politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Tories do win more votes than LAB but get fewer seat

OT, background on the three-year-old legal case about the data retention directive that may be the cause of the government suddenly having an emergency need to pass legislation before anyone has a chance to find out what it says:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/briefing-to-mps-on-data-retention-legislation

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

JackW said:

The context of the thread seems fair - Those that live by FPTP shall die by it too.

Having said that I don't expect an anomalous seats/vote share result next May between Lab and Con as indicated by the latest ARSE.

The particular anomaly from next May will be UKIP with either a few or no seats on a not too dissimilar share of the vote to the LibDems with 30+ seats. There will be derision from UKIP to little effect.

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

foxinsoxuk said:

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

Yes, the FPTP question was decided by the electorate - not the Tories.

The boundaries question by the Lib Dems - such democrats!

Btw, it's general election today in the Cook Islands, the big political question of the day is will the Left leaning Democratic Party overturn their 2010 defeat by the rightwing Cook Island Party and take power.

asjohnstone said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

He may find that the Lib Dems make it a condition of being in power.

A referendum on a properly proportional voting system such as mmp might pass now, post UKIP surge.

I voted against AV but would vote for an AMS system.

However STV is the spawn of Satan, whose advocates require extraordinary rendition to polar parts before a trip downstairs to their leaders HQ.

Shome mishtake shurely - ed.

Mr Salmond repeatedly insisted he would only debate with Prime Minister David Cameron in the initial TV debate before backing down last month and agreeing to face Mr Darling, the head of Better Together.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-and-darling-tv-debate-two-days-after-games.24715055

Oh well, we can add "only debate with Cameron' to "automatic EU membership", "currency union" and "guaranteed warship orders".......

It would be unfair, due entirely to the Liberal Democrats (sic) welching on the boundary changes.

I am not sure that the Tories will win more votes than Labour. In 2015 I expect that Labour will do very well in most cities, far better than in 2010. The Tories will try to compete with UKIP on immigration and it will put off many people who are not of a white British background. I also expect some public sector workers who backed the Tories in 2010, will move to Labour. I think there has been some polling which shows a significant shift Tories to Labour within some professions e.g Teachers.

CarlottaVance said:

Shome mishtake shurely - ed.

Mr Salmond repeatedly insisted he would only debate with Prime Minister David Cameron in the initial TV debate before backing down last month and agreeing to face Mr Darling, the head of Better Together.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-and-darling-tv-debate-two-days-after-games.24715055

Oh well, we can add "only debate with Cameron' to "automatic EU membership", "currency union" and "guaranteed warship orders".......

The organ grinder is too scared so he has to debate with the monkey. It will be a slaughter with Flipper stuttering and blinking at an awful rate.

Under FPTP it doesn't matter one bit how many votes you get nationally as its not a national election. So any complaining about nation vote tallies or % of national votes vs seats won need to be told to shut up.

The Tories wanted First Past the Post. They got First Past the Post. If their toxicity and unpopularity means they can't get first past the post in enough seats that's their own fault. Personally I'd replace it with a fully proportional system in a federal UK, but whilst FPTP remains people need to stop making pointless references to vote counts that have no bearing on how the election process actually works.

Freggles said:

The boundaries review wouldn't have made much of a difference to the overall biases in the system, that has been well documented on here.

Yes -FPTP hugely favours Con & Lab vs the others - the differences between Con & Lab are essentially roundings. Hence, expect no change.....

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Shome mishtake shurely - ed.

Mr Salmond repeatedly insisted he would only debate with Prime Minister David Cameron in the initial TV debate before backing down last month and agreeing to face Mr Darling, the head of Better Together.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-and-darling-tv-debate-two-days-after-games.24715055

Oh well, we can add "only debate with Cameron' to "automatic EU membership", "currency union" and "guaranteed warship orders".......

The organ grinder is too scared so he has to debate with the monkey. It will be a slaughter with Flipper stuttering and blinking at an awful rate.

Flipper or monkey? Make your mind up!

And yet another of Eck's pronouncements doesn't come to pass.......

CarlottaVance said:

asjohnstone said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

He may find that the Lib Dems make it a condition of being in power.

Miliband may prefer to govern as a minority govt than shackle his govt to what may appear to be a discredited party rejected by the electorate.

This is a really interesting point IMHO. Nobody will ever want to form a coalition with the LibDems. And given that the LD MP count looks set to drop sharply it means things will be tight. So a period of relatively unstable government in the UK looks unavoidable. Tiny majorities or minority governments for the foreseeable.

Bobafet is, of course, quite right re the insanity of trying to equalise seat sizes in a country with a population unevenly spread over it. Further, I seem to recall the Isle of Wight demanding that it be one constituency, rather than some part of it being transferred to Hampshire for the sake of equality, and that wasn’t the only “special pleading” which took place.
STV, in spite of JackW’s concern, is surely still the best system, although some form of AMS runs it close. However the system used in the Euros should be scrapped closed lists, with candidate order decided by the parties, take far too much power away from the electorate.

The majority of Labour's advantage is just due to differential turnout etc, but a significant proportion is due to unequal seat sizes. There is plenty to complain about legitimately regarding the Lib Dems failing to uphold their side of the bargain regarding Av referendum and boundary changes.

House of Lords reform had nothing to do with boundary changes (as per Nick Clegg and the coalition agreement), and no-one in the Tories ever voted against Lords reform. It was a suggestion that they wouldn't vote in favour of curtailing debate on the rubbish that Clegg had come up with that killed it - I struggle to see how that is an unreasonable position!

OldKingCole said:

However the system used in the Euros should be scrapped closed lists, with candidate order decided by the parties, take far too much power away from the electorate.

Amen to that! I wonder if Miliband will put anything in his manifesto on electoral reform.....we know he's no big fan of referendums.......

CarlottaVance said:

Patrick said:

CarlottaVance said:

asjohnstone said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

He may find that the Lib Dems make it a condition of being in power.

Miliband may prefer to govern as a minority govt than shackle his govt to what may appear to be a discredited party rejected by the electorate.

This is a really interesting point IMHO. Nobody will ever want to form a coalition with the LibDems. And given that the LD MP count looks set to drop sharply it means things will be tight. So a period of relatively unstable government in the UK looks unavoidable. Tiny majorities or minority governments for the foreseeable.

Tories down 10% - out of office, Lib Dems down 50% -stay in power (for example) is going to look distinctly odd......are the Lib Dems the new Vicar of Bray?

Look at the graph at the top of the page. It takes 3.5 times as many votes to elect a LibDem MP as a Tory or Labour MP. So it's not really surprising that the LDs can drop 50% and still retain a number of MPs.They'll only be in office if neither of the two big parties is popular enough to pull ahead. It's FPTP.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Shome mishtake shurely - ed.

Mr Salmond repeatedly insisted he would only debate with Prime Minister David Cameron in the initial TV debate before backing down last month and agreeing to face Mr Darling, the head of Better Together.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-and-darling-tv-debate-two-days-after-games.24715055

Oh well, we can add "only debate with Cameron' to "automatic EU membership", "currency union" and "guaranteed warship orders".......

The organ grinder is too scared so he has to debate with the monkey. It will be a slaughter with Flipper stuttering and blinking at an awful rate.

Flipper or monkey? Make your mind up!

And yet another of Eck's pronouncements doesn't come to pass.......

Since you are slow on uptake , Flipper is the monkey , Cameron is the organ grinder. Organ grinder is a coward so monkey has to do the debate. Surely I do not have to explain the relationship between Cameron and Flipper to you. Suffice to say Flipper is the dogsbody.

The boundary changes proposed at the time by Cameron were a better start point than the current ones if you view, as Gasman says a starting point for FPTP as having equal size seats (Which is surely a good start point for a constituency system...)

The problem was for the Lib Dems that basically the system would have worked even more against them than FPTP 650 seats does now (The fact it works even more against UKIP doesn't mean it works in favour of the Lib Dems). Hence Clegg quite rationally had to knife Dave over it - HoL reform was a convenient issue to use for this purpose, but it really could have been any excuse.

As Tim formerly of this parish pointed out at the time the Conservatives should have seperated the equalisation of voter numbers and the 650 -> 600 seat change. Anyway they didn't, Clegg shafted Dave (He needed to) on this and the rest is history.

Currently the system is very bias in favour of Labour, slightly bias to the Conservatives, against the Lib Dems & very very bias against UKIP.

But post election comparisons will be made between Labour/Con and separately UKIP/Lib Dem which will lead to the Lib Dems being seen as winners from the system when in fact they aren't; and similarly the Tories as losers from the system when in fact they are winners from it.

The big winners will of course be Labour and the big losers, UKIP.

CarlottaVance said:

LogicalSong said:

CarlottaVance said:

Patrick said:

CarlottaVance said:

asjohnstone said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

He may find that the Lib Dems make it a condition of being in power.

Miliband may prefer to govern as a minority govt than shackle his govt to what may appear to be a discredited party rejected by the electorate.

This is a really interesting point IMHO. Nobody will ever want to form a coalition with the LibDems. And given that the LD MP count looks set to drop sharply it means things will be tight. So a period of relatively unstable government in the UK looks unavoidable. Tiny majorities or minority governments for the foreseeable.

Tories down 10% - out of office, Lib Dems down 50% -stay in power (for example) is going to look distinctly odd......are the Lib Dems the new Vicar of Bray?

They'll only be in office if neither of the two big parties is popular enough to pull ahead. It's FPTP.

AND if either of the two big parties wants to be in office with the Vicar of Bray......how much credit (or opprobrium) would attach itself to a government included a party "rejected by the electorate"?

The only way for the Lib Dems to remain in power is in a continuing coalition with the Tories (we're finishing the job) - Miliband would be daft to enter coalition with them (look, I know you hate them but this time they can be trusted.....)

We're talking in this thread about the possibility of Labour getting most seats on fewer votes than the Tories. So which of the two main parties would have been 'rejected by the electorate' ?

JackW said:

asjohnstone said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I don't think PM Miliband will be inclined to change the voting system or to be very sympathetic to kippers.

He may find that the Lib Dems make it a condition of being in power.

A referendum on a properly proportional voting system such as mmp might pass now, post UKIP surge.

I voted against AV but would vote for an AMS system.

However STV is the spawn of Satan, whose advocates require extraordinary rendition to polar parts before a trip downstairs to their leaders HQ.

Nah, multi-member STV would be the way to go if you had to.

Retains the constituency link, gives residents different options post election if they have strong views about which MP they deal with, allows flexibility for voters do choose what they do.

I don't like the fact that people who vote for minority parties get repeated do-overs. Perhaps we could cap the number of votes at, say, 3 (for a 4 member seat) - haven't worked through the implications though. What I don't like is the complexity: how a result was calculated should be very easy to explain to the disinterested voter. That's one of FPTP's great virtues ("oh, he got the most votes so he won" vs "(well A got the most votes, but then D dropped out and his votes were transferred to A and B and C but when E dropped out all his votes went to B, so B won despite the fact that fewer people voted for him first time round)

LogicalSong said:

Nit-picking I know, but the Votes per Seat figures for UKIP and the BNP are actually infinite (anything divided by zero).

The current seats are based on populations in 2001, and as we know there have been major population changes since then. There are always going to be some anomalies such as the natural boundaries of Wight or the Western Isles, but for many constituencies it makes little difference where the boundary lies, for example between Leicester East and Leicester South.

The Tories agreed the vote on AV and for a Lords reform bill, they did not agree to back the changes. The LDs did agree to support the boundary changes-then went back on it. Broadly I support the LDs in coalition and am happy with their performance in government, but not the petulant response to boundary reform.

SouthamObserver said:

If the Tories somehow contrive to lose to EdM's Labour next year despite his crapness and an improving economy they will, no doubt, blame everyone but themselves. I'd expect particular ire to be aimed at: perfidious LibDems; duplicitous, lying Labour; the BBC; stupid voters; immigrants; sponging welfare junkies; the BBC; the Guardian; Scots; the BBC; trade unionists; public sector workers; the BBC; the metropolitan elite; the BBC; and the BBC.

You seem to have some obsession that the Tories should win.

However, you seem to base this on the economy and the character of the two potential PMs.

But, unfortunately, there are many many people who vote on other reasons.

Additionally, as we have seen, there is a small but systemic bias in the boundaries (wasn't there a thread last year which suggested it was 7-8 seats? But I don't recall if that was a total effect of 7-8 or whether that was a transfer of 7-8 from Labour to the Tories i.e. 14-16 for majority purposes). May be not a major effect, but in a tight race it could make all the difference.

But that's ok. The LibDems don't believe in doing the right thing

BobaFett said:

foxinsoxuk said:

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

Define out of date. Many of the new seats were geographically bonkers, and that was timeless. They would have had whole towns with slivers of other towns to make up the numbers. You can't gerrymander an inherently 'unfair' system to make it 'fairer' - that was the Tory plan. You should rejoice that your party had the good sense to kill off the scheme.

The Tories weren't gerrymandering.

Parliament agreed the principles on which the boundary review would be carried out.

The independent Boundary Commission then came up with a proposal. Of course all the parties would have lobbied, but the Commission made a decision.

And then Labour and the LibDems rejected it for nakedly partisan reasons.

I've see the damage that partisan redistricting has done to the US. It would be a disaster if redistricting became political here.

The Spectator analysed the 2010 election for campaign spending with a cost of vote/cost of seat.

The BNP spent the least per vote, Labour the least per seat.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2010/12/who-got-good-valueformoney-in-the-general-election/

More evidence that London house price inflation is abating.

London house price rose at their slowest pace in 15 months in June and values are expected to fall as Bank of England attempts to cool the property market deter buyers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said.

A gauge of home prices in the capital dropped to 31, the lowest since March 2013, from 50 in May, RICS said in a statement in London today, citing a poll of property surveyors. A measure of price expectations for the next quarter fell to minus 10 from 24. That indicates more respondents see declines than increases and is the weakest reading since May 2012.

...

“Rhetoric from key officials at the bank, including Mark Carney, alongside the consequences of the introduction of the Mortgage Market Review are already slowing momentum, particularly in London,” said Simon Rubinsohn, chief economist at RICS. “Buyer enquiries in the capital are now slipping back, which suggests that the very sharp upward move in prices will flatten over the coming months.”

Full article: http://bloom.bg/1mM7LHo

Aren't George and Mark wonderful?

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

foxinsoxuk said:

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

Define out of date. Many of the new seats were geographically bonkers, and that was timeless. They would have had whole towns with slivers of other towns to make up the numbers. You can't gerrymander an inherently 'unfair' system to make it 'fairer' - that was the Tory plan. You should rejoice that your party had the good sense to kill off the scheme.

The Tories weren't gerrymandering.

Parliament agreed the principles on which the boundary review would be carried out.

The independent Boundary Commission then came up with a proposal. Of course all the parties would have lobbied, but the Commission made a decision.

And then Labour and the LibDems rejected it for nakedly partisan reasons.

I've see the damage that partisan redistricting has done to the US. It would be a disaster if redistricting became political here.

Funnily enough, the Tory plan to base constituency sizes on numbers of registered voters rather than total populations favoured them. Whoever would have thought it?

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

If the Tories somehow contrive to lose to EdM's Labour next year despite his crapness and an improving economy they will, no doubt, blame everyone but themselves. I'd expect particular ire to be aimed at: perfidious LibDems; duplicitous, lying Labour; the BBC; stupid voters; immigrants; sponging welfare junkies; the BBC; the Guardian; Scots; the BBC; trade unionists; public sector workers; the BBC; the metropolitan elite; the BBC; and the BBC.

You seem to have some obsession that the Tories should win.

However, you seem to base this on the economy and the character of the two potential PMs.

But, unfortunately, there are many many people who vote on other reasons.

Additionally, as we have seen, there is a small but systemic bias in the boundaries (wasn't there a thread last year which suggested it was 7-8 seats? But I don't recall if that was a total effect of 7-8 or whether that was a transfer of 7-8 from Labour to the Tories i.e. 14-16 for majority purposes). May be not a major effect, but in a tight race it could make all the difference.

But that's ok. The LibDems don't believe in doing the right thing

The Tories should win. Ed is crap. Labour is drifting. The economy is improving. They can get 47% of the seats in the Commons based on 36% of the vote. All they need is a tiny upswing for the FPTP system that so favours the big two parties to deliver them a majority.

BobaFett said:

Gasman said:

BobaFett said:

Bollocks. You cannot have 'equal votes' in a non-proportional system. Another one who cannot grasp how FPP works.

Yes you can - you could have all constituency sizes the same, rather than some constituencies with 80000 people and others with 50000. What people do with their votes is up to them, but the starting point should be equal. Surely that's not to difficult to grasp?

To do that you will have to lump in coherent towns/islands with slivers of distant places to make up the numbers. The Western Isles would be lumped in with a chunk of the mainland with which it had no relationship. It would be a dog's breakfast.

And there is a good reason for treating, for instance, the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles as special cases. That is very from - for instance - saying that Kensington is very different to the western part of Hammersmith.

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

foxinsoxuk said:

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

Define out of date. Many of the new seats were geographically bonkers, and that was timeless. They would have had whole towns with slivers of other towns to make up the numbers. You can't gerrymander an inherently 'unfair' system to make it 'fairer' - that was the Tory plan. You should rejoice that your party had the good sense to kill off the scheme.

The Tories weren't gerrymandering.

Parliament agreed the principles on which the boundary review would be carried out.

The independent Boundary Commission then came up with a proposal. Of course all the parties would have lobbied, but the Commission made a decision.

And then Labour and the LibDems rejected it for nakedly partisan reasons.

I've see the damage that partisan redistricting has done to the US. It would be a disaster if redistricting became political here.

Funnily enough, the Tory plan to base constituency sizes on numbers of registered voters rather than total populations favoured them. Whoever would have thought it?

That's a philosophical debate, which was discussed in Parliament.

If the LibDems had chosen to vote differently at the point when the Boundary Commission's *remit* was being discussed, that would have been respectable.

But they didn't: they chose, instead, to reject the outcome of an independent review because was in their interests to do so.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks.
"Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10956525/UBS-predicts-savings-flight-from-Scotland-in-the-event-of-yes-vote.html

Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.

If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?

eek said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks.
"Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10956525/UBS-predicts-savings-flight-from-Scotland-in-the-event-of-yes-vote.html

Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.

If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?

Airdrie Savings Bank.

eek said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks.
"Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10956525/UBS-predicts-savings-flight-from-Scotland-in-the-event-of-yes-vote.html

Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.

If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?

Off the top of my head, the only bank of any size would be the Clydesdale Bank, I believe.

AveryLP said:

Do we really want an electoral system that would increase the number of Green MPs and let College into Parliament?

I'm all for fairness and all that but such a change would be a step too far.

Lord help us there's enough dipsticks in all parties that an extra Green or a Kipper or two isn't going to upset the wally ratio of parliament too much and some even add to the gaiety of the nation.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

foxinsoxuk said:

There will be quite legitimate bleating about the LibDems ending the boundary review, so the election is run on seats that are 15 years out of date demographically.

I am a LibDem inclined voter but nonetheless thought that unjustifiable.

Define out of date. Many of the new seats were geographically bonkers, and that was timeless. They would have had whole towns with slivers of other towns to make up the numbers. You can't gerrymander an inherently 'unfair' system to make it 'fairer' - that was the Tory plan. You should rejoice that your party had the good sense to kill off the scheme.

The Tories weren't gerrymandering.

Parliament agreed the principles on which the boundary review would be carried out.

The independent Boundary Commission then came up with a proposal. Of course all the parties would have lobbied, but the Commission made a decision.

And then Labour and the LibDems rejected it for nakedly partisan reasons.

I've see the damage that partisan redistricting has done to the US. It would be a disaster if redistricting became political here.

Funnily enough, the Tory plan to base constituency sizes on numbers of registered voters rather than total populations favoured them. Whoever would have thought it?

That's a philosophical debate, which was discussed in Parliament.

If the LibDems had chosen to vote differently at the point when the Boundary Commission's *remit* was being discussed, that would have been respectable.

But they didn't: they chose, instead, to reject the outcome of an independent review because was in their interests to do so.

Yes, political parties act in their own interests. That's why the Tories proposed the changes they did, it is why Labour opposed them and it is why, in the end, the LibDems did not support them.

Whingers and bleaters out in force on a special thread designed for them .

Equal seat sizes are totally unrelated to getting a more proportional election result in terms of % seats for % votes .
You can have 600 constituencies with their electorates drawn at random via a raffle so that you can be in Constituency 145 , your wife in 322 and your son in 563 .Totally equal constituency sizes . Would it result in a proportional result ? No . One party with a small plurality would win all 600 seats and all other parties zero seats .
The bleaters say that Wales are over represented with 40 MPs they should have only 32 , Labour has therefore an unfair advantage as they have the majority of MPs in Wales . Would the BC review had reduced that advantage ? No - Labour would have lost 4 MPs Conservatives 3 and Plaid 1 under the new proposed boundaries

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

If the Tories somehow contrive to lose to EdM's Labour next year despite his crapness and an improving economy they will, no doubt, blame everyone but themselves. I'd expect particular ire to be aimed at: perfidious LibDems; duplicitous, lying Labour; the BBC; stupid voters; immigrants; sponging welfare junkies; the BBC; the Guardian; Scots; the BBC; trade unionists; public sector workers; the BBC; the metropolitan elite; the BBC; and the BBC.

You seem to have some obsession that the Tories should win.

However, you seem to base this on the economy and the character of the two potential PMs.

But, unfortunately, there are many many people who vote on other reasons.

Additionally, as we have seen, there is a small but systemic bias in the boundaries (wasn't there a thread last year which suggested it was 7-8 seats? But I don't recall if that was a total effect of 7-8 or whether that was a transfer of 7-8 from Labour to the Tories i.e. 14-16 for majority purposes). May be not a major effect, but in a tight race it could make all the difference.

But that's ok. The LibDems don't believe in doing the right thing

The Tories should win. Ed is crap. Labour is drifting. The economy is improving. They can get 47% of the seats in the Commons based on 36% of the vote. All they need is a tiny upswing for the FPTP system that so favours the big two parties to deliver them a majority.

You've ignored my point.

Let's say that there's a voter somewhere in the Midlands. (Let's call him CoventryWatcher).

He understands that the economy is improving, and that Ed is crap. He doesn't like the LibDems because they are illiberal and undemocratic. But he has some mystical view dating from the 1970s that all Tories are evil and therefore won't vote for them.

The problem is that lots of voters make their decisions for reasons that are not easily explained. But if they don't think that character or economic performance are important reasons to change their vote, then the Tories' strong advantage in these areas won't help them.

That's why your analysis is flawed. The Tories "problem" is that there was such a stark difference on both of these items in 2010 that it is hard to improve on them - they captured the vast majority of voters who think these items are important.

Got it - so the Tories need to make the electoral system more robust to protect the country from the actions of people who "illogically" do not vote Tory.

BobaFett said:

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

Gasman said:

BobaFett said:

Bollocks. You cannot have 'equal votes' in a non-proportional system. Another one who cannot grasp how FPP works.

Yes you can - you could have all constituency sizes the same, rather than some constituencies with 80000 people and others with 50000. What people do with their votes is up to them, but the starting point should be equal. Surely that's not to difficult to grasp?

To do that you will have to lump in coherent towns/islands with slivers of distant places to make up the numbers. The Western Isles would be lumped in with a chunk of the mainland with which it had no relationship. It would be a dog's breakfast.

And there is a good reason for treating, for instance, the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles as special cases. That is very from - for instance - saying that Kensington is very different to the western part of Hammersmith.

So you are already introducing special cases. Sign of a rotten system is that you have to break it to make it work. Forget your example of west London. Try adding tiny slivers of distant towns to whole other towns separated by open country - that is the consequence of seat equalisation. It was a bonkers proposal for the geographically challenged.

There was a margin of error ( +/- 5K?) to deal with that.

But equally, the difference between Fleet and Alton in Hampshire is not that significant.

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.

We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.

But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.

The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.

Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.

That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.

In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.

Financier said:

BobaFett said:

DavidL said:

The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.

We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.

But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.

Rubbish.
Mike's graph above shows that both the Tories and Labour gain massively from the current system. The Conservatuves wanted to gerrymander the system to give themselves an even bigger premium. It really is that simple. Anyone who thinks they would have been pushing for the changes did they not advantage them is a credulous fool. I don't recall the Tories lobbying to change the system when it favoured them over Labour in the 1980s.

@BobaFett
Obviously you do not know the meaning of 'gerrymander' To start with equal numbers of the electorate for each constituency (as far as is geographically possible) is not gerrymandering. It is democracy.

However to try to keep unequally electorate-sized constituencies for reasons of political advantage is, in effect, gerrymandering and is against democracy.

There is no contradiction -- you can gerrymander equally-sized constituencies by choosing to draw the boundaries so as to favour the party of your choice.

And by choosing what the equal size should be (so how many constituencies) and what should be equally sized (voters, registered voters, inhabitants).

O/T - why can't I see the comment as I'm typing it?

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

Charles said:

BobaFett said:

Gasman said:

BobaFett said:

Bollocks. You cannot have 'equal votes' in a non-proportional system. Another one who cannot grasp how FPP works.

Yes you can - you could have all constituency sizes the same, rather than some constituencies with 80000 people and others with 50000. What people do with their votes is up to them, but the starting point should be equal. Surely that's not to difficult to grasp?

To do that you will have to lump in coherent towns/islands with slivers of distant places to make up the numbers. The Western Isles would be lumped in with a chunk of the mainland with which it had no relationship. It would be a dog's breakfast.

And there is a good reason for treating, for instance, the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles as special cases. That is very from - for instance - saying that Kensington is very different to the western part of Hammersmith.

So you are already introducing special cases. Sign of a rotten system is that you have to break it to make it work. Forget your example of west London. Try adding tiny slivers of distant towns to whole other towns separated by open country - that is the consequence of seat equalisation. It was a bonkers proposal for the geographically challenged.

There was a margin of error ( +/- 5K?) to deal with that.

But equally, the difference between Fleet and Alton in Hampshire is not that significant.

The margin of error +/- 5% was insufficient to deal with that hence the proposed constituency with 3 left over bits of Cheshire with no relationship to each other and no transport connections between them . A MofE of +/- 10% would have worked much better .

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T - why can't I see the comment as I'm typing it?

Communications intercept.

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

The failure to implement the boundary changes was a disgrace. There is no reason at all why a vote in the north west of England should be given so much more weight than a vote in the south. It is undemocratic and a form of disenfranchisement for those in the larger constituencies.

We also still have far too many politicians feeding off the public purse. The absurd House of Lords is the worst example of that but a reduction in the number of MPs to 600 (!) would have been a start.

But these ships have sailed and we are where we are. The quirks that meant that Labour got a substantial winners bonus for, err, losing in 2010 will in my view be much diminished in 2015. The main losers will of course be UKIP but it was ever thus for minority parties.

The Tories wanted a system that favoured them so they decided constituency sizes should be based on registered voters rather than overall populations. To pretend that this was anything other than an attempt to make a system that already favours them even more favourable is laughable. That does not make them any worse than the other parties, it just does not make them any better.

Registered voters seems to me the only valid basis on which to allocate seats. Only those registered can vote so the others do not count whether they are eligible for the vote or not.

That said the number of unregistered voters in this country, largely still a consequence of the Poll tax fiasco, is a disgrace and it is incredible that in 13 years of government Labour did so little about it.

In a modern society the State has so much information about most of us. It is wrong that information is not used to ensure the right to vote. As an example if you can satisfy the state that you qualify for housing benefit you should be automatically registered to vote. If you register your children in a school you should be registered. If you fill in a tax return etc etc. We need to be wary of fraud but all of these activities involve far more information than we currently require to register to vote.

MPs represent all their constituents, not just the ones that are on the electoral register. Many options were suggested to reflect this. The Tories ignored these and chose the one that suited them best.