politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In 2010 only 47% of voters had decided the way they were go

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.

Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.

So voters got the MPs they voted for, just as they did in Bootle and Doncaster. The only difference is that the good burghers of Sussex got fewer MPs, of any party, than voters in some predominatnly Labour-voting areas, such as Wales and the North East.

Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.

Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).

2005 vs 2010:

Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62
Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)

Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%)
Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority

In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.

Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.

EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jeremy_Brown said:

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Carswell has delusions of grandeur.

I still don't buy the 'I'm terribly principled' line. How convenient that being terribly principled coincidences with defecting to save his career.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Jonathan, nice red herring. Labour want to throw in regionalisation, city-mayors, local councils, the House of Lords and even the electoral system to stop giving England equality with Scotland.

"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.

I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.

It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".

Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.

Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.

Farage is a very clever politician, with significant oratorical skills, who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg, and now seems set to win his first Westminster seat.

Voters tend to predict that the Liberal Democrats will fade from relevance by 2025 – but that UKIP will remain an important political force

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/voters-think-lib-dems-will-fade-away/

FrankBooth said:

Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.

On that logic, Mr. Booth, the Labour party must be being run for the benefit of the trade unions in general and a couple in particular because they are the ones who will be funding its election campaign. Do you believe that? I don't, but that is the logical conclusion of your belief in the idea that parties are run for the organisations that pay for them.

JonCisBack said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CopperSulphate said:

Roger said:

EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.

Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".

.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.

Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?

In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.

Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.

Oh dear.

FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.

Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.

To be technical, AV was rejected.

Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?

The Scottish subsample (I know, I know...) makes particularly grim reading for the Lib Dems on 'will fade away'

Will fade away by 2025 (net)
OA: +23
Scot: +46

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/full-results-future-liberal-democrats/

HurstLlama said:

FrankBooth said:

Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.

On that logic, Mr. Booth, the Labour party must be being run for the benefit of the trade unions in general and a couple in particular because they are the ones who will be funding its election campaign. Do you believe that? I don't, but that is the logical conclusion of your belief in the idea that parties are run for the organisations that pay for them.

The trade unions have millions of members paying a small amount to the Labour party. There are problems with that, I think Miliband's reforms about opting in are right, but ultimately the interests of most unite members are not very different from most of the public. They want good living standards, publlic services, protection from crime. It's hard to suggest the Tories' millionaire (billionaire?) funders aren't out of touch with what most people need.

FrankBooth said:

Plato - I'm not saying all Tories are fawning over the rich. But your leadership does and that is who your party is run for. Bankers, property developers, rent seekers of all kinds. I'm sorry you don't see it, but ask yourself this. Who is funding the Tories' election campaign which we're lead to believe is a considerable war chest? Old ladies making jam? Certainly not the dwindling band of members who don't even pay much for their yearly subscription.

So it was tories was it who fawned over bankers between 1997 and 2010? It was tories was it who were happy to see the 40% top rate preserved all through that time? It was the tories who got millions of funding from Lord Sainsbury (and other millionaires), the same Sainsbury who then got a government job?
No of course not. Some of us remember Brown fawning over bankers; some of us remember Brown cosying up to the Lloyds chariman over cocktails and persuading him to shred shareholder value.
And some of us ask ourselves this... who is funding the Labour election campaign? If you can say that all the millions donated by the unions do not buy influence then you and your divisive arguments do not have a leg to stand on.

Slackbladder said:

corporeal said:

JonCisBack said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CopperSulphate said:

Roger said:

EVEL shows a meanness of spirit which many of us associate with being a Tory.

Meannes of spirit in this case meaning "not doing exactly what Labour want".

.. and which gives them an unfair advantage, additional to that they already get from the small constituency sizes in Labour-voting areas.

Are Labour supporters actually democrats at all?

In 2010, the Tories got 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote. In W. Sussex they got 100% of the seats on less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dems on 30%+ zero seats.

Looking forward to seeing Tory plans to address this.

Oh dear.

FPTP was resoundingly endorsed by referendum. FPTP (however unfair you think it is overall) is in itself fairest when the constituency sizes are equal and decided independently by the boundary commission.

Labour and the LDs however don't agree with this utterly unarguable statement, simply because they benefit from the current unfairness, and so this situation was not allowed to come to pass. unfairly.

Also, LDs benefit from FPTP? How do you work that one out?

Ask them after the next election... FPTP might just save their bacon after working against them for so long.

Eh, don't see it. Probably the best FPTP result likely for the Lib Dems would be one that was close to proportional.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up a market for next year.

Over/Under market on Labour's share of the vote (UK wide) being 36.1%

Which is what the Tories got in 2010.

What would the price PBers reckon would be a fair prices on that market.

Unders.

1-6 maybe.

Tissue_Price said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up a market for next year.

Over/Under market on Labour's share of the vote (UK wide) being 36.1%

Which is what the Tories got in 2010.

What would the price PBers reckon would be a fair prices on that market.

2/5 Under
7/4 Over?

Labour aren't polling that now. Where are they getting more votes from? The Greens, perhaps. 1/6 Under 7/2 Over looks closer to the mark. They are 3.2 for a majority on betfair and that will include lots of sub 36% scenarios (qv. 2005).

They are polling it with some firms aren't they?

You're probably nearer the mark though, agreed

TheWatcher said:

SquareRoot said:

Someone on here posted that Nick Palmer could be ,despite ed being crap, secure in the knowledge that he would beat Anna Soubry in the GE. That is complacency of the highest order. I feel sure NPEXMP is not thinking that way at all.....

Not with all those lovely expenses waiting for the winner.

As I've wryly observed before, I shall be a bit better off if I lose (mainly because otherwise 5 years of Parliamentary pension go in the bin - the pension doesn't increase in real terms if you take it later, even though you've giving up 5 years of life expectancy). But I'm genuinely not bothered about that - life is about satisfaction and fun.

Square Root is of course right (though I think he meant it satirically) - I don't spend every weekend pounding doorsteps for fun. It seems reasonably hopeful - I need an 0.4% swing, there was a LibDem vote of 17% last time, the LibDems don't even have a candidate yet and we are in coalition with them locally, UKIP is actively targetting the Tory vote, and the Conservatives appear to have near-zero active local members apart from the MP and a few councillors (though they have zillions of direct mails and emails and some public meetings).

But can it be taken for granted? Of course not. I assume I maximised my personal vote last time (people die, move, forget) and there ought to be at least some incumbency bonus even though we're not really encountering it. My best guess is that I'll win if Labour leads nationally or Tories lead by < 5%, and the Tories will win if they have a national lead >10%, anything else is a toss-up.

CarlottaVance said:

The Scottish subsample (I know, I know...) makes particularly grim reading for the Lib Dems on 'will fade away'

Will fade away by 2025 (net)
OA: +23
Scot: +46

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/full-results-future-liberal-democrats/

Ian Dale predicts Danny will hold his seat, I simply don't see that myself - it looks like an SNP gain to me.

@NickPaImer

Hmm, bearing in mind that Nottingham City has a hyperactive poIicy re forcing students to Iive in haIIs and a pretty savage poIicy on imposing costs on shared houses, and that a Iarge uni and a Iarge teaching hospitaI are on your side of the City, do you see students and yuppies forced into BassetIaw affecting your demograhics significantIy?

How wouId that pIay?

Are there many Greenies around there?

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.

Poppycock.

But even if that were true, it's better than Labour, who don't support fairness at all.

How can you possibly claim to be a democrat and support a party which:

1. Wants an unfair advantage in constituency sizes
2. Wants Scots to have be able to impose a block of 40 Labour MPs on English affairs, without the English having any say in the equivalent Scottish affairs

Arguing that FPTP is unfair is irrelevant to the argument, because it is the system we have, and in any case Labour don't want to change it. Even if they did want to change it, items 1 and 2 would still be a disgrace, which no reasonable person could possibly defend.

That's correct. On this issue, Labour want no fairness, the Lib Dems want a partial fairness but with an add-on so it's favoured to them, the Conservatives want partial fairness and UKIP want total fairness.

I though both the LibDems and latterly UKIP want proportional representation.

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

is.

Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.

Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).

2005 vs 2010:

Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62
Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)

Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%)
Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority

In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.

Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.

EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

Using electorate is pointless at best and misleading at worst. Turnout was higher in 2010 than 2005, but all elections are decided by those who actually vote. Labour won about 24% of the electorate in 2001 but because turnout was so low that was a strong result.

Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.

It hurts the other parties.

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.

It's actually a much bigger margin of error than that both before and after the proposed changes, because they equalize on voter registration not actual voting. That means that if your neighbour registers but doesn't show up on the day, you get to allocate part of their share of power.

antifrank said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

The Scottish subsample (I know, I know...) makes particularly grim reading for the Lib Dems on 'will fade away'

Will fade away by 2025 (net)
OA: +23
Scot: +46

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/07/full-results-future-liberal-democrats/

Ian Dale predicts Danny will hold his seat, I simply don't see that myself - it looks like an SNP gain to me.

It's an interesting test for Labour voters in this seat. Do they vote tactically for the SNP to oust the hated ginger rodent or for the Lib Dems against the wild-eyed nationalists? Danny Alexander looks sunk to me if he can't enlist support from erstwhile Conservatives and some Labour supporters.

Labour sympathisers will probably vote Labour there - I can't really see them voting tactically Lib Dem and they might think they have a chance themselves. I don't think they do, but Labour certainly won't tell anyone there to vote tactically/soft pedal it.

Tissue_Price said:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh

Miliband at PrideOfBritain awards last night. Carol Vorderman: 'Good job I had an autocue for that bit. Lesson for you there, Ed?' #awkward

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh

Now Q is whether ITV will screen Vorderman's jibe at Miliband tonite? Source tells me lots of non-political guests got joke

This has got traction all the way to May.

She is such an arch Conservative I don't think they will

It is increasingly becoming aware that the opponents of constitutional reform (or rather, equality of representation for the four UK regions) follow this pattern:

1) Deny it is a problem
2) When experts disagree, claim that the reality is that people do not understand or care about the inequality
3) Claim that proposed changes are partisan (I lost any respect I had for an academic who taught me at Oxford after reading the tosh about the Scottish indyref in this week's LRB)

But the problem is this formula misses the point - ignoring unequal applications of power within a democracy will result in electoral demolition, EVENTUALLY. This may not be net month, or next year, but the levels of dissatisfaction with services, and distribution of the costs, will eventually be connected to the constitutional settlement.

Incidentally, didn't tim of this Parish have a 4 step process, reported as infinitum, for something to do with political communications?

corporeal said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

is.

Tories are only interested in fairness when it gives them more power.

Tories have quite enough power already on 37% of the vote (24% of the electorate).

2005 vs 2010:

Lab 2005 9.5m votes 35.7% (21.6% of all voters), 355 seats (55%), majority of 62
Con 2005 8.8m votes 31.7% (19.9% of all voters), 198 seats (31%)

Lab 2010 8.6m votes 29% (18.9% of all voters), 258 seats (40%)
Con 2010 10.7m votes 36.1% (23.5% of all voters), 307 seats (47%), 19 short of a majority

In 2005 Labour won just 21.6% of the electorate and received a 62 seat majority or 55% of all seats in Parliament, and they were just 1.7% ahead of the opposition in terms of the total electorate, they received just 8.5% more votes. In 2010 the Tories came up 19 seats short but had a higher proportion of the electorate, more votes overall (though nothing like Major and Thatcher) and received 24.3% more votes than the opposition. Or look at it in terms of opposition, in 2010 Labour had fewer votes (18.9%) than the Cons in 2005 (19.9%) but got 40% of all seats vs 31% for the Cons in 2005, or 30% more seats in absolute terms with 200,000 fewer votes and a smaller proportion of them.

Labour are only interested in keeping the unfairness going because they know without it they are done as a serious party.

EV4EL is only the start of getting a proper and fair settlement, we either need an English Parliament and proper devolution for England or English Parliament days at Westminster where only English MPs sit and the party that holds the English majority sits on the government benches. We also need to fix the boundaries so that they are all the same size. Whether that is 650 MPs or 600 is irrelevant people deserve the same amount of representation in Parliament, where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

Using electorate is pointless at best and misleading at worst. Turnout was higher in 2010 than 2005, but all elections are decided by those who actually vote. Labour won about 24% of the electorate in 2001 but because turnout was so low that was a strong result.

Currently the system is skewed to disproportionately benefit Labour the most, and the Conservatives, second most.

It hurts the other parties.

I was only using it to respond to this idiotic idea that somehow the Tories have "enough" power with just 24% of the electorate voting for them. They have a significantly less power than Labour who received votes from just 21.6% of the electorate in 2005.

corporeal said:

How did your fringe go earlier, I saw you about but had to dash off.

Not bad - it helps to have a friendly Minister (Norman Baker is excellent from the viewpoint of animal welfare people) and had genuinely interesting things to say. Turnout was modest (about 15) but better than at the Tories' conference, where we made the mistake of having a breakfast fringe in mid-conference (people go to late-night parties and don't fancy an 8am event). There was another PBer there who may want to contribute his impressions but I'll leave to him whether he wants to.

MattW said:

@NickPaImer

Hmm, bearing in mind that Nottingham City has a hyperactive poIicy re forcing students to Iive in haIIs and a pretty savage poIicy on imposing costs on shared houses, and that a Iarge uni and a Iarge teaching hospitaI are on your side of the City, do you see students and yuppies forced into BassetIaw affecting your demograhics significantIy?

How wouId that pIay?

Are there many Greenies around there?

We're not much affected demographically by City policies - we have a few halls of residence and some private rentals, but I've not heard of them heading off to Bassetlaw.

The Greens got 0.8% last time and should do similarly this time- they do at least have a candidate selected.

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.

If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.

Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.

I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.

I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.

Slackbladder said:

When Carol Vorderman of all people is openly mocking you, you really have hit rock bottom.

If the "you" being mocked were a Conservative, I would agree, but as Vorderman is a dyedinthewool Tory, her mocking the Labour leader is barely worth a comment

MaxPB said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.

If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.

Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.

I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.

I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.

Indeed - there is a potential argument to be made (I am not sure that I am there yet but...) that given the lack of community representation - that people should be allowed to align in non-geographic communities to elect MP's. Particularly somewhere like London with graduates moving house every 12months or so, but keeping the same set of friends and communities, a geographic basis for electing MP's seems... well... old-fashioned.

antifrank said:

I don't think political leaders need worry too much about a bit of teasing from celebrities. That's an occupational hazard.

That's not the problem. The problem was that everyone got the joke :-)

MaxPB said:

I was only using it to respond to this idiotic idea that somehow the Tories have "enough" power with just 24% of the electorate voting for them. They have a significantly less power than Labour who received votes from just 21.6% of the electorate in 2005.

Eh, that point carries across to the Tories having a higher % of seats than % of votes.

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Jeremy_Brown said:

JosiasJessop said:

Socrates said:

"Save his career"! He had a huge stonking majority and was highly popular as the local MP. He was sure to get re-elected as a Tory.

I've got more than a little time for Carswell, but 'saving his career' might refer to a political career aside from being a backbench MP. Carswell was too outspoken for high ministerial/shadow post within the Conservative Party; as one of a handful of UKIP MPs he will certainly get a strong shadow brief.

It's bizarre. Maybe I'm a poor judge of character but I always saw Carswell as a small government libertarian lite with a small hang up about Europe. As such I found him a very enjoyable read and opinion maker. Is that really what UKIP is about? I see them as much more authoritarian and intrusive into peoples lives (social/intrusive conservatives). Sad to think that Carswell is of the same ilk. Even sadder to think he's gone in with the intention of thinking "he can change them".

Carswell will be a positive bonus for UKIP. I'm not so sure he will get on very well with Farage, especially if Farage yet again fails to get elected at the GE. Farage is an intellectual pygmy in comparison.

Unfortunately, Carswell might be a little too right-wing to hold together UKIP's current nebulous support from both the left and right of politics. But perhaps he can find a way to do it.

Carswell's politics turn out to be surprisingly agile, because he does libertarianism but he also does localism. That means he can make a principled stand for pretty much any position: If he doesn't want the government to do something it's libertarian, and if he does it's localism. For example, this "libertarian" is currently attacking the Tories for wanting the government to allow to people build houses in Clacton.

Is that any different to believing in any political philosophy plus democracy? I can support unionism while still getting angry if Scotland voted to secede and the UK didn't let it.

The whole point of libertarianism is supposed to be that people don't have the right use the government to deprive each other of the freedom to do things without some actual, direct harm, so yes, I think it's different to your example.

Flightpath said:

''... who has taken his fringe party to the apex of UK power at Strasbourg'' --- In the one election where his USP was to the fore (ie EU membership and not in the least about running the country) we saw 78% of the country that could be bothered to vote, vote against him.
If the UKIP party win in Clacton it will be a ready made victory by an already sitting MP. For many of not all then in Carswell they are still voting for an 'independent' Tory.

We can all spin statistics, you just accept that UKIP beat the rest on offer

What % of the Country didn't back the Conservatives in 2010? Cameron is probably the PM with one of the weakest mandates of all time, but it would be pathetic to use that as a criticism as he was the most popular on offer

Lennon said:

MaxPB said:

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

.. where one lives is no longer of any relevance to representation. We have universal suffrage, and now we need fair and equal suffrage for every person in the UK.

You can't get that by making a minor change to the current rules, of reducing the error margin from +/-10% to +/-5%.

If you're saying that representation of communities is now dead, but equal representation of each vote is more important, then that's an argument against single member constituencies and in favour of some form of PR for multi-member constituencies.

Cameron's minor change to boundaries is neither here nor there - though by creating some daft boundaries it itself undermines the community representation principle of FPTP in single member constituencies.

I agree with that sentiment, I prefer FPTP to AV which to me is just a crooked system, but I am open to full PR and STV.

I think fixing the boundaries so that every vote in the country carries equal representation and value would be a start, but yes, it is just part of a much larger change that is needed to ensure that people's voices are heard equally.

Indeed - there is a potential argument to be made (I am not sure that I am there yet but...) that given the lack of community representation - that people should be allowed to align in non-geographic communities to elect MP's. Particularly somewhere like London with graduates moving house every 12months or so, but keeping the same set of friends and communities, a geographic basis for electing MP's seems... well... old-fashioned.

Yup, the obvious way to do it is just to make a big, national list and let the voters vote for whoever they like. Some candidates will focus on geographic areas, others on organic mutual interest groups. Voters who are exercised about their local areas will vote for the former which will work out the same as the current system, but I reckon most voters will choose the latter...

Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, is to be appointed the Liberal Democrats’ chief economics spokesman in the next UK general election rather than the business secretary, Vince Cable, according to Liberal Democrat sources.

The announcement is due to be included as part of a small Liberal Democrat reshuffle that may see Jo Swinson elevated to the cabinet as Scottish secretary, replacing Alistair Carmichael, who was a leading figure in the campaign to retain Scotland as part of the UK

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/07/lib-dems-danny-alexander-chief-economics-spokesman

antifrank said:

Damian McBride ‏@DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago
There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.

Yond Balls has a lean and hungry look? Hungry, maybe...

Alastaire

"The handful of Scottish Labour MPs who went down to London to vote against Same Sex Marriage in England and Wales was an astoundingly shameful act."

Anyone got a list of these miscreants?

SimonStClare said:

antifrank said:

Damian McBride ‏@DPMcBride · 11m11 minutes ago
There comes a time when every leader needs 'fat men' around them. Ed M will finally be learning that now.

do what ? - Is that some odd reference to Labour Grandee John Prescott?

Julius Caesar, scene ii:

CAESAR: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.