remote control.

Localism is, generally, a sham. The public may say they want it, but when the crap hits the fan, they look to central government. As we have seen in the floods.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Scout, worth mentioning that the exception I raised was an island constituency. Although there are quite a few islands around Great Britain the vast majority of constituencies are entirely on the big island.

Even so, you would still end up with many more oddball seats than we have now - towns lumped in with little slivers of others to make up the numbers. Once you put pen to paper you find it's a very tricky task. The reality is - as others have said - that governments set the parameters to suit themselves. Anyone who seriously thinks the Conservatives would have proposed this change did it not advantage them is deluded. That's politics.

david_herdson said:

MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

That was still the difference between Labour having a majority and not having one. Considering that the Labour government ultimately fell by one vote on a motion of No Confidence, those eleven MPs probably significantly affected the timing of the following election, which considering the events of the late 1970s probably affected a great deal in the following decades.

Furthermore, it wasn't just that election where Scottish MPs made a very real difference:

1964: Gave Labour their majority
1966: No difference
1970: No difference
Feb 1974: Made Labour rather than the Tories the largest party
Oct 1974: Gave Labour their majority
1979: No difference
1983: No difference
1987: No difference
1992: Ensured the Tory majority was not workable through the parliament
1997: No difference
2001: No difference
2005: May have made the difference between a workable Labour majority and one that was far more vulnerable
2010: As discussed, made the difference between a hung parliament and a Con majority.

So roughly equal over the last half century between those where the outcome was materially affected and those that weren't.

During this entire period, and excepting the SNP, Scottish Socialists, and a few LDs, indy was off the menu and was not an option. The unionist parties refused even to consider the possibility until the referendum was forced on them in 2011 (Wendy Alexander being a notable exception, and she got stabbed in the back for that inter aliis even though she was pro-union).

So to me it somehow seems almost anhistorical/counterfactual, to ascribe all those undoubted effects to the Scots, when all were in the Union together and it was the overall voting pattern across the UK which allowed a dozen (or whatever it was at each time) MPs to 'materially affect' the outcome. One could just as well, so to speak, blame the Welsh or the Northumbrians, or even the Isle of Wighters - or the Tory Party for getting themselves wiped out in Scotland since the 1950s (something which I still find remarkable).

But it is still an interesting analysis and its argument is indisputable in stressing that it's not just GEs that count but everyday working majorities as well. Of course it will be the 2015 GE which gets really interesting from this point of view!

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

It's much more likely that they just used whatever has been used in the past.

I know there has been debates on this on pb.com but was there actually any discussion/change in Parliament? I am certain we would have all heard a lot more about it if there had been.

Can you provide a link for your assertion? If they just used the pre-existing system then your case falls over.

david_herdson said:

stodge said:

...

I find it strange that some of those complaining about the electoral bias are also those most ardently opposed to Scottish Independence ? The problem seems less about perceived or actual bias than the inability of the Conservatives to appeal more widely in Scotland.

...

The problem is more about the way the Conservative vote is inefficiently distributed. Nearly all arguments about the Tories having no support in Scotland points to the number of MPs, not the number of votes. It's translating the latter into the former that's been the problem. Look at the above figures:

Con: 16.7%, 1 MP
LD: 18.9%, 11 MPs
SNP: 19.9%, 6 MPs

Similar levels of support, very different outcomes.

Of course, the Lib Dems have seen their support collapse in Scotland since 2010 and have propelled the Conservatives into a solid third place in votes.

That's FPTP for you! The Conservatives didn't complain when they got hundreds more seats than the Liberals in 2010...

@NickPalmer

'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

Ed now wants to give away power,but opposed locally elected Police Commissioners, in favour of keeping unelected police authorities.

Is this another u-turn or just hot air?

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I just love the mindset which can describe equal sized constituencies as "gerrymandering". It is as good a version of doublethink as I can instantly come up with.

The gerrymandering would be about how it is done, rather than the principle, I'd have thought. The parties have very different definitions of what constitutes equal sized constituencies. Is it based on registered voters or population? Funnily enough, the parties definitions seem to suit what works best for them.

But Parliament clearly determined an agreed approach, then instructed the Boundary Commission to do their work on a consistent basis.

So the majority in Parliament set down criteria that worked best for it. That may not be classic gerrymandering - the independence of the Boundary Commission ensures we don't get that in the UK - but it is certainly tilting the odds. And Labour does exactly the same, of course.

It's much more likely that they just used whatever has been used in the past.

I know there has been debates on this on pb.com but was there actually any discussion/change in Parliament? I am certain we would have all heard a lot more about it if there had been.

Can you provide a link for your assertion? If they just used the pre-existing system then your case falls over.

The Labour perspective:

http://labourlist.org/2012/08/now-lets-make-the-case-for-real-equal-constituencies/

john_zims said:

@NickPalmer

'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10631251/Ed-Miliband-has-a-cunning-plan-win-power-and-then-give-it-away.html

Ed now wants to give away power,but opposed locally elected Police Commissioners, in favour of keeping unelected police authorities.

Is this another u-turn or just hot air?

Hot air.

Ed's localism will come to nothing are be a pastiche of localism stuffed with his mates.

TheLastBoyScout said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Scout, worth mentioning that the exception I raised was an island constituency. Although there are quite a few islands around Great Britain the vast majority of constituencies are entirely on the big island.

Even so, you would still end up with many more oddball seats than we have now - towns lumped in with little slivers of others to make up the numbers. Once you put pen to paper you find it's a very tricky task. The reality is - as others have said - that governments set the parameters to suit themselves. Anyone who seriously thinks the Conservatives would have proposed this change did it not advantage them is deluded. That's politics.

You need to distinguish the various items: redistricting needs to be done regularly (and that's what's so outrageous about the LibDem decision - we will be running the 2015 election based on data from ?2001).

So the only aspect that you could argue has potential to have political advantage is the reduction in seats. The actual effect on the headline numbers is relatively small (I think that Mike at one point posted it was a maximum of 7 seats difference??). Perhaps there is a greater advantage in that it disrupts incumbency, but either way it is a minor point.

You need to remember that we have a very large house of commons, with way more MPs than we actually need - this justifies the reduction in seats.

So any case of "gerrymandering" is very very tenuous. Which is why you only hear committed Labour supporters making the claim - it's not true, but it's an effective smear.

TheLastBoyScout said:

david_herdson said:

MickP - "meaning that the net contribution of Scotland towards a Labour majority [in Oct 1974] was just 11"

That was still the difference between Labour having a majority and not having one. Considering that the Labour government ultimately fell by one vote on a motion of No Confidence, those eleven MPs probably significantly affected the timing of the following election, which considering the events of the late 1970s probably affected a great deal in the following decades.

Furthermore, it wasn't just that election where Scottish MPs made a very real difference:

1964: Gave Labour their majority
1966: No difference
1970: No difference
Feb 1974: Made Labour rather than the Tories the largest party
Oct 1974: Gave Labour their majority
1979: No difference
1983: No difference
1987: No difference
1992: Ensured the Tory majority was not workable through the parliament
1997: No difference
2001: No difference
2005: May have made the difference between a workable Labour majority and one that was far more vulnerable
2010: As discussed, made the difference between a hung parliament and a Con majority.

So roughly equal over the last half century between those where the outcome was materially affected and those that weren't.

You are clearly to young to remember 1992. It was the Tory right who made that majority unworkable. The clue is in an old quote: "no dear boy, Labour are your opponents. Your enemies are behind you."

I'm not too young, though I suspect you might be.

In 1992, the election figures were Con 336 (11 Scotland), Lab 271 (49 Scotland), Others 44 (12 Scotland). Without Scotland the notional majority (i.e. excluding abstaining MPs) would have risen from 21 to 71.

Yes, the Tory right would have made trouble over Maastricht and other issues but the government would have been far less vulnerable to them. It was the fact that the Con majority could be overturned by a dozen defections (and fewer, as by-elections took their toll), that was crucial.

rcs1000 said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

@MorrisDancer

Constituencies have to reflect natural geographies, otherwise you would have remote Scottish archipelagos lumped into with distant mainland areas with which they have no connection.

That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

The only reason we do things geographically is because that was the only way to do in a world where people were not mobile, and even cellular telephony was unknown.

This would also, clearly, solve the problem of geographical migration. All constituencies could be exactly equally sized.

Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?

Perhaps if we could look at matters another way - the English Party was the conservatives the Scots Party were the Unionists. Heath broke this distinction in late 1960's when unionism became unfashionable for all sorts of reasons. It might be said from that time the 'Conservative' interest has steadily abandoned Scotland to the other parties - not least over devolution. It is interesting to think why this was possible - and that reflects as much on the changing nature of Conservatism as to the cultural identity of Scotland.

Another post has cited Dr Starkey on Queen Anne - it's not quite as Starkey sets out. Scotland's viability financially was in part through the neglect of the crown and there really was only one activist Stuart monarch after 1603 - James II. The position of Scotland after the union should not be mixed up with the general changes in economic policy resulting from the first Empire. they were not cause and effect. The Irish economy, despite devastation in the civil War and again in the Wars of English succession benefited greatly from the Imperial expansion in 18th century and was doing well before it joined the Union in 1801.

,

Is Farage having "a bad flood"?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100259142/the-floods-show-the-limits-of-ukips-appeal-nigel-farage-has-sunk-without-a-trace/

econews ‏@EcoNewsDaily 4h

UK PM Cameron says climate change a serious threat to humanity, that story and more in today's EcoNews http://fb.me/6qX1hm4fN

Independent Diplomat ‏@IDiplomat 18m

David Cameron: #climatechange a ‘serious threat’ http://shar.es/Q8rPU via @RTCCnewswire

The tiny windmill strikes back.

Poor old PB tories what a shame.

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

It should not be about what works best for Labour or Tory, but what works best for the country. We all abhor tribal politics on here - when it suits us - but FPTP guarantees that this is the kind of politics we get. Sensible discussions and decision-making on long-term issues that cannot be sorted out within the space of four or five years - energy, education, health, care for an ageing population - is next to impossible because our system does not encourage consensus or agreement.

Your point feeds into a bigger issue - the role and purpose of political parties. Do you think the country would be better run if Westminster returned 650 independent MP's, each running on an entirely local agenda? I happen to think not. I think that is a recipe for short-termism of the very worst kind.

It is often said that we don't vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for an MP. I personally think that is rot. Even after they have voted for them, many people have no idea who their MP is, but they do know who to praise or (more invariably) blame at the head of a political party.

I vote for an MP of a party who I know will generally be required to tow a line as set down in a public manifesto that covers many aspects of my life. If I want more welfare or a smaller state, how is that achieved other than by voting for a collective of (broadly) like-minded public representatives?

I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

WYTHENSHAWE BETTING

There are markets up that haven t been discussed on here

Ladbrokes have a bet on the % turnout... 5/6 under or over 35%

They are also betting on ukip vote %

0-10% 16/1
10-20% 6/4
20-30% EVS
30-40% 8/1
40+ 20/1

Paddy Power are betting on Lab vote %

Under 40% 18/1
40-44.9 7/1
45-49.9 6/1
50-54.9 7/2
55-59.9 11/4
60-64.9 4/1
65+ 5/1

Last night the bands were 10% and it was possible to back 40-59.9 at 4/6, now they've changed it hmmmmph

Lennon said:

rcs1000 said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

@MorrisDancer

Constituencies have to reflect natural geographies, otherwise you would have remote Scottish archipelagos lumped into with distant mainland areas with which they have no connection.

That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

The only reason we do things geographically is because that was the only way to do in a world where people were not mobile, and even cellular telephony was unknown.

This would also, clearly, solve the problem of geographical migration. All constituencies could be exactly equally sized.

Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?

And with discussions being increasingly on-line - why restrict yourself geographically like you used to?

Mr. 1000, they said much the same thing to Julian the Apostate!

rcs1000 said:

Lennon said:

rcs1000 said:

TheLastBoyScout said:

@MorrisDancer

Constituencies have to reflect natural geographies, otherwise you would have remote Scottish archipelagos lumped into with distant mainland areas with which they have no connection.

That said, given we live in an Internet age, why should constituencies be geographical? Why not have a constituency of "Middle aged men who like real ale, and work in white collar jobs".

The only reason we do things geographically is because that was the only way to do in a world where people were not mobile, and even cellular telephony was unknown.

This would also, clearly, solve the problem of geographical migration. All constituencies could be exactly equally sized.

Of course there are practical difficulties, but there is an element here which makes some degree of sense. Originally, constituencies were communities electing a representative to parliament, predominantly geographically based, but not exactly (University Seats). If we are to apply that idea to modern life, people group in communities in many different ways, but geographic is one of the weakest. Certainly in London, it would be possible to live somewhere, but to work, go out, have friends and social life entirely outside the specific geographic constituency - should you not be in a voting bloc with those communities with which you associate and can discuss politics, the merits of various candidates etc. rather than the ones that you happen to live nearby but never associate with?

And with discussions being increasingly on-line - why restrict yourself geographically like you used to?

Indeed - you could have a constituency of pb.com addicts represented by Nick Palmer... ;-)

TGOHF said:

Was hoping for a thread on the 50/1 no currency union bet that never was.

Still nothing to stop Scotland using a dollarised pound like Gibraltar and Jersey - but if they are having to go down that route - as it is now clear there will be no currency union - why not use a currency more suited their petrochemical economy such as the US dollar or the Norwegian Krone or the Dubai Dirnham ?

It is very far from clear yet, we have heard this posturing before. We will see if the yellow bellies actually have it in them to say NO. Cue a thousand weasely words but no clarity other than their tame BBC and press claiming they said NO. One can only hope it is true as it will be the biggest mistake ever by these donkeys.

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF said:

Still nothing to stop Scotland using a dollarised pound like Gibraltar and Jersey - but if they are having to go down that route - as it is now clear there will be no currency union - why not use a currency more suited their petrochemical economy such as the US dollar or the Norwegian Krone or the Dubai Dirnham ?

I look forward to soon adding the Ten Trillion Thistle note to my collection of hyper-inflation gems from Zimbabwe.....

Hard for you Tories not to show your real faces, you may not be so happy when you get what you are wishing for.

TGOHF said:

On topic - whatever the result of the referendum - and post Carney that looks like a resounding "NO" - there needs to be a new settlement for rUk. I doubt this will get much public discussion until the votes are counted - but could feature in the manifestos.

LOL, YES will be trembling a diehard unionist is forecasting a no vote.

Fop PR.

Cameron's declaration that "money is no object" has destroyed his austerity message

By insisting that he will spend "whatever money is needed" on flood relief, Cameron has undermined his claim that austerity means we must tolerate rising homelessness and poverty.


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/camerons-declaration-money-no-object-has-destroyed-his-austerity-message

"We're all in this together"

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

I see nothing wrong at all with political parties. My problem is with a system that encourages them into conflict rather than consensus. I think that over time it has done us a lot of harm as a country because it has led to very damaging short-termism that has swept problems under the carpet or continually kicked them down the road. You see this in all sorts of areas, from energy through health to education. You also see it in the short-termism that guided both main parties' use of North Sea oil revenues, in PFI, in flood planning and so on and so on.

I genuinely have no idea how you stop conflict politics. Especially when many on the left are so rabidly anti-Tory. *cough*

Maybe a group hug before PMQ's?

It does not happen overnight, but you begin with a system that encourages collaboration and consensus rather than tribalism and conflict. There will always be disagreements - sometimes profound ones - and that is a good thing. But the short-termism our current system leads to is profoundly damaging. FPTP just does not deliver.