Categories
Options
Something to ponder – politicalbetting.com
Something to ponder – politicalbetting.com
Why the Tories have more to fear from a Starmer-led coalition than an outright Labour victory https://t.co/MDuUTk5605
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And no way would Starmer impose it.
After around 10 years of instability after moving from FPP, it works very well I think.
Utterly off topic but does anyone know if you can have Picture In Picture for multiple football matches on Sky Q? I want to be able to watch the Liverpool game but also have the Villa/City game on too. Could steam the latter on my Laptop, but any good way to get PIP working instead?
If you scroll through the TV guide on the screen you can get an image of channels sometimes but then you have the rest of the bar popping up too, not sure if there's a way to just get the picture and nothing else?
Right now, if you want to know eg the MP for Newcastle Under Lyme then you can know who that is. STV that link would be lost and there wouldn't be an MP for Newcastle under Lyme, there'd be another MP for Stoke on Trent instead.
Sounds about right.
If you're going to insist upon STV it's the best version of it.
The answer to this is -- careful what you pray for.
The LibDems think this will help them.
Their experience in both Scotland & Wales strongly suggests otherwise.
There is also the issue that STV is only really a semi proportional system particularly with only 3/4 member constituencies (as mainly used in Scotland)compared with 5 member seats in NI.
That about wraps it up for Forsyth. Silly person.
ETA only hint of a way round this would be electoral reform in the Lab manifesto, and why would they do that?
The difference was staggering.
Why shouldn't we want to know the MP for Knutton or Chesterton? Instead of subsuming them within bigger locations? Indeed, why not an MP for 34 Hereford Avenue?
Although Verstappen is trying his best to crash into Russell.
You wanna approach it via HoL reform. Sack the current bunch of Lebedevs, new Houe elected by STV, ooh look that works so well we will generalise it to HoC next time round.
The idea that a hung parliament where the SNP has the 'balance of power' and is forced to prop up Lab and LDs is good for the SNP as opposed to throwing mud at a Lab-LD or Lab majority gvt from opposition is also dubious IMO.
So while you might be mocking, actually yes everything that can be determined at an individual or household level absolutely should be!
However politics means that we need MPs for issues that individuals can't resolve and having those MPs be elected in single member constituencies and not rotten boroughs or multimember constituencies maximises the level of granularity to ensure local areas each get their own say.
Suddenly Verstappen favourite to win unless he bins it again.
And all of a sudden…
Ferrari.
I have some cash on Perez at nice odds.
I could live with Perez winning too, but Bottas would be funnier.
In my experience thee are two reasons for contacting an MP.
1. To, deal with some problem which is governmental in nature, or relates to relationship with a government authority or
2. To complain about, or urges changes to, some aspect of government policy.
In the first instance, under the present system one may well get a helpful answer, unless it turns out there is a 'political' dimension.
In the second, one will, eventually, get a polite reply thanking the poster if the MP is 'supportive' of the policy, or noting it if the MP is opposed.
How is that affected if the area if bigger, and MP's are of different parties? For the better, I would have thought.
I'm beginning to think this is an elaborate hoax.
If anything it has had the opposite effect, making it easier for Independents to prosper. There have been quite a lot of Irish politicians who have managed to be re-elected after being thrown out of their party, and that's because of STV - we saw how brutal FPTP is to politicians who lose the party rosette at GE2019.
Scale that up to the UK population you'd need about 2200 MPs in the Commons.
2200 MPs in the Commons would have more granularity still with single member constituencies but realistically we aren't going to have that many, are we?
But I don't expect him to win unless Vercrash'em messes up again.
Oh, and
Wordle 337 2/6
⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
The car was plastered with his name and phone number. And he was wearing the trademark Healy-Rae flat cap.
TDs in Ireland go to enormous efforts to cultivate local support. Where a party is attempting to win more than one seat in a constituency they will normally split it so that, to use Bart's example, one candidate will act as the champion for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the other for Stoke. Politics is incredibly local, because that's what the voters vote for.
There’s a fair case for it, as it is taxing a genuine extraordinary windfall, and energy companies have themselves said it wouldn’t unduly effect their investment decisions.
Westminster and Whitehall have not been fit for purpose for some time. Electoral reform is necessary, but insufficient to set this country up for success.
For large countries, it doesn't happen. There's over 100k population per MP in this country and further divorcing politics from location doesn't help that at all.
To be like Ireland we'd need to have close to 4 times as many MPs as we do now, and I don't see anyone advocating that.
The local MP can be the port of last resort for some problems, and I think that might work better if there was some choice rather than "must be this one person, nobody else".
Your hypothesis is contradicted by observation.
Ireland shows that multi-member constituencies don't stop politics from being local.
There's only one MP per constituency in this country.
Try having 2200 single member FPTP constituencies for a like-for-like comparison and see how "local" FPTP gets.
Or consider the UK having just 130 five member constituencies and then it'd be a like for like comparison.
Any advantages Ireland has from being small is because Ireland is small, not because of their voting system. We are never going to be able to have their granularity without thousands of MPs which nobody advocates, but only having 650MPs in 130 five member constituencies isn't going to make politics more local, it'll see representation for areas currently reserved to get a representative wiped out instead.
LOL.
Sounds like you were right about the shafting.
No surprise.
More MPs per population inevitably gives more local granularity, as does smaller constituencies.
Due to their tiny size they manage have roughly the same number of constitiencies we have when you scale it but with multiple members per constituency, we couldn't do that without quadrupling our number of MPs.
If you want a like for like comparison you'd need to compare us with an STV nation with a comparable number of population per representative.
Eliminate three quarters of their representatives or quadruple ours and you'd have a like for like comparison.
Chance of Bottas podium still.
Edit, gone.
Time to put an end to FPTP, which is wrongly named. The present system should be called Leading Candidate Grabs Everything. It suits the Tory Party, of course.
An electoral system that would damage the local link would be something like closed list PR. But that's very different to STV. You can't just use the same arguments against all proportional systems as though they're the same.
Obviously we need the Seventh Vote.
Or is that all wet as an idea?
If they can properly sort the chassis they’re a real contender for wins this season - and with no real chance if the championship, they might try what they did last year and take penalties to get extra greasy engines.
Could really mess with the Red Bull / Ferrari fight.
Changing the voting system without some deeper change of the political system seems pointless at best, and probably counterproductive.
The question advocates have to answer is "what are you trying to achieve"? In 2011, the answer was "Lib Dems want more Lib Dem MPs", and the public accordingly rejected the proposal decisively.
I'm not sure the arguments have moved on since then.
I don't think labour will end up largest party. I do think they may be able to cobble together a majority if they include the snp. I think if they do it will end labour
If he shoots 64(-6) and he shot 65(-5) on Thursday he'd be in with a chance.
The current leader Guillermo Mito Pereira has no major championship pedigree.
The John Cleese attitude that the only reason people aren't voting Lib Dem is they think they wont win.
It's ironic that in the past decade there have been two major binary referendums first proposed by the Lib Dems, for which tactical voting couldn't be an issue, and they lost them both.
Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.
New engines not fully sorted either, by the sound of it.
The problem with trying to be all things to all people is you can be nothing to anyone.
They are the political equivalent of the Jack of All Trades.
Clegg was horrified when Cameron adopted Clegg's policy.
It’s an open wound and the Tories will rub shite in it to make it worse, like the Viet Cong
Cameron explicitly opposes "ever closer union" (i.e. a federal EU/United States of Europe). The Conservatives (mostly) want a move back more towards the common market (knowing that if the renegotiation fails outright the British people will vote OUT come the referendum).
Certainly the more proportional scottish system has effectively been hacked by the electorate to give FPTP outcomes