Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tory leadership contenders are close to outing themselves – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,056
edited August 4 in General
imageTory leadership contenders are close to outing themselves – politicalbetting.com

? @gordonrayner reports: Dame Priti Patel will stand in the Conservative leadership race after being “urged to run” by fellow MPs, The Telegraph has learnedhttps://t.co/D8uDWc09NO

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,664
    FIRST LIKE CHISTI
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,936
    edited July 17
    Second. Like the Lib Dems at the next Election?

    The Tories need a new perma-leader * in place after Jan 1st, so my 40:1 bet comes off.

    (* Perms = more than 3 months, I guess.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891
    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    Priti was Damed up by Boris, possibly as a quid pro quo for her efforts to undermine the select committee investigating him. Policy-wise, she is to the right of Boris.

    So will Boris endorse her candidacy if she makes it as far as the members' vote? That is, I think, the question backers need to answer before 8/1-ish looks value. Otherwise Priti is swimming in the same lane as everyone else who is not Tom Tugendhat.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    Nigelb said:

    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?

    Oh yes I am.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,664

    Nigelb said:

    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?

    Oh yes I am.
    Oh no you're not
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383

    Nigelb said:

    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?

    Oh yes I am.
    Oh go on then:

    "Oh no you're not!"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891
    Chinese AI regulation makes the EU look like a collection of libertarians.
    https://x.com/kyleichan/status/1813443554703794389

    Which, along with Biden's tech embargo, is likely to greatly hamper their challenge as a global leader in the technology.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,529

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Ah yes, the fictional electorate. ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    A truly great loss to the party and parliament.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Ah yes, the fictional electorate. ;)
    I did warn the Tories their play with their Jim Crow laws would see the next Labour government reply in kind.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,664
    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,790
    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,790

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Probably depress turnout even more too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891

    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?

    Since David Lammy has been busy cultivating a rapprochement with the Trump camp, kissing the ring is hardly a dividing line.

    Though admittedly there aren't any Labour figures directly adopting MAGA style nonsense.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,146

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Automatic Voter Registration is recommended* by the ERS - that's good enough for me.

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/parliamentary-briefings/automatic-voter-registration-avr-briefing/

    (*Which is more than you can say for voter ID.)
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,938
    edited July 17

    "Flagship bills will include bringing rail and bus services into public ownership."

    WTF? That's fucking stupid.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

    Why? The most effective (and profitable) bus service in Scotland is the publicly owned (but arms length) one in Edinburgh and the surrounding area. Contrast to First in Glasgow.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,605
    Nigelb said:

    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?

    That's the repeatedly disgraced national security risk Dame Priti, isn't it?

    And yet, the Conservatives could reasonably easily do worse.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Probably depress turnout even more too.
    It won't depress turnout but it will reduce the reported turnout %.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891
    edited July 17
    Eabhal said:

    "Flagship bills will include bringing rail and bus services into public ownership."

    WTF? That's fucking stupid.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

    Why? The most effective (and profitable) bus service in Scotland is the publicly owned (but arms length) one in Edinburgh and the surrounding area. Contrast to First in Glasgow.

    Casino has read way too much into an inaccurate paragraph.
    The bill is apparently about allowing LAs more powers to run their own services, rather than nationalising lots of bus companies.

    Though I don't think anyone's actually seen it yet.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608

    Nigelb said:

    'Outing themselves' ?

    Is TSE saying that Priti is a pantomime dame ?

    That's the repeatedly disgraced national security risk Dame Priti, isn't it?

    And yet, the Conservatives could reasonably easily do worse.
    Let us not forget she is also a bully.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,529
    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,529

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Not if it makes elections less representative, or further reduces confidence in the electoral process.

    I was against the ID card imposition. It was a bad idea. I am *really* against this move, and it is a far worse idea. And it is also really open to potential misuse.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,415
    edited July 17

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    We just found out at the last election that around 40% of people aren't interested in voting (on at least some occasions). That's despite making postal voting easier than ever, when it used to be restricted to people with special reasons to do so. Automatic registration would probably just lead to the official turnout figure being nearer to 50% than 60%. The problem isn't with being people registered to vote imo, it's with their interest in politics.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    edited July 17

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383
    edited July 17

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Not if it makes elections less representative, or further reduces confidence in the electoral process.

    I was against the ID card imposition. It was a bad idea. I am *really* against this move, and it is a far worse idea. And it is also really open to potential misuse.
    '...makes elections less representative'?! It does exactly the opposite.

    Currently constituency sizes are set on numbers which have up to 20% of citizens missing in some areas, meaning some voters are over-represented by a large margin.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,146

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    It is just basically impractical. I actually think it would be a great idea if you could find a way to do it but I don't see how you do that when the only record we have of where people live is a census every 10 years. Are we going to force people to register with the local authorities every time they move residence? I which case how much different is that to the electoral roll just with added compulsion which leads to huge numbers of court cases (there are lots of people who actively refuse to register for ideological reasons).

    We are currently not even able to get a half way decenet estimate of how menay people are in each local council area for funding purposes. How on earth do you take that to the next level and identify every named individual in a constituency? (Which of course won't even match the council areas.)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Not if it makes elections less representative, or further reduces confidence in the electoral process.

    I was against the ID card imposition. It was a bad idea. I am *really* against this move, and it is a far worse idea. And it is also really open to potential misuse.
    Automatic registration is something I could get behind, although the devil is in the detail: are we talking universities registering students or combining HMRC's database of taxpayers with DWP's database of claimants onto the electoral register and in doing so enabling ID cards by the back door?

    Lowering the voting age to 16 looks like a more straightforward gerrymander, and it is interesting Labour seems to have cooled on the idea following reports the young'uns like Reform, Greens and Gaza.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,548
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pointer, voters and constituents are not the same thing.

    It's kind of Labour, having won a landslide majority on a third of the vote*, is now fighting for fairer electoral results by increasing the number of constituencies in areas where they're strong. True champions of democracy.



    *I don't care about this. It's the nature of FPTP. But it is fun to juxtapose with the proposed constituency fiddling.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,258

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
    Foot
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,891

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    It is just basically impractical. I actually think it would be a great idea if you could find a way to do it but I don't see how you do that when the only record we have of where people live is a census every 10 years. Are we going to force people to register with the local authorities every time they move residence? I which case how much different is that to the electoral roll just with added compulsion which leads to huge numbers of court cases (there are lots of people who actively refuse to register for ideological reasons).

    We are currently not even able to get a half way decenet estimate of how menay people are in each local council area for funding purposes. How on earth do you take that to the next level and identify every named individual in a constituency? (Which of course won't even match the council areas.)
    The census of Quirinius is the way

    "All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from David."
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,258

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
    Foot

    And arguably Wilson and Callaghan too, who were Labour leaders while Thatcher led the Tories.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,790

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Strangely, I have noticed that Labour have not had a female leader. I expect they will at some point.

    It doesn't seem to have adversely impacted on them at elections, while a more diverse set of leaders does seem to not help electoral success. It didn't help my party either. I think Davey would have handled 2019 much better than we did.

    On the whole I think it best to appoint a leader best suited to the challenges before a party rather than tick some diversity box. If that person is a white male then so be it. If it's an ethnic minority female then so be it too.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383
    edited July 17

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    It is just basically impractical. I actually think it would be a great idea if you could find a way to do it but I don't see how you do that when the only record we have of where people live is a census every 10 years. Are we going to force people to register with the local authorities every time they move residence? I which case how much different is that to the electoral roll just with added compulsion which leads to huge numbers of court cases (there are lots of people who actively refuse to register for ideological reasons).

    We are currently not even able to get a half way decenet estimate of how menay people are in each local council area for funding purposes. How on earth do you take that to the next level and identify every named individual in a constituency? (Which of course won't even match the council areas.)
    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/changing-electoral-law/a-modern-electoral-register/modernising-electoral-registration-feasibility-studies

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-registration-research/accuracy-and-completeness-electoral-registers/2023-report-electoral-registers-uk

    Combine the data from HMRC, DVLA and DWP and you'd get >95% accuracy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    edited July 17
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
    Foot
    And as you say, Michael Foot, though he came before Kinnock so it depends when you start counting leaders.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,348
    What's happened to Jeremy Hunt? If the Tories need a leader for the next few years who can articulate a position and mend fences where they have been broken they could surely do a lot worse. A leader who is focused on division and anti-woke talking points that only a minority care about is really not the answer.

    At the next election the Tories need to win back a lot of Lib Dem seats and a lot of marginal Labour seats. They will probably still be second but will have a better launch pad for the early 2030s. A big switch to the right does not seem likely to achieve this. It would be the same self indulgent nonsense Labour indulged in with Corbyn.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,551
    Andy_JS said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    We just found out at the last election that around 40% of people aren't interested in voting (on at least some occasions). That's despite making postal voting easier than ever, when it used to be restricted to people with special reasons to do so. Automatic registration would probably just lead to the official turnout figure being nearer to 50% than 60%. The problem isn't with being people registered to vote imo, it's with their interest in politics.
    Surely rather than disenfranchising as many voters as possible it is optimal for politicians to engage voters.

    The last Party of Government entered the election on a manifesto of "we may be corrupt and inept, but so is everyone else, best to stick with the Devil you know".

    I thought I'd get that in before he enters the building. It's that time!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,258
    DavidL said:

    What's happened to Jeremy Hunt? If the Tories need a leader for the next few years who can articulate a position and mend fences where they have been broken they could surely do a lot worse. A leader who is focused on division and anti-woke talking points that only a minority care about is really not the answer.

    At the next election the Tories need to win back a lot of Lib Dem seats and a lot of marginal Labour seats. They will probably still be second but will have a better launch pad for the early 2030s. A big switch to the right does not seem likely to achieve this. It would be the same self indulgent nonsense Labour indulged in with Corbyn.

    Probably only wins the membership if he’s up against Tugendhat. And even then far from certain.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,936
    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    edited July 17
    DavidL said:

    What's happened to Jeremy Hunt? If the Tories need a leader for the next few years who can articulate a position and mend fences where they have been broken they could surely do a lot worse. A leader who is focused on division and anti-woke talking points that only a minority care about is really not the answer.

    At the next election the Tories need to win back a lot of Lib Dem seats and a lot of marginal Labour seats. They will probably still be second but will have a better launch pad for the early 2030s. A big switch to the right does not seem likely to achieve this. It would be the same self indulgent nonsense Labour indulged in with Corbyn.

    Jeremy Hunt has ruled himself out but looks like an obvious interim leader if the party does want an extended election process that goes beyond Rishi's willingness to remain in place. It has been said (or gossiped) that Rishi wants out before the LotO's budget response in October, and also that the leadership election might use the conference (also in October) as hustings, meaning the election will not be concluded by then.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,548
    Mr. L, I believe Hunt has indicated he isn't standing.

    Which is a shame. They should've gone for him rather than the oafish Johnson.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,258
    edited July 17
    MattW said:

    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ

    It’s a strange line to pursue. Childless women is quite a large segment of the electorate I’d guess, and doesn’t strike me as smart to attack them in this way.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,146

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    It is just basically impractical. I actually think it would be a great idea if you could find a way to do it but I don't see how you do that when the only record we have of where people live is a census every 10 years. Are we going to force people to register with the local authorities every time they move residence? I which case how much different is that to the electoral roll just with added compulsion which leads to huge numbers of court cases (there are lots of people who actively refuse to register for ideological reasons).

    We are currently not even able to get a half way decenet estimate of how menay people are in each local council area for funding purposes. How on earth do you take that to the next level and identify every named individual in a constituency? (Which of course won't even match the council areas.)
    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/changing-electoral-law/a-modern-electoral-register/modernising-electoral-registration-feasibility-studies

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-registration-research/accuracy-and-completeness-electoral-registers/2023-report-electoral-registers-uk

    Combine the data from HMRC, DVLA and DWP and you'd get >95% accuracy.
    I think that is utter garbage based on wishful thinking. For a start how do HMRC or DVLA know an individual is eligible to vote?

    And even if it were possible that is still something like 3 million people either missed off or added on incorrectly depending on which way the errors occur.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139
    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,528
    DavidL said:

    What's happened to Jeremy Hunt? If the Tories need a leader for the next few years who can articulate a position and mend fences where they have been broken they could surely do a lot worse. A leader who is focused on division and anti-woke talking points that only a minority care about is really not the answer.

    At the next election the Tories need to win back a lot of Lib Dem seats and a lot of marginal Labour seats. They will probably still be second but will have a better launch pad for the early 2030s. A big switch to the right does not seem likely to achieve this. It would be the same self indulgent nonsense Labour indulged in with Corbyn.

    He’s ruled himself out hasn’t he?
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    MattW said:

    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ

    It’s a strange line to pursue. Childless women is quite a large segment of the electorate I’d guess, and doesn’t strike me as smart to attack them in this way.
    Pinched off leadsom.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,494
    a

    MattW said:

    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ

    It’s a strange line to pursue. Childless women is quite a large segment of the electorate I’d guess, and doesn’t strike me as smart to attack them in this way.
    When you factor in the stupid American work culture of more hours is better*, it's not surprising that a higher percentage of childless women are represented in the top ranks, in various areas.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,146

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    Oh the might try it but there will be lots of arguments about it and in the end it will be a costly failure.

    Also as an aside Johnson got an 80 seat majority in the last election but that didn't stop you (or me) criticising his policies.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,258

    MattW said:

    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ

    It’s a strange line to pursue. Childless women is quite a large segment of the electorate I’d guess, and doesn’t strike me as smart to attack them in this way.
    Pinched off leadsom.
    And worked a treat for her iirc.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
    Foot

    And arguably Wilson and Callaghan too, who were Labour leaders while Thatcher led the Tories.
    You have to choose your starting point, and I chose the Thatcher/Kinnock period. If you go back to Wilson, then do you need to include Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Heath on the Conservative side?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    Oh the might try it but there will be lots of arguments about it and in the end it will be a costly failure.

    Also as an aside Johnson got an 80 seat majority in the last election but that didn't stop you (or me) criticising his policies.
    Very good point. :)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,605
    DavidL said:

    What's happened to Jeremy Hunt? If the Tories need a leader for the next few years who can articulate a position and mend fences where they have been broken they could surely do a lot worse. A leader who is focused on division and anti-woke talking points that only a minority care about is really not the answer.

    At the next election the Tories need to win back a lot of Lib Dem seats and a lot of marginal Labour seats. They will probably still be second but will have a better launch pad for the early 2030s. A big switch to the right does not seem likely to achieve this. It would be the same self indulgent nonsense Labour indulged in with Corbyn.

    There are times in the life of political parties when they are well up for some self indulgence.

    Britain would probably be better run if we had multiple parties in dialogue the electorate at every election, but it doesn't happen very often. There's usually one, but in 2019 we didn't really have any.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    Priti backed Sunak as well, didn't she?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,936

    MattW said:

    JD Vance: The USA is run by childless cat ladies.

    Er ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7m_QQEkHQ

    It’s a strange line to pursue. Childless women is quite a large segment of the electorate I’d guess, and doesn’t strike me as smart to attack them in this way.
    His list is Kamala Harris (2 step children), Pete Buttigieg (not a lady, 2 adopted children) and AOC (34 years old, no children yet).
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,524
    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    Lots of useful nuggets there @hyufd. Cheers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,528
    Yo mofos.
    I didn’t think the Cybertruck could be made to look worse. I was wrong.

    https://x.com/erininthemorn/status/1813394499306987818?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,106

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139

    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?

    Reform are pro Trump, the Sunak Tory party largely isn't. It would have preferred Haley as GOP nominee
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383
    algarkirk said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
    It's not so much about getting those who currently do not vote, to vote (although there will be some benefit there). It's mainly about setting the boundary sizes so that each MP represents a similar number of citizens rather than 'citizens who happen to have the wherewithal to register'.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    HYUFD said:

    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?

    Reform are pro Trump, the Sunak Tory party largely isn't. It would have preferred Haley as GOP nominee

    Haley has now prostrated - and humiliated- herself for the Orange Putin Plant.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,466
    edited July 17
    algarkirk said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
    You mean, like Mr Sunak de facto 'drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help' in Scotland did?

    But your first and main point is a good one.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,494

    Yo mofos.
    I didn’t think the Cybertruck could be made to look worse. I was wrong.

    https://x.com/erininthemorn/status/1813394499306987818?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    The curious linkage between Trump and HipHop is worth looking at. Apparently there were a number of rap stars at the Whitehouse on election night when he lost.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,936

    Yo mofos.
    I didn’t think the Cybertruck could be made to look worse. I was wrong.

    https://x.com/erininthemorn/status/1813394499306987818?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    I just twigged that the USA Election is on Bonfire Night.

    That seems appropriate, somehow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,660

    Foxy said:

    "It says a lot about the Tory party being the party of inclusion and equality that they could be potentially on their fourth female leader and second non white leader whilst Labour in their history have only ever had pale and stale males as party leader"

    In the last 35 years the Tories have only had a successful campaign under pale and stale males.

    1992 Major
    2010 Cameron
    2015 Cameron
    2019 Johnson.

    OK, so there have been a few that have flopped too, but I think trumpeting about diversity isn't really a vote winner.

    It's odd how you picked 35 years for that. A rather specific number. Perhaps you should extend that out to 40 or 50?

    Thatcher became Conservative party leader nearly fifty years ago. In all that time, Labour have not had a single permanent female leader, let alone PM.

    Labour supporters should really ask themselves why that is, and why the Conservatives somehow find it easier to move women and ethnic minorities towards the top.
    Part of the answer might be that the Conservative Party changes leader more often, at least recently.

    Thatcher, Major, Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Rishi.
    Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Corbyn, Starmer.

    Twice as many Tory leaders means double the chance of reaching the top of the blue greasy pole, even for ethnic minority ladies.

    ETA apologies if I've missed anyone out as this theory has only just occurred to me, and I forgot John Smith initially.
    Foot
    And as you say, Michael Foot, though he came before Kinnock so it depends when you start counting leaders.
    Callaghan was elected after Thatcher.

    The obvious start point would be 1965, when the Tories started having leadership elections. That helps you as it adds Heath to the Tory total but not Wilson (1963) to the Labour one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139
    Nigelb said:

    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?

    Since David Lammy has been busy cultivating a rapprochement with the Trump camp, kissing the ring is hardly a dividing line.

    Though admittedly there aren't any Labour figures directly adopting MAGA style nonsense.
    Labour governments and PMs often get on well with Republican Presidents, most notably Blair and Bush. Starmer and Lammy are already making connections to Team Trump.

    Tory PMs often get on well with Democrat Presidents by contrast ie Churchill and FDR, Macmillan and JFK, Cameron and Obama.

    Thatcher and Reagan and Major and Bush 41 had a close relationship as did Callaghan and Carter and Blair and Clinton but they were not the norm
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,608
    edited July 17

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best it’ll be two years out.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,106

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    It is just basically impractical. I actually think it would be a great idea if you could find a way to do it but I don't see how you do that when the only record we have of where people live is a census every 10 years. Are we going to force people to register with the local authorities every time they move residence? I which case how much different is that to the electoral roll just with added compulsion which leads to huge numbers of court cases (there are lots of people who actively refuse to register for ideological reasons).

    We are currently not even able to get a half way decenet estimate of how menay people are in each local council area for funding purposes. How on earth do you take that to the next level and identify every named individual in a constituency? (Which of course won't even match the council areas.)
    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/changing-electoral-law/a-modern-electoral-register/modernising-electoral-registration-feasibility-studies

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-registration-research/accuracy-and-completeness-electoral-registers/2023-report-electoral-registers-uk

    Combine the data from HMRC, DVLA and DWP and you'd get >95% accuracy.
    Apart from those hiding because they have no right to be in the UK there are very few adults who don't appear somewhere on those data bases - many of the less visible are recipients of benefits for example. To which you can add the NHS.

    (For example, the only person I know not registered with a doctor gets a state pension, pays income tax and council tax. Living off grid is quite hard).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    algarkirk said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
    While both main parties benefit from granny-farming, good luck with that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,106

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best you’ll be two years out.
    It's reasonable to do the best you can at voter registration. This is totally different from the (horrible) idea of compulsory voting.

    BTW the one thing almost everyone does when moving is register with a doctor - even young people and students do this.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,605
    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    Though of the top three in 2022, two have been weighed and found wanting, and the other is no longer an MP. Between them, they got over eighty percent of the votes in the round of four.

    There are roughly three lanes (actual centrist, think Tugendhat; continuity Sunakite; hard right) but only two go to the membership. So one question is which lane fizzles out before the final. Another is how Badenoch styles herself; does she embrace her time in government or deny it? I suspect she would beat Tom T with ease, but would struggle against a fruitier right winger like Patel or Braverman.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,873
    #Priti4Leader

    That's all that needs to be said.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,936
    Fairly stark piece from the BBC on prominent problems. For me the starkest one is Local Gov core funding still down 20% in real terms since 2010.

    Five big problems the Starmer government has to fix

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e5pw1qpx8o
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,106
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
    You mean, like Mr Sunak de facto 'drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help' in Scotland did?

    But your first and main point is a good one.
    No idea on the Scotland point, but postal voting opens a back door of vote harvesting and vote influencing while the front door of the polling booth is reasonably secure.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best you’ll be two years out.
    It's reasonable to do the best you can at voter registration. This is totally different from the (horrible) idea of compulsory voting.

    BTW the one thing almost everyone does when moving is register with a doctor - even young people and students do this.
    Lots of people are not registered with doctors. Young adults often do not need to be (until they do). Those at the margins owing to drugs or mental health issues can find it hard to find a practice that is not "full up".
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best you’ll be two years out.
    It's reasonable to do the best you can at voter registration. This is totally different from the (horrible) idea of compulsory voting.

    BTW the one thing almost everyone does when moving is register with a doctor - even young people and students do this.
    Not in my experience they don't (n=2 sons)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139

    HYUFD said:

    The fascinating aspect of this race to become Tory leader isn't just how they position themselves vs Farage, its how they position themselves against Trump.

    Former disgraced leaders are disgracing themselves more by offering fealty to Trump. Farage the same. Braverman moves in those circles.

    Will Patel, Cleverley etc have to go and kiss the ring to be contenders, or will they reject the Trump madness as not being relevant?

    What is the mood of the Tory membership towards Trump?

    Reform are pro Trump, the Sunak Tory party largely isn't. It would have preferred Haley as GOP nominee

    Haley has now prostrated - and humiliated- herself for the Orange Putin Plant.

    As she has to to have a shot in 2028 if Trump and Vance lose. However she also made clear she still doesn't always agree with Trump and got a few boos from the hall.

    DeSantis by contrast was loudly cheered
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    I still don't see how automatic voter registration works with a mobile population and no way of finding out which individuals live in a constituency
    What is your concern though Richard, that the numbers of electors in a particular constituency are over-estimated, or that voters get registered in two constituencies?

    Neither is insurmountable. Making it easier for people to vote has to be a good thing.
    Objections to automatic voting registration will mostly be attempts at fixing elections. There can't be a principled objection to it. But I doubt if many who don't register voluntarily will actually vote.

    As to the risk of multiple and non-existent voters and votes, linking the vote to NI numbers would enable some checks to be made; and drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help too.
    You mean, like Mr Sunak de facto 'drastically cutting down the right to postal votes would help' in Scotland did?

    But your first and main point is a good one.
    No idea on the Scotland point, but postal voting opens a back door of vote harvesting and vote influencing while the front door of the polling booth is reasonably secure.
    Postal voting is also more susceptible to registration fraud. Wholly fictitious voters can easily vote by post but cannot turn up to vote in person.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,170

    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    Though of the top three in 2022, two have been weighed and found wanting, and the other is no longer an MP. Between them, they got over eighty percent of the votes in the round of four.

    There are roughly three lanes (actual centrist, think Tugendhat; continuity Sunakite; hard right) but only two go to the membership. So one question is which lane fizzles out before the final. Another is how Badenoch styles herself; does she embrace her time in government or deny it? I suspect she would beat Tom T with ease, but would struggle against a fruitier right winger like Patel or Braverman.
    There are two types of Tory hard right, although I’m not sure both are represented in the current list of hopefuls.

    IEA Britain-unchained free-marketeers whose chosen target out-groups are lazy skiving benefits cheats, trade unions and the civil service blob.

    Goodwinite culture warriors whose target out-groups are trans people, immigrants and the ECHR.

    There is a reasonable degree of overlap but it’s not complete. It looks like the second group is in the ascendancy currently.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,545

    #Priti4Leader

    That's all that needs to be said.

    My book would prefer Coutinho but it'll cope with Patel.

    Jenrick? No way. Very red.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139
    edited July 17

    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    Priti backed Sunak as well, didn't she?
    No, she never declared in the summer contest
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,415
    HYUFD said:

    Badenoch and Braverman lacked enough support last time amongst Tory MPs to make the final two, Braverman even trailed Tugendhat. Patel probably also trails with MPs.

    Tugendhat will also benefit from the fact the Tory parliamentary party is much more southern than in 2019. He also likely wins most Scottish Tory MPs.

    Jenrick is the only contender who openly backed Sunak v Truss so likely gets much of Sunak's MP support with the rest mainly going to Tugendhat. So I expect a Tugendhat and Jenrick final two most likely with Jenrick narrowly winning the membership.

    Jenrick also looks most like the Hague or Ed Miliband of this leadership contest to take over the party in opposition having lost power

    If Barclay and Cleverly were also throw their hats in the ring, might that not block Tugendhat's path to the final two? (I'm guessing that all three would be going for the moderate section of the party)

    It's beginning to look like there'll be a large field standing for the first round, so there might be some unexpected results given the turnover of MPs at the GE.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,790

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best you’ll be two years out.
    It's reasonable to do the best you can at voter registration. This is totally different from the (horrible) idea of compulsory voting.

    BTW the one thing almost everyone does when moving is register with a doctor - even young people and students do this.
    Lots of people are not registered with doctors. Young adults often do not need to be (until they do). Those at the margins owing to drugs or mental health issues can find it hard to find a practice that is not "full up".
    Usually they are nominally at least on the register somewhere, usually at a former address.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,774
    edited July 17
    FPT Vance makes Trump look rational and sane, by comparison. I think Russia is past the point where it can conquer Ukraine, but if the USA effectively withdraws from NATO, then Starmer, like other European leaders, will have to ramp up military spending.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,139
    edited July 17

    Mr. L, I believe Hunt has indicated he isn't standing.

    Which is a shame. They should've gone for him rather than the oafish Johnson.

    Hunt would probably not have won a majority in 2019, it would have been 2017 2. The redwall only fell under Boris, it would never have fallen to Hunt, though Hunt would have done a fraction better in the bluewall but in 2019 the bluewall stayed Tory anyway
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,548
    Mr. HYUFD, disagree 100%. The 2019 election vote was more anti-Corbyn than pro-Johnson.

    Hunt would've been inferior at campaigning, but infinitely better at governing.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,130
    Foxy said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘Dreadful’ voting reforms could cost Scotland ten MPs

    Automatic voter registration could lead to loss of constituencies, says Conservative MP Andrew Bowie


    Scotland could lose almost 20 per cent of its MPs under plans to add millions more people across the UK to the electoral roll for future elections.

    Automatic registration (AVR) already exists in several European countries and is being proposed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government as a way of extending the franchise.

    But Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP, has warned that the measures, that are expected to be revaled as part of a Democracy Bill within the King’s Speech on Wednesday, could lead to loss of about ten Scottish constituencies with more seats based within English cities.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/dreadful-voting-reforms-could-cost-scotland-ten-mps-kzqqh9n65

    Why (apart from the Scottish pov) is that 'dreadful' ?
    It may end up double counting voters and add non existent voters to the electoral roll plus in the big cities people are more transient.
    Sub optimal isn't the same as 'dreadful'.
    What's the estimate for the numbers of over counted and non existent voters ?

    And has anyone actually seen the detail of the proposed legislation ?
    Last year an Electoral Commission report detailed how up to 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered and are at risk of missing out on their right to participate in elections.
    So we're currently undercounting ?

    I'm not clear
    - what's meant by 'not correctly registered
    - whether there is likely to be significant over counting as a result of this legislation
    - whether there is likely to be a significant number of 'non existent' voters as a result of this legislation
    - whether the legislation contains additional proposals to clean up the electoral roll...

    In any event, I'm not going to get wound up and call it 'dreadful' until I've seen it.
    A lot of voters are registered in constituency A but move to constituency B but don’t inform the authorities, this proposal will register them at both and have consequences in seat numbers as Andrew Bowie has mentioned.

    That’s where a lot of that eight million are.
    Surely just refresh the AVR data every year?

    Anyway there can be no argument about this, it was in Labour's manifesto and they've just won a landslide:

    "To encourage participation in our democracy, Labour will improve voter registration..."
    This won’t improve voter registration.

    Also can you see the issues of refreshing/not refreshing the AVR data in an election.

    At best you’ll be two years out.
    It's reasonable to do the best you can at voter registration. This is totally different from the (horrible) idea of compulsory voting.

    BTW the one thing almost everyone does when moving is register with a doctor - even young people and students do this.
    Lots of people are not registered with doctors. Young adults often do not need to be (until they do). Those at the margins owing to drugs or mental health issues can find it hard to find a practice that is not "full up".
    Usually they are nominally at least on the register somewhere, usually at a former address.
    Yes, often their parents' GP or the old university medical centre, so it all counts for voter registration, albeit in the wrong constituency. Less useful when they succumb to the dreaded lurgy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,774

    Mr. HYUFD, disagree 100%. The 2019 election vote was more anti-Corbyn than pro-Johnson.

    Hunt would've been inferior at campaigning, but infinitely better at governing.

    Any Conservative would have beaten Corbyn, in 2019. Hunt would have won.
This discussion has been closed.