politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Under single constituency first past the post system nation
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Under single constituency first past the post system national aggregate vote totals don’t mean that much
There’s lots of talk at the moment about the electoral “system being bust” and “no longer fit for purpose”. What is being pointed to are possible disparities between national aggregate vote shares and the total of MPs each party gets.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11240700/School-marked-down-by-Ofsted-for-being-too-white.html Ofsted denied it was marked down for that reason, but its going to be hard work to sell the parents, or come to that, the public on that.
It is estimated that 108,000 homes – the vast majority in London and the South East – will be caught by the tax.
108,000 homes at £3000 each is less than a third of a billion, not exactly the 1.5bn Balls was promising, he would have to charge £15k/year to make that. Another money making wheeze bites the dust.
POEWAS
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115925336
While I bow to no-one in my dislike of political correctness (and dislike for the state's involvement in the provision of certain services), I suspect this was one of about 1,000 reasons. So, were you to be in possession of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97
2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8
3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues
...
107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
...
944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
"The void in British politics"
http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/11/19/the-void-in-british-politics/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11242183/EU-must-change-or-we-quit-Tory-policy-chief-issues-warning-on-eve-of-Rochester-by-election.html
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97
2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8
3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues
...
107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
...
944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf
As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
What an excellent point, Mike.
It is the stupidest policy by a major political party since Michael Foot's unilateral nuclear disarmament. It may have huge implications for Labour in London.
No I don't think the Uni fees or pasty tax are comparable. The Mansion Tax has alienated a lot of very influential people not simply in business but also in the print media; actors; directors, writers, musicians. The list could go on, but hopefully you get the point. It's what are disparagingly called the New Labour luvvies who have been hit by this and they're a different kind of core supporter. Left-leaning, highly influential, people.
I think they would lose without it, but Miliband's Mansion Tax may have cost Labour the General Election.
Don't think Nadine is one of them but she will have to defect if she wants my vote again.
Big tirade about how UKIP is bad for politics, and somehow they fail to mention anywhere in the article that the author is Deputy Chairman of the Bermondsey & Old Southwark Conservative Association.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11239989/The-rise-of-Ukip-has-been-bad-for-British-politics.html
But if you think hitting parents and students with an extra £20k of uni tax doesn't piss them off you're mistaken. Cleggy is now paying the price at the polls and all of us will pay the price in our taxes as the policy is a fkup.
I didn't see the luvvies trying to storm Labour CCHQ yesterday.
At GE2015 it could be that FPTP is the only thing that sustains the Liberal Democrats as a major party of consequence at Westminster, and the relatively poor showing by the Liberal Democrats in the PR system for the European Parliament elections suggests that - free of the tyranny of tactical voting - the Liberal Democrats would receive surprisingly few votes in Westminster elections where national aggregate vote totals were mroe important.
The obvious two possibilities are that:
Either he is a bit wet and can't hold his nerve
Or it's squeaky bum time and closer than he wanted.
It could be a combination of the two. I still think UKIP will win, and win clear, but it looks like it could be in single figures now rather than the thumping victory UKIP expected when they polled before his defection. That explains the Reckless fabrication.
This isn't true at all. I supported AV, but we can't pretend that the public's preferred system isn't proportional representation.
So the "curious timing" as you put it might not be indicative of any motivation on the part of Reckless, but simply because he answered the questions of a journalist who was looking for easy copy to publish.
That said much of the current national vote share in opinion polls for UKIP appears to be motivated by conviction and principle, rather than local tactical voting considerations, so you would expect that it would survive the transition to a PR system. Though the turnout is low, and some Conservatives may lend their vote to UKIP to make a point, it's interesting that UKIP have always out performed their national vote share in the Westminster opinion polls in the European Parliament elections (under PR).
"Hello, how can I help you"
"It looking good for your team tomorrow, do you think there will be any more defections"
"Well I can't really say, its up to the individual members"
"Surely you must have some idea"
"Well I have spoken to a few people of course but I doubt they will defect this close to an election"
"So can you rule out any more defections to UKIP"
"Of course I can't, there is always a chance there might be one or two"
"Thank you for your time"
Headline: "Reckless: Two defections to UKIP"
As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
The pernicious effects of FPTP have been that it has over time resulted in the recreation of an ever increasing number of rotten burghs where voting is pointless. Turnout has suffered as a result. 30-40 years ago where the Tories were competitive in large parts of Scotland and Labour in large parts of the south the system worked tolerably well (unless you were a Lib Dem of course). It encouraged broad church parties who could appeal to a sufficiently broad range of voters and generally kept both of our main parties within at least touching distance of some middle ground. Those that stepped off it, such as Foot's labour party, were severely punished.
As we go towards a multiparty system combined with areas of regional strength it clearly works less well. The Scottish "top up" system for the Scottish Parliament is worth a look at as an alternative. But we would need to at least halve the number of constituency MPs for that to work. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind and not just because of the weather.
I think UKIPs main selling point is not being CON, LAB or LIB to be honest, I doubt most of their voters even look at the manifesto, as I said before its the "dispossessed social conservative vote", the "left behind vote", the "inchoate rage vote", the "a plague on all their houses vote" and the "none of the above vote"... but votes never the less, and ones that the main parties with their liberal sensibilities appear happy to lose. Farage probably listens to all the insults, and then cries all the way to the polling booth.
I would wager that in the GE 2015 UNS will still be a good indicator of the actual result in spite of complications from 4 party contests.However I would also wager that there will be quite rightly a huge call for proper PR from UKIP,the Greens and and the Lib Dems. If Labour get the the largest number of seats but a vote share below the Tories we could have even the Cons calling for PR!
South Georgia appears available ....
The UK is 4th in the world on an entrepreneurial index, its highest ever rating and well ahead of its main competitors in the EU. These tables involve so many value judgments as to be highly suspect but those that claim this government has done nothing for business, yes, I mean you Alanbrooke, should reflect on the fact that things could be much worse and almost certainly will be if Ed gets in.
Incoming ....
Ascension, on the other hand, is a bit of a hole....
Never let it be said JackW isn't open to reasoned debate.
There are also some fairly devious tactical voting considerations that come into play - if your preferred party is likely to do well in the constituencies then voting for them in the regional lists is almost pointless, as they could win enough FPTP constituencies not to be able to win any top-up seats - thus you are encouraged to vote for a different party to your first choice.
Such a top-up system would be better (I think) if the regional seats were allocated on the basis of the aggregate votes in the constituencies in that region, rather than having two separate votes. Unfortunately you are then forced to use a closed list system, under which Neil Hamilton might still be an elected member of our national Parliament.
Oh, and one option that would avoid having to reduce the number of constituencies for the Commons would be to have the "top-up" MPs become members of an elected House of Lords.
"To many, in any case, their vote is for an individual not a party or a potential prime minister. Incumbency can be a key element thus undermining a bit further the idea that national party totals are important."
I wholly disagree with this "many". I wonder if it is perhaps more true from a LibDem perspective, but it does not sit with my observations of getting on for 40 years door-knocking wearing the blue rosette. My experience is the overwhelming consideration for general election voters is party. Then leaders can be a significant factor (Thatcher - both pro and very anti; Kinnock very anti, Blair very pro, Howard anti, Brown - some pro but mostly strongly anti, and with Miliband being strongly anti unless some remarkable change occurs).
Personal votes for candidates are certainly there, but to balance this, I often find just as many who were really underwhelmed with their sitting MP. "What's (s)he done for me/the constituency? Bugger all...."
[not James]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/11241579/UK-is-most-entrepreneurial-country-in-Europe.html
Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?
Brent Crude seems to be hovering ~$78.
"The Mansion Tax has alienated a lot of very influential people not simply in business but also in the print media; actors; directors, writers, musicians. The list could go on, but hopefully you get the point. It's what are disparagingly called the New Labour luvvies who have been hit by this and they're a different kind of core supporter. Left-leaning, highly influential, people."
What Tories can't get is that the reason these people are 'New Labour Luvvies' is because they believe in the wealthy paying more tax and they include themselves. If they had the mindset of what's mine is mine and the government can keep their hands off it they'd be Tories like Myleene and Griff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11239064/Young-Londoners-forced-to-eat-on-the-landing-and-hang-out-on-the-stairs.html
Ironically, what we got, which is loans with income-contingent repayments, might actually be a bloody good idea, but just not for this. If I were a (Shadow) Treasury SpAd, I'd be looking hard for other grants that could be turned into income-contingent loans.
Do you have any hypotheses?
1am or later?
"Get the rich to pay more" seems to mean "Get people that are richer than me to pay more".
The London Tax is already causing real disquiet among London Labour MPs.
It seems that they feel London is a more important cause than the NHS,
The polls have been open for over an hour now, so he should be in to the high teens by now at least!!!
GOTV
All these old high Tories regarded ruling Europe as a natural replacement to ruling the Empire. Dangerous, arrogant and, of course, wrong.
There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
Grant Shapps MP@grantshapps·2 hrs2 hours ago
Joined the 6am campaign team for @KellyTolhurst in #RochesterAndStrood on by-election day #VoteKelly
I mean, just look at the 5 eyes stuff. That's fantastically manipulative of us.
In Europe, but spying on Europe.
It's brilliant.
You can rescue a hundred quid on Betfair still.
That's where the 'Mansion Tax' will be going.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/insulting-decent-ukip-voters-will-backfire-lord-ashcroft-warns-tories-9871432.html
Our much larger US competitors either use the tick-box principle which often misses the obvious because it is not one of the boxes to tick, or over-complicates matters with management theory and so confuse themselves. Also they focus on consequences and not cause.
Something wrong with the US psyche or do they think that big is best (if I recall correctly the size of their meals)?
Do we have final by-election morning poll from Sweet Expectations?
"Lord Ashcroft attacks Tories who insult the intelligence of Ukip voters"
To be fair, even Labour have now realised that calling them all racist bigots doesn't induce gratitude The Mrs Duffy response has now been replaced by imitation.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/baroness-olly-grender-writestales-from-the-rochester-campaign-trail-43436.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
It's very simple: they are value maximisers like everyone else. However, given they are paying limited tax, and would continue to pay limited tax with higher rates, they gain more value from the smug sense that they are better than their fellow man because they vote for higher taxes
Ask Socrates if you can't guess.
I say that as someone who added (and ticked) an STV box on my AV ballot paper.
Yup, I'm one of those pricks.
So with FPTP. In 1997 the Scottish Tories got almost 500,000 and not a single seat but people shrugged their shoulders and said "tough"! Now the fact UKIP or LibDems could get lots of votes in England and not many seats and FPTP is suddenly broken.