Does anyone have an answer to the conundrum 'why did Clegg go from the most popular leader (and probably politician) in the country in 2010 to one of the least popular today?
I can understand some Labour supporters thinking he's betrayed the centre left by joining the Tories but most voters are pragmatic enough to understand he had no choice
And why is it so personal?
It's the corollary of the Tories not coming to terms with not having won outright victory.
There was a huge anyone-but-Cons vote for the LDs. So much is well known. But what those voters where choosing was a left wing option as they were disillusioned with Lab.
And there has been a consistent denial not only of the power that a junior coalition partner has, but also that although they are in coalition, a plurality of the nation voted Cons therefore of course Cons policies should have a greater weight.
I think NC has done brilliantly; he has moderated some Cons policies and introduced some LD ones. But he is up against left wing 2010 LD voters who are genuinely scratching their heads as to why he hasn't managed to nationalise the internet yet.
That is why there is so much vitriol. He was supposed to be the left wing saviour and ended up being the junior partner in a right of centre dominated coalition.
There's some appalling vitriol towards NC on CiF, largely it seems from people who are innumerate, and believe that a Lab/LD coalition was practical in 2010. Even including Gordon Brown!
There is such a thing as being careful what you wish. If we move to PR (and I think we ought to) the main beneficiary would be UKIP. Is that what the Lib Dems want?
Yes, without question.
FPTP spanks UKIP as much as anyone else and if they get the votes their voice should be heard. In fact, PR would probably damage the Lib Dems at the moment but I've not heard any party voices backing away from their support for it. From a partisan point of view if you insist, given the success rate of UKIP MEPs and councillors, I could see a parliamentary delegation running into some difficulties and plenty of their support fizzling out as a result.
As I said, if that's the general view, then it reflects well on the Lib Dems.
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
JJ Get an editor..then write what you want to write
I'd be tempted, but the question is how do you get a good editor if you have no contacts? It's the same with trying to break into many industries: contacts are invaluable.
Top comment under that Dan Hannan article about Gib
brunswick Today 12:16 PM
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’
Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
LOL
Or how one would feel if England had occupied a piece of Scotland?
Oh, wait a minute...
... there is a general consensus that a massacre took place of somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 inhabitants. As with mass killings and genocides in the modern era the numbers, and responsibility, for the atrocities are contested and denied, diminished or exaggerated according to the biases and intentions of the respective chroniclers or subsequent historians.
... So began Berwick’s status as a garrisoned English town in Scotland, both a treasury and a hangar for England’s engines of war.
The historian Green puts it thus: “The town was ruined forever, and the greatest merchant-city of Northern Britain sank from that time into a petty seaport.”
The logical conclusion of that argument is that we'd have to vote on every single permutation of voting systems up to and including the Israeli (and Gib!) whole country as one constituency model - one after the other until one finally passed. Not because we wanted it but purely to stop the damn referendums.
That's the only way to get rid of the "but it wasn't the version I like, can we have another referendum please" whine. At least rolling yearly referendums on every flavour of PR imaginable would keep us busy on pb.com.
However much I might dislike Cameron it does say something when the idea is being mooted that in return for allowing the public to be consulted on one constitutional issue it is being suggested that the public be denied the chance to be consulted on another equally important constitutional issue.
As has been noted before the Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic when it comes to their attitude to the general public's right to a say over fundamental issues.
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’ Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
That's rather good, as I happen to be a Pompey fan
The Argentinian government has it seems decided that noise made by their ex-colonial masters may be a good time to renew their claims.
Unless these Spanish speaking people care to renew their historical habit of leaving treasure loosely guarded then I can't see us being in any way aggressive.
If the Germans were in Portsmouth and tooled-up the Isle of Wight would be so much fun. Possibly exceeding the excitement to be had from coloured sands.
Top comment under that Dan Hannan article about Gib
brunswick Today 12:16 PM
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’
Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
LOL
Or how one would feel if England had occupied a piece of Scotland?
Oh, wait a minute...
... there is a general consensus that a massacre took place of somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 inhabitants. As with mass killings and genocides in the modern era the numbers, and responsibility, for the atrocities are contested and denied, diminished or exaggerated according to the biases and intentions of the respective chroniclers or subsequent historians.
... So began Berwick’s status as a garrisoned English town in Scotland, both a treasury and a hangar for England’s engines of war.
The historian Green puts it thus: “The town was ruined forever, and the greatest merchant-city of Northern Britain sank from that time into a petty seaport.”
"Economic recovery at what cost? thousands of people on the verge of malnutrition reliant upon charity food parcels, millions of people cruelly having their Benefits 'sanctioned', people forced to do unpaid slave labour in exchange for their State Benefits, over 4000 suicides due to Welfare Reforms....the Tory scum have a lot to answer for in their relentless war against the poor."
And its got 68 recommends!!!!
"unpaid slave labour in exchange for their state benefits".
Providing a service (labour) in exchange for value (benefits) doesn't seem to meet the definitions of either "unpaid" or "slave".
I suspect the problem to OGH/PB is much more bandwidth related. The Vanilla system ties PB into a server contract which has monthly costs tiered to download volume.
I suspect also that the editing restrctions (1 hour down to 6 minutes) and comment length restrictions (new character count limits) were also introduced to lower bandwith usage.
I assumed that was to stop people editing comments long after they had been replied to. An edit function should be for speelng mistakes, not to radically re-jig a comment after someone has called it out for inaccuracy etc.
Top comment under that Dan Hannan article about Gib
brunswick Today 12:16 PM
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’
Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
LOL
Or how one would feel if England had occupied a piece of Scotland?
Oh, wait a minute...
... there is a general consensus that a massacre took place of somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 inhabitants. As with mass killings and genocides in the modern era the numbers, and responsibility, for the atrocities are contested and denied, diminished or exaggerated according to the biases and intentions of the respective chroniclers or subsequent historians.
... So began Berwick’s status as a garrisoned English town in Scotland, both a treasury and a hangar for England’s engines of war.
The historian Green puts it thus: “The town was ruined forever, and the greatest merchant-city of Northern Britain sank from that time into a petty seaport.”
The Argentinian government has it seems decided that noise made by their ex-colonial masters may be a good time to renew their claims.
Unless these Spanish speaking people care to renew their historical habit of leaving treasure loosely guarded then I can't see us being in any way aggressive.
If the Germans were in Portsmouth and tooled-up the Isle of Wight would be so much fun. Possibly exceeding the excitement to be had from coloured sands.
Can we claim Buenos Aires due to us occupying it briefly in the summer of 1806?
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
But AV isn't PR. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked to vote on PR.
But it would be if someone does decide to put PR before the electorate, they show some sign of having considered a variety of systems and their variants, rather than plucked one from up their bum.
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
But AV isn't quite PR.
Fitalass, I only voted for FPTP in 2011 precisely because PR wasn't on offer!
Top comment under that Dan Hannan article about Gib
brunswick Today 12:16 PM
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’
Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
LOL
Or how one would feel if England had occupied a piece of Scotland?
Oh, wait a minute...
... there is a general consensus that a massacre took place of somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 inhabitants. As with mass killings and genocides in the modern era the numbers, and responsibility, for the atrocities are contested and denied, diminished or exaggerated according to the biases and intentions of the respective chroniclers or subsequent historians.
... So began Berwick’s status as a garrisoned English town in Scotland, both a treasury and a hangar for England’s engines of war.
The historian Green puts it thus: “The town was ruined forever, and the greatest merchant-city of Northern Britain sank from that time into a petty seaport.”
Re Gibraltar, I'm just back from Minorca, where the proprietor of a fairly upmarket restaurant was aggressive and rude to my meek, 88 year old, frail father.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
Re Gibraltar, I'm just back from Minorca, where the proprietor of a fairly upmarket restaurant was aggressive and rude to my meek, 88 year old, frail father.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
It could be because your a Nat supporting breakaway Catalonia.
There is not a chance that the Conservatives would agree to introducing PR without a referendum - highly doubtful if they would even agree to having a referendum on it either. House of Lords Reform could be another matter but not on the basis of the Clegg reforms and this time the new boundaries would have to be passed into Law before any HOL reform came forward. I can see where OGH is coming from but whereas I for one would have no probs of another blue/yellow Coalition, my view is far from the majority view in the Party. Outsiders may believe that the Conservatives would agree to just about anything so that the EU referendum could take place but its not that simple by any means.There are some ( and I vehemently disagree with them) who would be prepared not to agree to a Coalition so they could get rid of David Cameron and have a Leader who would promise a straight In/Out referendum and would also campaign to come out.Lastly in 2010 the Coaliiton was presented pretty much presented as a fait accompli to the Tory MP's. That would not be a runner in 2015 and therefore any deal would have to get the approval of the MP's.
I suspect the problem to OGH/PB is much more bandwidth related. The Vanilla system ties PB into a server contract which has monthly costs tiered to download volume.
I suspect also that the editing restrctions (1 hour down to 6 minutes) and comment length restrictions (new character count limits) were also introduced to lower bandwith usage.
I assumed that was to stop people editing comments long after they had been replied to. An edit function should be for speelng mistakes, not to radically re-jig a comment after someone has called it out for inaccuracy etc.
It appears you may be right on pricing per-click, but if refreshes of thread content are counted as an extra click, then the pricing model is not suited to a continuous discussion blog like PB!
But my call is really for more transparency on such issues. There is so much experience and goodwill towards PB amongst users on site that collaborative and open problem solving is likely to more effective, to satisfy more users and be of benefit to all, in particular the site owner.
Can we claim Buenos Aires due to us occupying it briefly in the summer of 1806?
It'd be daft to claim it. If they left their black ships in the docks though it'd be a nice boost for Osbourne.
@Stuart Dickson - The reason it's a Scottish city is surely connected with the majority of residents wanting it to be regarded as such. If they want to declare themselves 'English' or 'Dickensian' or 'Daft' then that's their choice.
The electorate voted PR into the long grass with a resounding No in a referendum just a couple of years ago, the Libdems really need to accept that and get over it.
But AV isn't quite PR.
I seem to recall a post of yours at the time of the referendum urging people to vote No because AV was not PR .
Re Gibraltar, I'm just back from Minorca, where the proprietor of a fairly upmarket restaurant was aggressive and rude to my meek, 88 year old, frail father.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
Did you know Minorca was also British for a while?
Mr. Tpfkar, worth considering that if we have numbers, for argument's sake, identical to the current composition of the Commons then Cameron could (and should, in my view) refuse to form a government and force another election, if the Lib Dems play silly buggers.
Demanding disarmament, refusing a referendum on the EU, trying to gerrymander the electoral system for their own ends, all those are entirely unacceptable.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst the Lib Dems may be less easygoing regarding negotiations this time Cameron's backbenchers will also be very willing to make plain what they will and will not stand.
If the numbers are identical, then it'll come down to whether Cameron and Clegg can cut a deal on a personal level, and whether they can carry their parties. Everything else will be secondary. It's all very well saying that totem items are "unacceptable" but you only get to make those kind of decisions when you have a majority. For what it's worth, I can't see the Tories compromising on Trident / EU referendum, so I'd expect all of mansion tax, local PR and Lords reform without referendum to be accepted.
The problem with a threshold for mansion tax is that it will lead to all sort silliness around the cut off (is a flat worth £1.95m or £2.05m)?
Far better to have a simple, low rate, (say 0.5% or 0.75%) on all residential properties, whether rental or owner-occupied and use the money raised to reduce other more damaging taxes - such as employer NICs - and lift the personal allowance
I think it's called Council Tax.
The purpose is to try and get non-residential owners to pay a reasonable contribution towards the public finances. Large parts of my part of London are empty except for a month a year - and the owners are paying very little contribution
But AV isn't PR. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked to vote on PR.
Why isn't it PR? Surely proportionality is just a sliding scale? FPTP is less proportionally representative than AV and more proportionally representative than filling Parliament with people from Surrey.
At what stage does an electoral system cross a magic threshold and qualify for a badge saying "Real PR"?
Marc Ambinder @marcambinder Based on your previous purchases, Jeff Bezos, you might also like: — The Los Angeles Times — The Orlando Sentinel — Newsweek
But AV isn't PR. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked to vote on PR.
Why isn't it PR? Surely proportionality is just a sliding scale? FPTP is less proportionally representative than AV and more proportionally representative than filling Parliament with people from Surrey.
At what stage does an electoral system cross a magic threshold and qualify for a badge saying "Real PR"?
Because AV isn't PR, it's just single-member FPTP where people who voted for the third candidate have their votes redistributed among the top two.
Actually, the English were retaking part of an area that was originally English (Northumbrian) and not part of Scotland until the 10th-11th Centuries
Ho ho. By that definition Edinburgh is an English city.
You are confusing the English language with the English state. Are Jamaicans English just cos they speak English?
Northumbria was English, surely?
Nope, not all of it. With the extinction of the Kingdom of Northumbria in 954 the part south of the Tweed was integrated into the English state, however, the part of the former kingdom lying north of the Tweed (modern Lothian and Borders) was never integrated into the English state, and just over 60 years later England eventually had to concede that it was Scottish territory after the Battle of Carham.
Would PR really be such a great thing for the Lib Dems anyway?
What you write makes a great deal of sense.
I've no idea whether the people of Brighton would have voted for Ms Lucas if there was any chance at all hat she'd be responsible for (say) their taxes, but I suspect not.
So you hold it by right of conquest then? Fair enough. Just don't whinge about Berwick, and give us the Stone of Scone back.
Although I would probably interpret the history somewhat differently. The whole of the Kingdom of Northumbria was annexed by England on the death of Eirik Bloodaxe, you then just invaded it.
The Spanish don't seem to be very grateful, possibly because it represented a Spanish civil war almost as much as a French invasion.
When I visited a number of Spanish Napoleonic battlefields a few years ago there was barely any information on them, including Fuentes de Onoro and Salamanca. (Actually I think there is a placard outside the church at Fuentes). This does mean that some of the smaller unit actions are quite unspoilt, such as the Light Division's famous action on the Coa (if you blank out the modern motorway bridge).
In Portugal it was different, the actions of the "Luso-Britannic" army seemed to be commemorated everywhere, and there was quite a lot of visitor interpretation stuff at Busaco, for example, and a museum.
@Sunil_Prasannan That just makes it a sliding scale for me, as per my original question. Some systems produce a result closer to the proportions of the national vote than others. There's no real definable finishing line for a system to get a "Real PR here" badge, just various artificial ones in the minds of people who get heated about such things.
I think Chris Leslie at 40/1 is value. Potential if EdM falls immediately after the election (as the economic credibility candidate) and if EdM wins and steps down later (as a rising star).
The fact that PBTories think Clegg has done a good job probably explains why he's so unpopular in the real world.
Did I use too many words?
Apologies.
He has done a good job in LibDem terms. Expectations of him were wholly unrealistic.
Chuckle. It wasn't necessarily aimed at you personally... But the point remains, Tories quite like Clegg. Which is exactly why the rest of the electorate does not.
I'd argue that he's done a wretched job in terms of the Lib Dems too. If you go into Coalition with Tories, you do so with extreme caution, bear in mind that they are mendacious and ruthless and will stitch you up at each and every opportunity.
Clegg didn't do this, and lo and behold, the Tories have time and again stitched him up. Not least over AV and Lords reform.
Apols (this time for real!) for trying to be cute!
ok - well we disagree on NC but my contention is that he had far less room for manoeuvre than people expected. Of course, it's been a long time since there was a coalition, but what real power does he have? He can't hold out too strongly because what's the ultimate sanction? We'll leave. But first they have signed the agreement; and secondly if they did leave and have either a confidence and supply agreement or no agreement at all there would be another election.
Now, it's tempting to speculate when the right time for that would have been whereby all the disaffected Lab voters would have said: "oops, we didn't realise it meant _that_" and then would have voted Lab in the election. Too soon and nothing too much has changed, too long (now-ish) and look, we are in a recovery....
(PB) Tory or not I think he has played a tricky hand well. And again, expectations were ridiculously high.
"Chuka Umunna, a rising star of the shadow Cabinet, faces embarrassment after it emerged he received a £20,000 gift from an emeritus gambling executive at the same time as campaigning against the proliferation of betting shops in his constituency."
@Sunil_Prasannan That just makes it a sliding scale for me, as per my original question. Some systems produce a result closer to the proportions of the national vote than others. There's no real definable finishing line for a system to get a "Real PR here" badge, just various artificial ones in the minds of people who get heated about such things.
According to Wikipedia (AV is also known as Instant Run-off Voting):
IRV is not a proportional voting system. Like all winner-take-all voting systems, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the largest parties; small parties without majority support in any given constituency are unlikely to earn seats in a legislature, although their supporters will be more likely to be part of the final choice between the two strongest candidates.[45] A simulepation of IRV in the 2010 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that the election would have altered the balance of seats between the three main parties, but the number of seats won by minor parties would have remained unchanged.[46]
Australia, a nation with a long record of using IRV for election of legislative bodies, has had representation in its parliament broadly similar to that expected by plurality systems. Medium-sized parties, such as the National Party of Australia, can co-exist with coalition partners such as the Liberal Party of Australia, and can compete against it without fear of losing seats to other parties due to vote splitting.[47] IRV is more likely to result in legislatures where no single party has an absolute majority of seats (a hung parliament),[citation needed] but does not generally produce as fragmented a legislature as a fully proportional system, such as is used for the House of Representatives of the Netherlands or the New Zealand House of Representatives, where coalitions of numerous small parties are needed for a majority.
Hand-wringers need not apply, but this article made me LOL. I suspect I'm meant to sympathise with his personal tragedy or something. Nope, not getting that.
ABC News editor Don Ennis announced that he was no longer a woman trapped in a man’s body; now he was a man trapped in a woman’s body that used to be a man’s body.
But AV isn't PR. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked to vote on PR.
Why isn't it PR? Surely proportionality is just a sliding scale? FPTP is less proportionally representative than AV and more proportionally representative than filling Parliament with people from Surrey.
At what stage does an electoral system cross a magic threshold and qualify for a badge saying "Real PR"?
AV isn't remotely proportional. It's marginally 'fairer' to medium-sized centrist parties (such as the Lib Dems, by coincidence), but only because what their gain from transfers makes up a little for what they lose in terms of the underrepresentation of first-place 'wins'. Parties towards the extreme of the same size, who are transfer-unfriendly, would find life even less proportional.
For large parties, landslide victories become even more dominant, as they too are likely to be more transfer-friendly than their main rival. Blair may well have won by 200+ under AV in 1997 - hardly a more proportional outcome.
@Sunil_Prasannan Thanks for that Sunil but that wasn't what I'm asking. I know that plenty of people say it isn't, but I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
I think we'll have to agree that it wasn't a very interesting question anyway and just move along. I've got a country to single-handedly save from greasy Spaniards so it's looking like a busy evening
I think Chris Leslie at 40/1 is value. Potential if EdM falls immediately after the election (as the economic credibility candidate) and if EdM wins and steps down later (as a rising star).
Nah. If I can outmanoeuvre him politically (and I have done in the past), I'm pretty sure that other members of Labour's top brass can.
Leslie is a Labour drone who is utterly of the party and plays the game too much like a game. In one sense, that ought to help him (we should remember who the electorate is and who they voted for last time), but I can't see them going for someone who's essentially a poor man's version of Ed Miliband.
Sure - I just picked the next 'young thing' on the betfair list. Within the Labour ranks there are lots of very talented people. I've probably misjudged him, but I'd have been very happy seeing Labour lead by Chuka. He's blown it though.
I've no idea whether the people of Brighton would have voted for Ms Lucas if there was any chance at all hat she'd be responsible for (say) their taxes, but I suspect not.
It's an interesting question. If the Greens were in a position where they were likely to be a significant influence in government, I think their national-level policies would fall under more scrutiny and some of their current voters would likely be put off. Internal divisions within the party would also be more visible - and more costly. On the other hand, people are clealry willing to trust the Greens in local government and that's where their national success seems based on, although I'm not sure that Brighton is likely to repeat the experiment either nationally or locally!
I'll be gobsmacked if the Greens don't get hammered in Brighton. Locally for sure.
While I am inclined to some forms of PR, I despise systems such as party lists as used in the Euros.
I do agree with NPXMP down thread, to refuse to form a govt over an issue that only motivates activists, while giving ground on other issues would make the LDs look like real navel gazers.
More interesting would be to speculate on what the LDs would require to agree to coalition with EdM and EdB.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
Fortunately for Chukka this has all blown up when most people still haven't heard of him, and he can learn from the mistake, Obama hardly mixed with the most squeeky clean people in Chicago either but it did not stop him either
I'll be gobsmacked if the Greens don't get hammered in Brighton. Locally for sure.
I was going for ironic understatement, should probably have added "(!)" or somesuch. Given the tightness of the constituency result last time I'd be very surprised if the parliamentary seat doesn't get lost too. Have the local party sorted out their disagreements yet or are they still hopelessly split?
That's just background noise. It's more parking fees, cycle lanes, bin strikes, dirty streets, biospheres (or something...), 20 mph zones. Blah.
Morris Dancer - This is a betting site, I am saying who I think will be next Labour PM, not the next Attlee, Churchill and Thatcher rolled into one. Obama is an empty-suit narcissist too, but that did not stop him becoming president now did it, nor did the fact he has been somewhat reticent about some of his early college grades and insulted the likes of the people of rural Pennsylvania for 'clinging to their guns and religion!'
Sorry Josias but the pedant in me really has to point out that "comprising of" ought to merely be "comprising" (or "consisting of").
Grandiose, you're the Wikipedia expert, aren't you? Can you email me (nickmp1 at aol.com)? There's a puzzle that I'd be grateful for expert advice on (no, not my entry).
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
They were no boundary changes to the three Nottingham seats and Gedling in 1997 which means those four seats had the same boundaries between 1983 and 2010.
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
As I tried to explain, some forms of PR - such as STV - do have *less* influence for a party than FPTP. This is because the parties have to nominate several candidates rather than just one (assuming they believe they have a chance of winning more than one seat, though even then it wouldn't necessarily disadvantage them to nominate more). It's then down to the electorate to determine which of the several is or are to be elected.
I don't think banning whipping is achievable or desirable. It exists for a reason and is one mechanism by which governments can be held to account. It also renders parties meaningless if they cannot be reasonably sure of enacting their programme if they win a majority. MPs should be allowed some latitude and until recently, I worked closely and happily with one of the most rebellious MPs in Westminster. Even so, when push comes to shove, MPs can and should vote with their party on matters of confidence. MPs who wish to have a completely free hand should stand as independents.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
Why does the state get to mandate party selection policies?
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
Anorak question -- does anyone know of a website which reports on councillor defections pretty comprehensively, such that I can keep up-to-date without having to visit each councils website?
They were no boundary changes to the three Nottingham seats and Gedling in 1997 which means those four seats had the same boundaries between 1983 and 2010.
Broxtowe was almost unchanged too. There are quite a few changes that would be sensible (roads split in the middle etc.), but they were always blocked by the wish to keep the city boundary inviolate and not allow any constituency to cross it.
Why does the state get to mandate party selection policies?
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
I believe in open primaries because party memberships have fallen to such a low level that the memberships are too unrepresentative (which is one reason why central organisations have taken increasing control of the process).
There need be no compulsion for any party to use primaries and indeed, were I writing the legislation, I'd set thresholds to avoid minor parties abusing the process, but I'd have thought that most parties would want to select someone who has broad appeal to the constituency in question. Not all US states use primaries, for example.
Yes, it probably would reduce political plurality in party numbers but that plurality would still exist within parties, which in any case could not exercise the same degree of control if each MP had a greater local personal mandate (as opposed to having been elected primarily because of the colour of their rosette). Besides, I've said before, I don't think excessive plurality is a good thing - it leads to fragmentation and an inability to hold anyone to account because of the concessions and negotiations of coalitions or hung parliaments etc. The important thing is retaining a parliament with a wide range of views. How they're arranged within that is a secondary consideration.
I tuned into Newsnight and yet again another Radio 5 Presenter - Victoria Derbyshire is on. Is this some sign of the future? Or just some trials in the holiday period? Unfortunately she lacks substance on screen.
On topic, Cameron would be asking his backbenchers, most of whom now know that they're not getting into the government, to vote themselves out of their jobs in return for a few more years in Number 10 for him. They wouldn't want to do that, and the lack of a referendum would be an excellent justification for saying no.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
Start point for this is to cap individual donations and make parties engage with the public and expand membership
Whilst they are good aims in themselves in terms of reducing the power that rich individuals have over parties, they will do nothing to limit the power of parties over the elected representatives. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way in which parties control MPs
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
It is perfectly possible to enforce just as banning overt bribing of MPs is enforced. And the benefits would be huge. If a government can no longer rely on a whipped vote to get measures passed through Parliament then they will have to rely far more upon persuading members based on the merits of the proposal.
I still think it is moving in the wrong direction. Our aim should be to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. As you know my personal preference is for banning whipping and having all votes in parliament as free votes.
As I tried to explain, some forms of PR - such as STV - do have *less* influence for a party than FPTP. This is because the parties have to nominate several candidates rather than just one (assuming they believe they have a chance of winning more than one seat, though even then it wouldn't necessarily disadvantage them to nominate more). It's then down to the electorate to determine which of the several is or are to be elected.
I don't think banning whipping is achievable or desirable. It exists for a reason and is one mechanism by which governments can be held to account. It also renders parties meaningless if they cannot be reasonably sure of enacting their programme if they win a majority. MPs should be allowed some latitude and until recently, I worked closely and happily with one of the most rebellious MPs in Westminster. Even so, when push comes to shove, MPs can and should vote with their party on matters of confidence. MPs who wish to have a completely free hand should stand as independents.
MPs should always vote based on what is best for their constituents, not what is best for their party.
"Growing signs of a sustained economic recovery are putting the Conservatives on a “glide path” to victory at the next election, senior Tories have said."
"Mr Johnson is regarded by many Tories as the strongest contender to replace Mr Cameron. Some suspect the mayor of talking up a Tory election victory in order to increase the chances of the party removing Mr Cameron in the event of a hung parliament in 2015."
Re Gibraltar, I'm just back from Minorca, where the proprietor of a fairly upmarket restaurant was aggressive and rude to my meek, 88 year old, frail father.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
Anyone educated under Franco would have had Gibraltar shoved down their throats all through school. I used to get the odd bit of abuse about it when I lived in Spain - and that was in Catalonia, not a hotbed of Spanish nationalism, to say the least. Also all the Balearics have traditionally been a PP stronghold, despite being Catalan speaking.
I just don't understand why someone has arbitrarily placed the winning post for being called a PR system where they have.
At the risk of extending this discussion further than it deserves, proportional representation is a system in which the representation of a party in the legislature is proportional-ish to the number of votes received.
And that is a damn fine reason why it should have no place in our electoral system. It gives far too much power to parties over individual elected representatives and as such reduces democracy rather than increasing it.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
That does depend very much on the form of PR. Closed lists, as used for the EP, are dreadful and leave virtually everything in the hands of the parties. STV, by contrast, while slightly less proportional (because the constituencies can't practically be as large), gives voters more choice than they have under FPTP.
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
Why does the state get to mandate party selection policies?
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
They don't squash the smaller parties, they enable the voters to change the two larger parties to suit their priorities.
LABOUR power couple Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have been accused of plotting against ailing leader Ed Miliband — by attending a summer barbecue with local activists.
The headline's about the only decent thing in the story.....if the Balls are plotting a leadership coup, local party activists is probably not the best place to start....
A proposal which would be totally impractical to enforce and doesn't offer much benefit.
It is perfectly possible to enforce just as banning overt bribing of MPs is enforced. And the benefits would be huge. If a government can no longer rely on a whipped vote to get measures passed through Parliament then they will have to rely far more upon persuading members based on the merits of the proposal.
Not even nearly. One of the basic measures of whipping is for example the prospect of promotion, or a more sympathetic ear to said member's ideas/concerns/etc. How are you going to 'ban' that?
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Anyone educated under Franco would have had Gibraltar shoved down their throats all through school. I used to get the odd bit of abuse about it when I lived in Spain - and that was in Catalonia, not a hotbed of Spanish nationalism, to say the least. Also all the Balearics have traditionally been a PP stronghold, despite being Catalan speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorca Invaded by Britain's Royal Navy in 1708 during the War of the Spanish Succession, Minorca temporarily became a British possession. Britain took possession in 1713 under the terms of the Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. Under the governorship of General Richard Kane, this period saw the island's capital moved to Port Mahon, and a naval base established in that town's harbour.
During the Seven Years' War, Spain regained the island in 1756 after the Battle of Minorca. British resistance persisted at Port Mahon, but the garrison was forced to capitulate under honourable terms, including free passage back to Britain, on 29 June of that same year. Thanks to the Treaty of Paris (1763), the British returned to the island again following Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War. During the American War of Independence, the British were defeated for a second time, in this instance by a combination of French and Spanish forces, which regained the island after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon on 5 February 1782. The British ceded the island back to Spain the next year in the Treaty of Versailles. Minorca was invaded by the British once again in 1798, during the French Revolutionary Wars, but it was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain by the terms of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The British influence can still be seen in local architecture with elements such as sash windows.
As the rest of the Balearic Islands, Minorca was not occupied by the French during the Peninsular War, as it was successfully protected by the Royal Navy, this time allied to Spain.
[..] After the Nationalist victory in the Battle of Minorca in February 1939, the British Navy assisted in a peaceful transfer of power in Minorca and the evacuation of some political refugees aboard HMS Devonshire.
Fortunately for Chukka this has all blown up when most people still haven't heard of him, and he can learn from the mistake, Obama hardly mixed with the most squeeky clean people in Chicago either but it did not stop him either
That's because the people Obama mixed with were unbelievably effective political fixers, well versed in the black arts.
I don't think Chuka has got that - it's just a faintly hypocritical move (although blown out of all significance. If anything the fact that you can take money from someone and then still campaign against one specific interest of theirs is a good thing on balance).
I doubt this will do him any more harm than Ecclestone did to Blair. It's just be something that committed opponents lambaste him with
Comments
Even including Gordon Brown!
brunswick Today 12:16 PM
" ‘How would you feel,’ a Spaniard asked me yesterday on Twitter, ‘If Germany had occupied a piece of Portsmouth?’
Well they'd have a much better football team for starters."
LOL
Oh, wait a minute... http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/columnists/andrew-marshall-berwick-massacre-must-be-remembered-too-1-2877970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Berwick_(1296)
'@faisalislam he probably thought we were all bonkers when we couldn't find a local BoE governor. UK being a country of highly paid bankers' RT
That's the only way to get rid of the "but it wasn't the version I like, can we have another referendum please" whine. At least rolling yearly referendums on every flavour of PR imaginable would keep us busy on pb.com.
As has been noted before the Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic when it comes to their attitude to the general public's right to a say over fundamental issues.
Actually, the English were retaking part of an area that was originally English (Northumbrian) and not part of Scotland until the 10th-11th Centuries
Unless these Spanish speaking people care to renew their historical habit of leaving treasure loosely guarded then I can't see us being in any way aggressive.
If the Germans were in Portsmouth and tooled-up the Isle of Wight would be so much fun. Possibly exceeding the excitement to be had from coloured sands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Berwick_(1296)
I'm staying just outside Berwick in a fortnight, I'll tell you if I feel repressed.
You are confusing the English language with the English state. Are Jamaicans English just cos they speak English?
Providing a service (labour) in exchange for value (benefits) doesn't seem to meet the definitions of either "unpaid" or "slave".
But then I'm not a CiFfer
http://vanillaforums.com/plans I assumed that was to stop people editing comments long after they had been replied to. An edit function should be for speelng mistakes, not to radically re-jig a comment after someone has called it out for inaccuracy etc.
Hopefully just to the north of the royal burgh. A great part of the country Berwickshire.
But AV isn't PR. As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked to vote on PR.
But it would be if someone does decide to put PR before the electorate, they show some sign of having considered a variety of systems and their variants, rather than plucked one from up their bum.
Hopefully just to the north of the royal burgh. A great part of the country Berwickshire.
yes just over the border in Scotland I'm having a week in the Borders and Northumberland.
It did cross our minds that it may have been because the Spanish news was full of the Gibraltar stuff last week. Or do Minorcans have an historic hatred for the British due to the naval stuff?
Actually, it is far more likely that the proprietor was just a sad middle aged twat who is unable to get it up and takes out his frustration on his customers.
But my call is really for more transparency on such issues. There is so much experience and goodwill towards PB amongst users on site that collaborative and open problem solving is likely to more effective, to satisfy more users and be of benefit to all, in particular the site owner.
@Stuart Dickson - The reason it's a Scottish city is surely connected with the majority of residents wanting it to be regarded as such. If they want to declare themselves 'English' or 'Dickensian' or 'Daft' then that's their choice.
Well, if we had reoccupied Edinburgh in 1296 it might be an English city, but of course the passage of time has rendered it Scottish.
No, I'm referring to the Kingdom of Northumbia, a precursor to the English state.
At what stage does an electoral system cross a magic threshold and qualify for a badge saying "Real PR"?
Marc Ambinder @marcambinder
Based on your previous purchases, Jeff Bezos, you might also like:
— The Los Angeles Times
— The Orlando Sentinel
— Newsweek
With today's news, has Chuka chucked it all away?
Jim Murphy best price 10/1 (PP). WTF?
I've no idea whether the people of Brighton would have voted for Ms Lucas if there was any chance at all hat she'd be responsible for (say) their taxes, but I suspect not.
So you hold it by right of conquest then? Fair enough. Just don't whinge about Berwick, and give us the Stone of Scone back.
Although I would probably interpret the history somewhat differently. The whole of the Kingdom of Northumbria was annexed by England on the death of Eirik Bloodaxe, you then just invaded it.
Oh, and they can hand over the Canary Islands as well.
What great misfortune has befallen Britain's answer to Barack Obama?
The Spanish don't seem to be very grateful, possibly because it represented a Spanish civil war almost as much as a French invasion.
When I visited a number of Spanish Napoleonic battlefields a few years ago there was barely any information on them, including Fuentes de Onoro and Salamanca. (Actually I think there is a placard outside the church at Fuentes). This does mean that some of the smaller unit actions are quite unspoilt, such as the Light Division's famous action on the Coa (if you blank out the modern motorway bridge).
In Portugal it was different, the actions of the "Luso-Britannic" army seemed to be commemorated everywhere, and there was quite a lot of visitor interpretation stuff at Busaco, for example, and a museum.
I can't possibly be talking myself into backing Rachel Reeves can I?
ok - well we disagree on NC but my contention is that he had far less room for manoeuvre than people expected. Of course, it's been a long time since there was a coalition, but what real power does he have? He can't hold out too strongly because what's the ultimate sanction? We'll leave. But first they have signed the agreement; and secondly if they did leave and have either a confidence and supply agreement or no agreement at all there would be another election.
Now, it's tempting to speculate when the right time for that would have been whereby all the disaffected Lab voters would have said: "oops, we didn't realise it meant _that_" and then would have voted Lab in the election. Too soon and nothing too much has changed, too long (now-ish) and look, we are in a recovery....
(PB) Tory or not I think he has played a tricky hand well. And again, expectations were ridiculously high.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rising-star-of-labour-and-betting-shop-critic-chuka-umunna-faces-embarrassment-after-accepting-20000-gift-from-gambling-executive-8748755.html
IRV is not a proportional voting system. Like all winner-take-all voting systems, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the largest parties; small parties without majority support in any given constituency are unlikely to earn seats in a legislature, although their supporters will be more likely to be part of the final choice between the two strongest candidates.[45] A simulepation of IRV in the 2010 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that the election would have altered the balance of seats between the three main parties, but the number of seats won by minor parties would have remained unchanged.[46]
Australia, a nation with a long record of using IRV for election of legislative bodies, has had representation in its parliament broadly similar to that expected by plurality systems. Medium-sized parties, such as the National Party of Australia, can co-exist with coalition partners such as the Liberal Party of Australia, and can compete against it without fear of losing seats to other parties due to vote splitting.[47] IRV is more likely to result in legislatures where no single party has an absolute majority of seats (a hung parliament),[citation needed] but does not generally produce as fragmented a legislature as a fully proportional system, such as is used for the House of Representatives of the Netherlands or the New Zealand House of Representatives, where coalitions of numerous small parties are needed for a majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Proportionality
Over here we'd have paid for all that on the NbloodyHS
For large parties, landslide victories become even more dominant, as they too are likely to be more transfer-friendly than their main rival. Blair may well have won by 200+ under AV in 1997 - hardly a more proportional outcome.
I think we'll have to agree that it wasn't a very interesting question anyway and just move along. I've got a country to single-handedly save from greasy Spaniards so it's looking like a busy evening
I never saw why anyone reckoned Umunna was anything other than an empty suit.
Leslie is a Labour drone who is utterly of the party and plays the game too much like a game. In one sense, that ought to help him (we should remember who the electorate is and who they voted for last time), but I can't see them going for someone who's essentially a poor man's version of Ed Miliband.
Sure - I just picked the next 'young thing' on the betfair list. Within the Labour ranks there are lots of very talented people. I've probably misjudged him, but I'd have been very happy seeing Labour lead by Chuka. He's blown it though.
Such as Justine Greening, future Prime Minister.
https://twitter.com/Lewes_cfc/status/364718618589667330/photo/1
As ever, people who like to believe that the world is how they wish it to be, not how it actually is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385524/Chuka-Umunna-accused-hypocrisy-campaign-betting-shops-taking-20-000-donation-gambling-tycoon.html
I do agree with NPXMP down thread, to refuse to form a govt over an issue that only motivates activists, while giving ground on other issues would make the LDs look like real navel gazers.
More interesting would be to speculate on what the LDs would require to agree to coalition with EdM and EdB.
The parties already have far too much power and this is one major reason why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with our political system and why many of them don't bother voting anymore. Why vote for a supposed local representative when they are going to end up representing the views and wishes of the party rather than that of their constituents?
Technically, STV isn't really PR at all as there's no mechanical link between vote and party (which is an advantage if you value choice), but for practical purposes there is, as many voters will give their first two or three preferences to members of the same party, and preferences beyond that rarely have too much impact.
Whatever system of PR is used, the constituencies have to be larger than FPTP or AV in order to provide the balance. The alternative I prefer is state-operated primaries, which still gives the public choice but retains the most local constituency link.
They were no boundary changes to the three Nottingham seats and Gedling in 1997 which means those four seats had the same boundaries between 1983 and 2010.
I don't think banning whipping is achievable or desirable. It exists for a reason and is one mechanism by which governments can be held to account. It also renders parties meaningless if they cannot be reasonably sure of enacting their programme if they win a majority. MPs should be allowed some latitude and until recently, I worked closely and happily with one of the most rebellious MPs in Westminster. Even so, when push comes to shove, MPs can and should vote with their party on matters of confidence. MPs who wish to have a completely free hand should stand as independents.
Not to mention the state sponsored primaries in the USA contribute to the stranglehold the big two over there have and help squash smaller parties.
There need be no compulsion for any party to use primaries and indeed, were I writing the legislation, I'd set thresholds to avoid minor parties abusing the process, but I'd have thought that most parties would want to select someone who has broad appeal to the constituency in question. Not all US states use primaries, for example.
Yes, it probably would reduce political plurality in party numbers but that plurality would still exist within parties, which in any case could not exercise the same degree of control if each MP had a greater local personal mandate (as opposed to having been elected primarily because of the colour of their rosette). Besides, I've said before, I don't think excessive plurality is a good thing - it leads to fragmentation and an inability to hold anyone to account because of the concessions and negotiations of coalitions or hung parliaments etc. The important thing is retaining a parliament with a wide range of views. How they're arranged within that is a secondary consideration.
A referendum on PR might be an option, though. The Tory side would have won the AV referendum and probably the Scottish Independence one, too, so they'd probably be pretty confident they'd win the PR one and get to stay in government for free.
DAVID HERDSON FOR MAYOR
"Growing signs of a sustained economic recovery are putting the Conservatives on a “glide path” to victory at the next election, senior Tories have said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10227117/Conservatives-feel-benefit-of-economic-bounce.html
Or plotting:
"Mr Johnson is regarded by many Tories as the strongest contender to replace Mr Cameron. Some suspect the mayor of talking up a Tory election victory in order to increase the chances of the party removing Mr Cameron in the event of a hung parliament in 2015."
"First lasagne plot ...now barbecoup"
LABOUR power couple Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have been accused of plotting against ailing leader Ed Miliband — by attending a summer barbecue with local activists.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5055263/Ed-Balls-accused-of-party-move-against-Ed-Miliband.html
The headline's about the only decent thing in the story.....if the Balls are plotting a leadership coup, local party activists is probably not the best place to start....
As a second point, people largely vote by party name. Such is the reality, the members are nominated representatives of their party to the community as well as representatives of the community to parliament. If a member intends to rebel against his party more often, or on particular issues then he should announce that when standing.
Invaded by Britain's Royal Navy in 1708 during the War of the Spanish Succession, Minorca temporarily became a British possession. Britain took possession in 1713 under the terms of the Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. Under the governorship of General Richard Kane, this period saw the island's capital moved to Port Mahon, and a naval base established in that town's harbour.
During the Seven Years' War, Spain regained the island in 1756 after the Battle of Minorca. British resistance persisted at Port Mahon, but the garrison was forced to capitulate under honourable terms, including free passage back to Britain, on 29 June of that same year. Thanks to the Treaty of Paris (1763), the British returned to the island again following Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War. During the American War of Independence, the British were defeated for a second time, in this instance by a combination of French and Spanish forces, which regained the island after a long siege of St. Philip's Castle in Port Mahon on 5 February 1782. The British ceded the island back to Spain the next year in the Treaty of Versailles. Minorca was invaded by the British once again in 1798, during the French Revolutionary Wars, but it was finally and permanently repossessed by Spain by the terms of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The British influence can still be seen in local architecture with elements such as sash windows.
As the rest of the Balearic Islands, Minorca was not occupied by the French during the Peninsular War, as it was successfully protected by the Royal Navy, this time allied to Spain.
[..]
After the Nationalist victory in the Battle of Minorca in February 1939, the British Navy assisted in a peaceful transfer of power in Minorca and the evacuation of some political refugees aboard HMS Devonshire.
I don't think Chuka has got that - it's just a faintly hypocritical move (although blown out of all significance. If anything the fact that you can take money from someone and then still campaign against one specific interest of theirs is a good thing on balance).
I doubt this will do him any more harm than Ecclestone did to Blair. It's just be something that committed opponents lambaste him with