The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The electoral system is what it is. There must be an element of geographical bias if you are to give voters a representative in Parliament
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
How far in front was TMay t this point of the last GE? I wonder whether opinion polls suggesting large Tory leads are counter productive for the Tories, as their opponents become motivated to stop a majority.
Good point. On the other hand how many people will look at the polls and remember how far out they were last time and so discount them? It will be interesting seeing what happens over the next six weeks...
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I live in a Con/LD marginal so the election leaflets are already coming through the mailbox. This mornings selection.
Lib Dem - 100% Jo Swinson, no mention at all of local candidate. Message Jo will stop brexit. Nothing else, not even a bar chart!
Tory - 100% local candidate and what he has done locally focusing on more money for NHS and education. Also included an application for a postal vote, so i can vote from the comfort of my own home if there is bad weather.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The electoral system is what it is. There must be an element of geographical bias if you are to give voters a representative in Parliament
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
How far in front was TMay t this point of the last GE? I wonder whether opinion polls suggesting large Tory leads are counter productive for the Tories, as their opponents become motivated to stop a majority.
Boris is a better campaigner than May.
Cummings will have focused grouped the Con manifesto to death.
Can Jezza produce a manifesto that inspires like 2017?
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
Highly unlikely this would include Labour (or SNP), as they have no plans to reciprocate. A local candidate could chose not to put in papers (I think a couple did so for Greens in 2017 - Brighton and Ripon from memory) but that seems unlikely for Labour, and the scope for a national deal is as close to zero as it can be.
There's a deal to be done with Greens and Plaid who accept the principle of a quid pro quo. Grieve and potentially a couple of other independents are exceptional as they simply can't reciprocate as one man bands.
How far in front was TMay t this point of the last GE? I wonder whether opinion polls suggesting large Tory leads are counter productive for the Tories, as their opponents become motivated to stop a majority.
Good point. On the other hand how many people will look at the polls and remember how far out they were last time and so discount them? It will be interesting seeing what happens over the next six weeks...
I think the "May factor" was huge last time. She was the epitome of uselessness.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Your level of protestation falls into the "too much" category.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on <35% of the vote, all tactics are legitimate.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
The electoral system punishes diversity of choice. It acts in favour of the SNP because they are the united indy party while the unionist vote is split. It leads to 2 polarised blocs in the end like in the US. An electoral system shouldn't be designed to encourage uniformity and punish diversity of choice, that is not a desirable trait.
If we had a second brexit referendum, and there were 3 choices, remain, Boris deal, no deal, that wouldn't be seen as fair. Because it would be dividing the leave vote in 2.
We don't really know that yet. If someone wanted to hide behind the sofa, they'd obviously pretend to be all up for a debate now, but say that sadly the inflexibility of others meant no deal could be done later. That's basic.
How far in front was TMay t this point of the last GE? I wonder whether opinion polls suggesting large Tory leads are counter productive for the Tories, as their opponents become motivated to stop a majority.
Boris is a better campaigner than May.
Cummings will have focused grouped the Con manifesto to death.
Can Jezza produce a manifesto that inspires like 2017?
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The electoral system is what it is. There must be an element of geographical bias if you are to give voters a representative in Parliament
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Your level of protestation falls into the "too much" category.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on
" ... crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit ..." LOL
If the LibDems believe that, it seems that Labour's barb that you voted for an election for party interests, rather than national ones, is 100 per cent correct.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
Given that other parties are not forced to do anything they don't want to, one can only conclude that both parties believe it is in their individual interest. In which case, why is it corrupt? It's their free choice to stand (or not).
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
It's difficult to believe Labour are doing quite as badly as that in Kensington.
I tipped this earlier today as a Tory gain. Gyimah will get a lot of traction with rich remainers but the local working class will stick with Dent Coad, however Tory vote of 15k + every election is very solid in the constituency and that could be enough for a blue gain (50% chance), without BXP I'd say (80% chance).
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
Given that other parties are not forced to do anything they don't want to, one can only conclude that both parties believe it is in their individual interest. In which case, why is it corrupt? It's their free choice to stand (or not).
The leadership of a party may decide to do something.
The voters and activists may have a very different opinion. They have been deprived of choice.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Your level of protestation falls into the "too much" category.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on
If all tactics are legitimate then surely all results are too. 52%?
As we saw in 2015, the Conservative vote share in at least one poll has spikes substantially since the election was called (funny that?).
To be fair, this often happens as the doubtful run back to the apron strings of certainty at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder.
There are two elements to this poll lead which should worry Conservatives - first is complacency among their supporters and second is the extent to which voters will endeavour not to give Boris too big a victory.
There's an adage about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate.
Labour will be relieved they are second - this election looks increasingly about survival and still being the only credible alternative on offer next time or at some time in the future because this GE, as a contest, is over.
For example the 2017 YouGov gave the Cons in Kensington a midpoint of 42.7, a high of 49.6 and a low of 35.3.
Those a big error bars. And these Best for Britain chancers are pretending they don't exist.
Even with very wide error bars they are going to be making a deterministic recommendation and that will be to the pro-Remain candidate most likely to be the nearest challenger. That will be the one with the highest midpoint.
So for their purposes the error bars don't matter so much.
The error bars are not consistent, in some constituencies the rror bar for one party is a few percent whilst another party it is double digits of variance. You could easily see higher midpoint but lower chance of winning between two parties.
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Your level of protestation falls into the "too much" category.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on
" ... crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit ..." LOL
If the LibDems believe that, it seems that Labour's barb that you voted for an election for party interests, rather than national ones, is 100 per cent correct.
As we saw in 2015, the Conservative vote share in at least one poll has spikes substantially since the election was called (funny that?).
To be fair, this often happens as the doubtful run back to the apron strings of certainty at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder.
There are two elements to this poll lead which should worry Conservatives - first is complacency among their supporters and second is the extent to which voters will endeavour not to give Boris too big a victory.
There's an adage about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate.
Labour will be relieved they are second - this election looks increasingly about survival and still being the only credible alternative on offer next time or at some time in the future because this GE, as a contest, is over.
Corbyn and the hard left will cling on like limpets with a narrow defeat as we saw in 2017. If voters really want rid of them then they're are going to have to abandon Labour this time. Short term pain may well bring long term gain if you're a moderate.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
NICE does nothing of the sort
They have an explicit value based pricing model
They have no problem approving high prices provided that the science justifies it
It is then up to the various NHS bodies to determine whether they will reimburse that drug
How far in front was TMay t this point of the last GE? I wonder whether opinion polls suggesting large Tory leads are counter productive for the Tories, as their opponents become motivated to stop a majority.
Boris is a better campaigner than May.
Cummings will have focused grouped the Con manifesto to death.
Can Jezza produce a manifesto that inspires like 2017?
Sounds like he'll produce the same one.
Sounds to me like he's doubled down - Looney Toons
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
Given that other parties are not forced to do anything they don't want to, one can only conclude that both parties believe it is in their individual interest. In which case, why is it corrupt? It's their free choice to stand (or not).
The leadership of a party may decide to do something.
The voters and activists may have a very different opinion. They have been deprived of choice.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
I personally think that is a rather negative view of voting.
Also, I don't agree that Corbyn getting in Number 10 will be a disaster.
Or rather, it will be chaos, but we have survived far worse (e.g. Blair winning after the lies of the Iraq war).
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The point is that the SNP **were** a small party once. They grew under FPTP to take almost every seat in Scotland.
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Your level of protestation falls into the "too much" category.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on
" ... crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit ..." LOL
If the LibDems believe that, it seems that Labour's barb that you voted for an election for party interests, rather than national ones, is 100 per cent correct.
You could also ask why, given that no deal would be a disaster, they didn’t vote for the May deal when they had the chance?
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The electoral system is what it is. There must be an element of geographical bias if you are to give voters a representative in Parliament
[Other electoral systems are available]
Not here, not yet
But they are here, just not for Westminster elections. Everywhere in England will have experience of supplementary vote for PCC elections (or Mayor in London/GM) and regional party list for EU elections.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
I personally think that is a rather negative view of voting.
Also, I don't agree that Corbyn getting in Number 10 will be a disaster.
Or rather, it will be chaos, but we have survived far worse (e.g. Blair winning after the lies of the Iraq war).
I’m a glass half empty sort of person when it comes to politics.
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
For example the 2017 YouGov gave the Cons in Kensington a midpoint of 42.7, a high of 49.6 and a low of 35.3.
Those a big error bars. And these Best for Britain chancers are pretending they don't exist.
Even with very wide error bars they are going to be making a deterministic recommendation and that will be to the pro-Remain candidate most likely to be the nearest challenger. That will be the one with the highest midpoint.
So for their purposes the error bars don't matter so much.
The error bars are not consistent, in some constituencies the rror bar for one party is a few percent whilst another party it is double digits of variance. You could easily see higher midpoint but lower chance of winning between two parties.
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
I'm delighted to hear I'm not the only person who points out errors to restaurants on their bills, whichever way the benefit accrues.
Not sure it is a good policy to deduct from the waitress. There should be a management system that is responsible for the accuracy.
For example the 2017 YouGov gave the Cons in Kensington a midpoint of 42.7, a high of 49.6 and a low of 35.3.
Those a big error bars. And these Best for Britain chancers are pretending they don't exist.
Even with very wide error bars they are going to be making a deterministic recommendation and that will be to the pro-Remain candidate most likely to be the nearest challenger. That will be the one with the highest midpoint.
So for their purposes the error bars don't matter so much.
The error bars are not consistent, in some constituencies the rror bar for one party is a few percent whilst another party it is double digits of variance. You could easily see higher midpoint but lower chance of winning between two parties.
Conceded.
If I get the time I'll see if I can spot any from the 2017 YouGov MRP results.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
The electoral system punishes diversity of choice. It acts in favour of the SNP because they are the united indy party while the unionist vote is split. It leads to 2 polarised blocs in the end like in the US. An electoral system shouldn't be designed to encourage uniformity and punish diversity of choice, that is not a desirable trait.
If we had a second brexit referendum, and there were 3 choices, remain, Boris deal, no deal, that wouldn't be seen as fair. Because it would be dividing the leave vote in 2.
I disagree.
It encourages popularity and broad tents. That is a good thing. It means the voters know in advance before the election what the broad tent is in favour of rather than backroom deals after the election sorting it out.
If a minor party can find a way of being more popular they can become a major party. That is a good thing.
According to Survation, 68% of LD current VI would vote tactically to keep out the Tories, and 39% would do so to keep out Labour. (Pages 71 & 72 here)
Rather amusingly, 6% of current Tory voters would vote tactically to keep out the Tories and 11% of current Labour voters would vote tactically to keep out Labour!
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
Well done. Don't see why the staff have to subsidise an inherently imperfect process.
You could also ask why, given that no deal would be a disaster, they didn’t vote for the May deal when they had the chance?
Why should you vote for something you do not believe in to stop someone mad just around the corner who is prepared to do something even worse?
Feels like we're missing the point. Maybe we should just get rid of the people pushing the mad stuff, rather than blaming others for not stopping it.
May's deal was certainly not "mad" by any stretch and there was always a small risk (We did not KNOW the EU would grant an extension) were it not passed. Given Labour had no policy at the time to revoke Article 50, I think we can safely conclude they were happy with the risk of "No deal" at the time. The ERG opponents of the May deal were.
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
Good. Those MPs can and should look after their locale that may be missed if we just assign proportionally to the nation identikit Londoners who don't understand that geography.
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
Is it standard practice at restaurants or just that one I wonder. I have had waiters remove items from a bill is the have been problems but perhaps they had a manager’s permission.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
NICE does nothing of the sort
They have an explicit value based pricing model
They have no problem approving high prices provided that the science justifies it
It is then up to the various NHS bodies to determine whether they will reimburse that drug
That article is not about negotiating down prices. Humira is a blockbuster drug that has reached the end of its patent. This now allows for biosimilars to come on the market (similar to generics but not exact copies as they are biologics). This change would have happened under any pricing model.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
I personally think that is a rather negative view of voting.
Also, I don't agree that Corbyn getting in Number 10 will be a disaster.
Or rather, it will be chaos, but we have survived far worse (e.g. Blair winning after the lies of the Iraq war).
You can't really value Corbyn more than Blair. Blair didn't ruin our country, Corbyn would, and enjoy doing it.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but they are almost worthless as insight into what is happening.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against ant party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
I just don't think people vote in the simplistic manner that you (and the LibDems) seem to believe.
I don't think just because there is no Green candidate, a Green voter says "I will put on my yellow rosette and now vote LibDem."
And to be fair to see, one of the LibDem posters on this site (TorbyFennel, I believe) confirmed this.
He said he voted LibDem because he wants to see LibDem policies enacted (nothing wrong with that). And if the LibDems didn't stand in a constituency, he wouldn't vote.
I like people like Torby, because he has something definite he believes in, and he wants to vote for it.
I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down, or making a stupid alliance with parties smaller than you (but not ones bigger than you) so you get a clear run. It is false and hypocritical.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
I agree entirely with that last bit; the argument for PR is to my mind unassailable.
And while I am with @YBarddCwsc in favouring voting for the party that you actually want to win over engaging in complicated tactical calculations (which may well end up wrong anyway), his I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down... sounds a bit odd. Who is 'forcing' them to step down ? And if that is just hyperbole about some electoral pact, why would such a thing be 'chicanery', just because you disapprove of it ?
Can I just check: is this a bona fide constituency poll carried out by one of the respected polling agencies?
Sort of, I believe it is a bona fide MRP poll that has done every constituency, like the amazingly accurate one YouGov did last time. Apparently they have figures for every constituency.
This will really help the LibDems.
Without constituency polling there is only the 2017 result. LDs could try using the Euros or local election results but that lacks credibility. These constituency polls are perfect for squeeze leaflets.
You could also ask why, given that no deal would be a disaster, they didn’t vote for the May deal when they had the chance?
Why should you vote for something you do not believe in to stop someone mad just around the corner who is prepared to do something even worse?
Feels like we're missing the point. Maybe we should just get rid of the people pushing the mad stuff, rather than blaming others for not stopping it.
May's deal was certainly not "mad" by any stretch and there was always a small risk (We did not KNOW the EU would grant an extension) were it not passed. Given Labour had no policy at the time to revoke Article 50, I think we can safely conclude they were happy with the risk of "No deal" at the time. The ERG opponents of the May deal were.
It was certainly a bit mad to enter into an agreement with a third party with no exit clause that left everyone in the UK worse off and with no greater sovereignty.
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
I think she should be looking for another job but congratulations on your honesty. It is doubtful such a deduction is permitted in law (although the law is a rather feeble thing in this area in practice).
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
Nonsense. We have an electoral system that favours parties with geographically-concentrated support.
The electoral system is what it is. There must be an element of geographical bias if you are to give voters a representative in Parliament
[Other electoral systems are available]
Not here, not yet
But they are here, just not for Westminster elections. Everywhere in England will have experience of supplementary vote for PCC elections (or Mayor in London/GM) and regional party list for EU elections.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but they are almost worthless as insight into what is happening.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against ant party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
I just don't think people vote in the simplistic manner that you (and the LibDems) seem to believe.
I don't think just because there is no Green candidate, a Green voter says "I will put on my yellow rosette and now vote LibDem."
And to be fair to see, one of the LibDem posters on this site (TorbyFennel, I believe) confirmed this.
He said he voted LibDem because he wants to see LibDem policies enacted (nothing wrong with that). And if the LibDems didn't stand in a constituency, he wouldn't vote.
I like people like Torby, because he has something definite he believes in, and he wants to vote for it.
I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down, or making a stupid alliance with parties smaller than you (but not ones bigger than you) so you get a clear run. It is false and hypocritical.
If it is false and hypocritical it's because the system forces that behaviour on people. But you know that (you're just not admitting it).
The forced choice many people have to make is:
- do I vote for my principles but have no effect on the election outcome, or - do I vote for the least worst option in the hope that it might affect the outcome slightly
The solution to the problem is to operate an electoral system that allows a vote to be cast both in line with the voter's principles AND with a chance of affecting the outcome of the election.
I agree entirely with that last bit; the argument for PR is to my mind unassailable.
And while I am with @YBarddCwsc in favouring voting for the party that you actually want to win over engaging in complicated tactical calculations (which may well end up wrong anyway), his I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down... sounds a bit odd. Who is 'forcing' them to step down ? And if that is just hyperbole about some electoral pact, why would such a thing be 'chicanery', just because you disapprove of it ?
Well, why did the Greens stand down in Brecon & Radnorshire?
Who suggested it? Were Green voters in B&R consulted?
(Plaid Cymru ones were not. They were, by and large, angry & did not vote).
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but they are almost worthless as insight into what is happening.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against ant party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
I just don't think people vote in the simplistic manner that you (and the LibDems) seem to believe.
I don't think just because there is no Green candidate, a Green voter says "I will put on my yellow rosette and now vote LibDem."
And to be fair, one of the LibDem posters on this site (TorbyFennel, I believe) confirmed this.
He said he voted LibDem because he wants to see LibDem policies enacted (nothing wrong with that). And if the LibDems didn't stand in a constituency, he wouldn't vote.
I like people like Torby, because he has something definite he believes in, and he wants to vote for it.
I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down, or making a stupid alliance with parties smaller than you (but not ones bigger than you) so you get a clear run. It is false and hypocritical.
All of which totally ignores the point that the reason parties are considering pacts and standing down is that we have a useless electoral system. It is why the current debate on CH rages around whether the Tories and BXP should have a pact and stand down for each other in certain seats.
If we had a fair electoral system people could simply could go and vote for a party they agreed with as they did in the EU elections. Unfortunately we don't have a fair system so all parties have to try and game the system.
According to Survation, 68% of LD current VI would vote tactically to keep out the Tories, and 39% would do so to keep out Labour. (Pages 71 & 72 here)
Rather amusingly, 6% of current Tory voters would vote tactically to keep out the Tories and 11% of current Labour voters would vote tactically to keep out Labour!
There are always some responses like that: a measurable percentage of Brexit voters want us to stay in the EU for instance.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
NICE does nothing of the sort
They have an explicit value based pricing model
They have no problem approving high prices provided that the science justifies it
It is then up to the various NHS bodies to determine whether they will reimburse that drug
That article is not about negotiating down prices. Humira is a blockbuster drug that has reached the end of its patent. This now allows for biosimilars to come on the market (similar to generics but not exact copies as they are biologics). This change would have happened under any pricing model.
While that's true, there would still be a negotiation around the price of any biosimilar. And generics aren't always cheap if there is only a single supplier...
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
Well done. Don't see why the staff have to subsidise an inherently imperfect process.
Thanks. And to others who have posted similar sentiments. Looks to me as though, as you say, there is a poor system.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
NICE does nothing of the sort
They have an explicit value based pricing model
They have no problem approving high prices provided that the science justifies it
It is then up to the various NHS bodies to determine whether they will reimburse that drug
Simon Stevens, NHS England’s chief executive, said: “ Harnessing the power of competition between drug companies, NHS England has now freed up hundreds of millions of pounds of savings to reinvest in patient care. By working with patients and frontline clinicians we’ve now successfully negotiated the biggest ever set of savings on what was the NHS’s most costly drug.
“This is another example of how the smarter approach to biosimilar medicines in the UK and Europe gives patients and taxpayers a much better deal than they get in the United States.”
That is what the US wants to trash in a trade deal. It is illegal in the US for government agencies to negotiate drug prices.
Corbyn and the hard left will cling on like limpets with a narrow defeat as we saw in 2017. If voters really want rid of them then they're are going to have to abandon Labour this time. Short term pain may well bring long term gain if you're a moderate.
I've said this before and I think one or two didn't or couldn't understand.
This election is over as a contest - the question is now whether Johnson will win big or very big. A 1983-style landslide couldn't be ruled out from the poll numbers which would see something like a 140-150 majority.
In 1983, Labour won 209 seats - that's the benchmark for this GE. Anything worse than that and I think that will be game over for Corbyn and the start of the return of Labour to the centre under an avowedly Corbyn-ite leader. I've already mentioned the comparison between Kinnock in 1983 and 1992 and I could easily see one of the younger Labour female (I think it has to be) MPs taking charge of the wreckage and over time moving the Party back to a more centrist position.
For the non-Conservatives in despair looking at the poll numbers today I'd offer two thoughts - Boris won't have the campaign all his own way and we know when he gets into a tight spot he retreats into blustering and the domestic agenda has enough contradictions to drive a tank through so there's plenty of questions he may have to face.
Second, nothing lasts forever - even if he wins big now, he will lose big someday sooner or later and the Conservatives will, with luck, face a defeat far greater than 1906, 1945 or 1997. That's how politics operates and one day the Conservatives will be about as popular as a South African rugby fan at a Twickenham pub on Sunday.
Corbyn and the hard left will cling on like limpets with a narrow defeat as we saw in 2017. If voters really want rid of them then they're are going to have to abandon Labour this time. Short term pain may well bring long term gain if you're a moderate.
I've said this before and I think one or two didn't or couldn't understand.
This election is over as a contest - the question is now whether Johnson will win big or very big. A 1983-style landslide couldn't be ruled out from the poll numbers which would see something like a 140-150 majority.
I hope you are wrong ..... for the LibDems' sake.
If this comes to pass, then it was a truly colossal error by the LibDems in giving in to an election.
You are really unpleasant. You have the manners of dog!
You still have not apoligised for calling me "mad". I am disabled, my political views and.identificaton of BJ as someone who calls others chicken whilst showing the same characteristics does not constitute madness. I do have schizoprenia but am on heavy medication for that and you should be careful how you describe others outlook on life....
Totally O/t fellow Pb-ers. But! Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay! What do you think?
I think she should be looking for another job but congratulations on your honesty. It is doubtful such a deduction is permitted in law (although the law is a rather feeble thing in this area in practice).
It’s very harsh but with an express provision in an employment contract, or written consent otherwise, a deduction of up to 10% per pay packet (so the restaurant can recover it all but not necessarily all at once) can be a lawful deduction from the wages of waiting staff if their customer doesn’t pay. It’s the same provision that allows shopkeepers to recover till shortages. Coincidentally I’m dealing with a case involving a deduction for an £800 “dine and dash” at the moment.
"But you know that (you're just not admitting it)."
I voted for AV in 2011. I am perfectly well aware of the drawbacks of FPTP.
I have also noted with wry amusement the behaviour of the Canadian Liberals who were in favour of electoral reform when they were driven into third place. But, they lost their enthusiasm for reform once they won with FPTP in 2015.
And, even more ironically, the Liberals only retained power in 2019 because of FPTP, since they lost the popular vote.
So, less patronising lectures from Tabman please about "you're not admitting it"
In which case you'll also know that AV is not a proportional voting system, and will therefore cease the pompous comments about tactical voting being "false and hypocritical".
I am pointing out that when given an opportunity to change the electoral system (to one that the LibDems advocated), I chose to vote for it.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
I think that the great advantage of democracy over other forms of government is the ability to get rid of bad governments without needing a revolution, so I nearly always vote against the party I least like (or tactically if you prefer). It is one of the reasons I am not happy with the current Labour Party: if they had a half-way competent leader (either Milliband, or Ed Balls spring to mind) they I could vote to get rid of the idiot of an MP I currently have rather than having to support him to prevent the disaster of Corbyn getting into Number 10.
I personally think that is a rather negative view of voting.
Also, I don't agree that Corbyn getting in Number 10 will be a disaster.
Or rather, it will be chaos, but we have survived far worse (e.g. Blair winning after the lies of the Iraq war).
You can't really value Corbyn more than Blair. Blair didn't ruin our country, Corbyn would, and enjoy doing it.
There is a pretty strong argument that Blair, Big Bad Burnley Al, Gordon Brown, D McBride and Mandelson were key to the process of decline of respect of politics, good journalism and excessive spin / media management, which could well be at the core of our current descent into less attractive politics.
Which would mean lower drug prices? Access doesn't mean much
It would mean higher drug prices.
In the US, federal agencies are not allowed by law to negotiate drug prices. In the UK, NICE uses the NHS clout to negotiate down drug prices. The US want that removed and a move to the US system.
NICE does nothing of the sort
They have an explicit value based pricing model
They have no problem approving high prices provided that the science justifies it
It is then up to the various NHS bodies to determine whether they will reimburse that drug
Simon Stevens, NHS England’s chief executive, said: “ Harnessing the power of competition between drug companies, NHS England has now freed up hundreds of millions of pounds of savings to reinvest in patient care. By working with patients and frontline clinicians we’ve now successfully negotiated the biggest ever set of savings on what was the NHS’s most costly drug.
“This is another example of how the smarter approach to biosimilar medicines in the UK and Europe gives patients and taxpayers a much better deal than they get in the United States.”
That is what the US wants to trash in a trade deal. It is illegal in the US for government agencies to negotiate drug prices.
Not exactly - the difference between Europe and the US on biosimilars is largely a regulatory one. The EMA provided a regulatory framework for biosimilars several years ahead of the FDA, and has proven much more likely to approve any given biosimilar.
You are really unpleasant. You have the manners of dog!
You still have not apoligised for calling me "mad". I am disabled, my political views and.identificaton of BJ as someone who calls others chicken whilst showing the same characteristics does not constitute madness. I do have schizoprenia but am on heavy medication for that and you should be careful how you describe others outlook on life....
The lib dems have to be careful here. Don't stand down against too many labour MPs, just because they are strong remainers.
Wouldn't want to frighten the horses in the leafy enclaves they are trying to take off the tories.
Surely this is just a special case supporting Dominic Grieve?
Dunno I have read (I think on here? ) that a number of MPs are going to get a free run off the lib dems, including some labour. Nothing certain yet?? guess talks are ongoing.
The LibDems prefer elections when there is only one candidate name on the ballot.
Your hatred of the Lib Dems borders on the pathological. You are entitled to your views but tyou are so obsessed it renders your comments worthless.
We have an electoral system that unfairly discriminates against any party other than Labour and the Tories. The minor parties are therefore driven to do what they can to mitigate that bias. If you honestly can't see that then I should give up if I were you.
Nonsense. Does the electoral system discriminate against the SNP?
The electoral system rewards success and penalises favour. It has no regard to which party is which.
The electoral system should broadly reflect how people voted. That should be its primary purpose and it fails to deliver that at every election. It has even managed, on occasion, to produce a government that didn't even win most votes.
The SNP only got traction once a PR system was brought in for the Scottish Parliament. They could then use that leverage to gain Westminster seats.
If our Westminster election system fairly represents voters opinions why are there such massive discrepancies between the percentage of votes a party can get and the percentage of seats it wins? Why is it that only when we have a fair PR election as we did in May for the EU that neither of the old duopoly don't even make the top two.
By all means try to justify our Westminster voting system on other grounds but no sane individual could claim it adequately represents how people voted. It fails on that count at every single election.
Comments
They didn't grow by asking every other party to stand down, so they get a clear run.
They grew by having a reasonably clear vision and persuading voters in their droves to vote for it.
Why can't the LibDems do this? Why are they always the Dick Dastardly of politics with some cunning ruse that blows up in their face?
Lib Dem - 100% Jo Swinson, no mention at all of local candidate. Message Jo will stop brexit. Nothing else, not even a bar chart!
Tory - 100% local candidate and what he has done locally focusing on more money for NHS and education. Also included an application for a postal vote, so i can vote from the comfort of my own home if there is bad weather.
It is not just tactical voting. The LibDems are trying to get other parties to stand down. That is corrupt.
If people want to vote tactically, that is up to them. I don't like it, because I want to be given positive reasons to vote for a party.
Johnson's served by Remainers being split. Promoted Corbyn as The Alternative risks opposition to Johnson coalescing around Corbyn.
And, yes, Corbyn's ratings are dire. Johnson's are pretty rubbish too.
Cummings will have focused grouped the Con manifesto to death.
Can Jezza produce a manifesto that inspires like 2017?
There's a deal to be done with Greens and Plaid who accept the principle of a quid pro quo. Grieve and potentially a couple of other independents are exceptional as they simply can't reciprocate as one man bands.
For the record I believe all parties should stand candidates in every seat and aver electoral pacts. But given the electoral system, and the crisis about to occur if it delivers a hard brexit on <35% of the vote, all tactics are legitimate.
If we had a second brexit referendum, and there were 3 choices, remain, Boris deal, no deal, that wouldn't be seen as fair. Because it would be dividing the leave vote in 2.
If the LibDems believe that, it seems that Labour's barb that you voted for an election for party interests, rather than national ones, is 100 per cent correct.
"Tactical voting website criticised for 'bogus' advice
Best for Britain website suggests backing Lib Dems in Labour-held marginals"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/30/tactical-voting-could-deliver-remain-victory-in-election-study
The voters and activists may have a very different opinion. They have been deprived of choice.
It is nasty and hypocritical tactic.
To be fair, this often happens as the doubtful run back to the apron strings of certainty at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder.
There are two elements to this poll lead which should worry Conservatives - first is complacency among their supporters and second is the extent to which voters will endeavour not to give Boris too big a victory.
There's an adage about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate.
Labour will be relieved they are second - this election looks increasingly about survival and still being the only credible alternative on offer next time or at some time in the future because this GE, as a contest, is over.
But!
Wife and I went out for lunch today, at an excellent local restuarant. (One can do then when old and retired!) Very pleasant English red wine taster and an excellent meal. However, when the bill came it was considerably less than we were expecting, so we queried. Turned out the very pleasant waitress had left our mains, some £40 in all, off the bill. We asked what would have happened if we'd just paid and left and she said that, when discovered, the price of the meals would have been deducted from her pay!
What do you think?
I`ve googled but can`t find a definitive answer. Seems to be some confusion over whether Bercow delays retirement a few days.
Also, I don't agree that Corbyn getting in Number 10 will be a disaster.
Or rather, it will be chaos, but we have survived far worse (e.g. Blair winning after the lies of the Iraq war).
I suspect we will end up with a harder Brexit in the long run because of that misjudgment.
(I was perfectly happy with May's deal).
Feels like we're missing the point. Maybe we should just get rid of the people pushing the mad stuff, rather than blaming others for not stopping it.
Not sure it is a good policy to deduct from the waitress. There should be a management system that is responsible for the accuracy.
The December 12 election will determine whether Britain leaves the E.U., and how
Ian Dunt"
https://gen.medium.com/the-brexit-culture-war-is-finally-hitting-its-endgame-9333da3bb3c
It encourages popularity and broad tents. That is a good thing. It means the voters know in advance before the election what the broad tent is in favour of rather than backroom deals after the election sorting it out.
If a minor party can find a way of being more popular they can become a major party. That is a good thing.
Rather amusingly, 6% of current Tory voters would vote tactically to keep out the Tories and 11% of current Labour voters would vote tactically to keep out Labour!
Given Labour had no policy at the time to revoke Article 50, I think we can safely conclude they were happy with the risk of "No deal" at the time. The ERG opponents of the May deal were.
And while I am with @YBarddCwsc in favouring voting for the party that you actually want to win over engaging in complicated tactical calculations (which may well end up wrong anyway), his I despise all this chicanery of forcing the Greens to stand down... sounds a bit odd.
Who is 'forcing' them to step down ? And if that is just hyperbole about some electoral pact, why would such a thing be 'chicanery', just because you disapprove of it ?
I don't understand why Johnson wants Corbyn to get more airtime than Swinson.
Who suggested it? Were Green voters in B&R consulted?
(Plaid Cymru ones were not. They were, by and large, angry & did not vote).
If we had a fair electoral system people could simply could go and vote for a party they agreed with as they did in the EU elections. Unfortunately we don't have a fair system so all parties have to try and game the system.
Then the exit poll will come in.
And generics aren't always cheap if there is only a single supplier...
Every Republican votes against.
I would think it's likely they'll have an 6-way at some point with Boris, Jezza, Swinson, Nicola, Plaid and maybe Nigel?
Then there may be a 3-way with Boris, Jezza and Jo.
But who knows...
Simon Stevens, NHS England’s chief executive, said: “ Harnessing the power of competition between drug companies, NHS England has now freed up hundreds of millions of pounds of savings to reinvest in patient care. By working with patients and frontline clinicians we’ve now successfully negotiated the biggest ever set of savings on what was the NHS’s most costly drug.
“This is another example of how the smarter approach to biosimilar medicines in the UK and Europe gives patients and taxpayers a much better deal than they get in the United States.”
That is what the US wants to trash in a trade deal. It is illegal in the US for government agencies to negotiate drug prices.
This election is over as a contest - the question is now whether Johnson will win big or very big. A 1983-style landslide couldn't be ruled out from the poll numbers which would see something like a 140-150 majority.
In 1983, Labour won 209 seats - that's the benchmark for this GE. Anything worse than that and I think that will be game over for Corbyn and the start of the return of Labour to the centre under an avowedly Corbyn-ite leader. I've already mentioned the comparison between Kinnock in 1983 and 1992 and I could easily see one of the younger Labour female (I think it has to be) MPs taking charge of the wreckage and over time moving the Party back to a more centrist position.
For the non-Conservatives in despair looking at the poll numbers today I'd offer two thoughts - Boris won't have the campaign all his own way and we know when he gets into a tight spot he retreats into blustering and the domestic agenda has enough contradictions to drive a tank through so there's plenty of questions he may have to face.
Second, nothing lasts forever - even if he wins big now, he will lose big someday sooner or later and the Conservatives will, with luck, face a defeat far greater than 1906, 1945 or 1997. That's how politics operates and one day the Conservatives will be about as popular as a South African rugby fan at a Twickenham pub on Sunday.
And I don't want even to think about the previous one.
If this comes to pass, then it was a truly colossal error by the LibDems in giving in to an election.
Will they be forgiven?
You still have not apoligised for calling me "mad". I am disabled, my political views and.identificaton of BJ as someone who calls others chicken whilst showing the same characteristics does not constitute madness. I do have schizoprenia but am on heavy medication for that and you should be careful how you describe others outlook on life....
My prediction for a Labour gain is .....
.... Arfon.
It is highly marginal. Only Plaid Cymru or Labour are going to win this seat.
And Plaid Cymru could easily end up having a worse election than Labour.
The SNP only got traction once a PR system was brought in for the Scottish Parliament. They could then use that leverage to gain Westminster seats.
If our Westminster election system fairly represents voters opinions why are there such massive discrepancies between the percentage of votes a party can get and the percentage of seats it wins? Why is it that only when we have a fair PR election as we did in May for the EU that neither of the old duopoly don't even make the top two.
By all means try to justify our Westminster voting system on other grounds but no sane individual could claim it adequately represents how people voted. It fails on that count at every single election.