Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories are aping DTrump when they claim the electoral system’s

124»

Comments

  • Brexit-vote: Angela Eagles just said that the 'Brexit vote was to kick Margaret....'. Sad; bigly-sad!
  • IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    13,615, 584/ 317 = 42951 to Elect a Baby Eater

    12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.

    SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.

    Depends how you look at it.

    Con votes in the 317 seats they won: 9,261,441 or 29215 votes/seat
    Lab votes in the 262 seats they won: 7,339,955 or 28015 votes/seat
    Drawing attention to one of the principal flaws in the system that votes cast for any other than the winner (which in most seats means a majority of them) count for nothing.
    Just responding to SteveF blatant untruth

    "The Tories dont have an electoral advantage. It takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP."
    Which was subsequently shown not to be an untruth at all.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2017
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'll put George Dobell down as a 'maybe' for that Aussie Cricketers' Appreciation Society:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-england-2017/content/story/1131092.html

    I especially liked these two comments:

    'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'

    But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:

    [Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'

    The coverage from BT isn't much better.
    You don't say.

    After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
    Watching the Ashes coverage has been nearly as bad as sitting through The Last Jedi on repeat ;-)
    I thought that sort of thing was illegal under torture regulations. In the US I know it's forbidden under the Eighth Amendment.

    But are you referring to the commentary or the standard of England's cricket?
    Both...
  • MaxPB said:


    One in 10 UK adults, or 5.2 million people, own a second home according to the Torygraph.

    Anyone know how many students we have

    I think this is rubbish.

    I see a number of papers including the Guardian had this statistic and they claim it is an increase of 30% since 2000.

    Well at the 2011 census, only 1,570,228 people said they had second homes - or a second address - where they spend more than 30 days a year.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32393222

    There is simply no way these two sets of figures can be made to match.

    To answer your question there are about 2.28 million students.
    There are around 1m private landlords in the UK and they hold around 4.5m residential properties between them, that's how the figures match.
    So absolutely nothing like the Telegraph claim at all :)
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited December 2017
    Brexit-vote: Gawd-bless South-Tyneside.

    And some fat-bloke-from-Scotland [truism] has just called it for "Remain" based upon the spread-markets.*

    * Same thick [MODERATED] that assumed he owned England's currency. :triumph:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    Do you understand what parliamentary sovereignty actually means?
    Yes. As defined on here, it means Conservatives can engage in magical thinking where whatever they want can be demanded through it and whatever they don't want isn't covered by it.
    So: term made up by @AlastairMeeks to attack his opponents means what he needs it to mean.

    In the real world, "Parliamentary Sovereignty" means that the Executive (aka "the Crown-in-Parliament") not the Crown exercises the Royal Prerogative
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    I love a good boundaries thread to get the blood running in the winter.
    As partisan as it gets but a few thoughts I don't think have been raised below:

    1 - The Telegraph story reads to me like the Government preparing to throw in the towel on the current review. If it's going down, let's blame the other guys loudly. This isn't the sound of a Government negotiating a deal. The Government has to respond to the Afzal Khan bill to restart the review with 650 seats very soon, and I wonder if the wheels are turning.

    2 - There are many controversial boundaries where there are Tory MPs. Our Tory MP is making a tit of himself writing to affected residents saying how concerned he is about the changes. He voted for them, and now suggests that he'd prefer to cross a regional boundary to avoid the worst. Cornish MPs in the same position. I imagine many Tory MPs are supportive in public but keen it doesn't come to an actual vote. Better to pull it than lose it.

    3 - No-one objects to more equal boundaries. Lots of people object to reducing MPs to 600 seats; many object to FPTP. The Tories seem only to be able to defend the first. On the second they have given up and on the third all they do is refer back to the referendum (that's becoming a habit) Why the opposition aren't attacking the seat reduction more I don't know.

    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    5 - I'd say it's unfair to describe the rules as a gerrymander (although looking at some of the proposed boundaries by the political parties certainly is) but honest question - can anyone name the last time the Tories supported a constitutional change that wouldn't aid them?
    This review, going against formal advice to insist on the 2015 register being used, blocking AV or any more proportional system, individual voter registration, trialling ID to vote, blocking Lords Reform, blocking votes at 16. Some of these changes are no bad things and I've no doubt that many Tories believe they are the right things to do, but there is a persistent pattern of putting party self-interest first, over many years.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Sandpit said:

    There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?

    Apologies if I’m wrong.

    No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.

    The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.

    We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
    You have to register for council tax each and every time you move, normally within days, and that usually triggers a reminder for the electoral roll from the council. Not being on the roll affects things like credit scores so that's another incentive.

    And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
    There’s a similar problem, especially in urban areas with lots of short-term flats with GP’s lists. On which GP’s are paid. It is, or was when I was concerned with these things, apparently quite common to find people who’d moved three or four times but were still on the list of the doctor where they lived originally.
    I was registered with a GP in my university town for about seven years after I moved away. For nine years of the last decade I’ve lived abroad but no doubt the GP I was last registered with is still claiming for me.
    I hope that by now he’s (she’s) had the practice manager write to you twice asking you to check in, and if you’ve not responded, has taken you off the list.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    edited December 2017
    Good news McClaren is drifting like a barge.

    Unfortunately Gus Poyet is shortening dramatically and will be crossover Fav shortly by the looks of it.

    I am on Aitor Karanka at 16/1

    Rob Staton (Radio Sheffield)

    Verified account

    @robstaton
    19h19 hours ago
    More
    Understand Steve McLaren is unlikely to be the next Sheffield Wednesday manager #SWFC
  • Brexit-news, much overlooked fact: FARC effectively surrendered. JMS Calderon deservered his Nobel-Prize (unlike Barry).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    tpfkar said:

    I love a good boundaries thread to get the blood running in the winter.
    As partisan as it gets but a few thoughts I don't think have been raised below:

    1 - The Telegraph story reads to me like the Government preparing to throw in the towel on the current review. If it's going down, let's blame the other guys loudly. This isn't the sound of a Government negotiating a deal. The Government has to respond to the Afzal Khan bill to restart the review with 650 seats very soon, and I wonder if the wheels are turning.

    2 - There are many controversial boundaries where there are Tory MPs. Our Tory MP is making a tit of himself writing to affected residents saying how concerned he is about the changes. He voted for them, and now suggests that he'd prefer to cross a regional boundary to avoid the worst. Cornish MPs in the same position. I imagine many Tory MPs are supportive in public but keen it doesn't come to an actual vote. Better to pull it than lose it.

    3 - No-one objects to more equal boundaries. Lots of people object to reducing MPs to 600 seats; many object to FPTP. The Tories seem only to be able to defend the first. On the second they have given up and on the third all they do is refer back to the referendum (that's becoming a habit) Why the opposition aren't attacking the seat reduction more I don't know.

    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    5 - I'd say it's unfair to describe the rules as a gerrymander (although looking at some of the proposed boundaries by the political parties certainly is) but honest question - can anyone name the last time the Tories supported a constitutional change that wouldn't aid them?
    This review, going against formal advice to insist on the 2015 register being used, blocking AV or any more proportional system, individual voter registration, trialling ID to vote, blocking Lords Reform, blocking votes at 16. Some of these changes are no bad things and I've no doubt that many Tories believe they are the right things to do, but there is a persistent pattern of putting party self-interest first, over many years.

    We worry about 600 or 650 MP’s in Parliament. No-one seems concerned about the 10,000 unelected (apart from a few) Lords.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tpfkar said:



    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    Because it's the law. The review was launched by the Boundary Commission because that's its job.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,737
    edited December 2017

    tpfkar said:

    I love a good boundaries thread to get the blood running in the winter.
    As partisan as it gets but a few thoughts I don't think have been raised below:

    1 - The Telegraph story reads to me like the Government preparing to throw in the towel on the current review. If it's going down, let's blame the other guys loudly. This isn't the sound of a Government negotiating a deal. The Government has to respond to the Afzal Khan bill to restart the review with 650 seats very soon, and I wonder if the wheels are turning.

    2 - There are many controversial boundaries where there are Tory MPs. Our Tory MP is making a tit of himself writing to affected residents saying how concerned he is about the changes. He voted for them, and now suggests that he'd prefer to cross a regional boundary to avoid the worst. Cornish MPs in the same position. I imagine many Tory MPs are supportive in public but keen it doesn't come to an actual vote. Better to pull it than lose it.

    3 - No-one objects to more equal boundaries. Lots of people object to reducing MPs to 600 seats; many object to FPTP. The Tories seem only to be able to defend the first. On the second they have given up and on the third all they do is refer back to the referendum (that's becoming a habit) Why the opposition aren't attacking the seat reduction more I don't know.

    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    5 - I'd say it's unfair to describe the rules as a gerrymander (although looking at some of the proposed boundaries by the political parties certainly is) but honest question - can anyone name the last time the Tories supported a constitutional change that wouldn't aid them?
    This review, going against formal advice to insist on the 2015 register being used, blocking AV or any more proportional system, individual voter registration, trialling ID to vote, blocking Lords Reform, blocking votes at 16. Some of these changes are no bad things and I've no doubt that many Tories believe they are the right things to do, but there is a persistent pattern of putting party self-interest first, over many years.

    We worry about 600 or 650 MP’s in Parliament. No-one seems concerned about the 10,000 unelected (apart from a few) Lords.
    800, Your Venerable Majesty, not 10,000!

    (I agree though that that is where reform should go first.)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    Charles said:

    tpfkar said:



    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    Because it's the law. The review was launched by the Boundary Commission because that's its job.
    And Dave gave it the ToR with the reduction to 600
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    malcolmg said:

    Nice to see you on site again Jack, all the best for 2018

    Thank you and best wishes to our community for the New Year.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Nice to see you on site again Jack, all the best for 2018

    Thank you and best wishes to our community for the New Year.
    Happy New Year Jack, May 2018 bring health, wealth, happiness and winnings from bookmakers!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Sandpit said:

    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Nice to see you on site again Jack, all the best for 2018

    Thank you and best wishes to our community for the New Year.
    Happy New Year Jack, May 2018 bring health, wealth, happiness and winnings from bookmakers!
    Seconded. All the best to PB’s favourite Jacobite.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741

    TSE has already stated the solution - Multi-Member STV. A fully proportional Commons. People can vote for whomever they like and have their vote carry equal weight. People get a choice of MP to deal with their issues as they do councillors - removing the problem of lazy/ignorant members who do nothing but win anyway. A realignment of political parties so that the nutters at either end can do their own thing without penalty and Blair/Osborne/Clegg can form their new Coalition Union of National Triumph party.

    Whats not to like?

    Very little in my view. One national list from which we choose 600, 650, 700 or however many MPs strictly by proportion.

    In truth, the electoral system plays a role in defining the political culture and structure. In FPTP environments, you get large parties - Conservative, Labour, Republican, Democrat etc. In more proportional systems you get blocs of parties which in effect function the same way.

    One of the key areas is where you have a centre-right party or bloc and a centre left party or bloc neither of whom can win on their own. That opens the door to smaller parties to wield what some would claim is disproportional influence and you get results like the recent NZ election.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'll put George Dobell down as a 'maybe' for that Aussie Cricketers' Appreciation Society:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-england-2017/content/story/1131092.html

    I especially liked these two comments:

    'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'

    But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:

    [Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'

    The coverage from BT isn't much better.
    You don't say.

    After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
    Watching the Ashes coverage has been nearly as bad as sitting through The Last Jedi on repeat ;-)
    Though still better than sitting through Rogue One
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The current boundaries are based on electorates from February 2000, which technically was the final year of the 20th century.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,737
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I'll put George Dobell down as a 'maybe' for that Aussie Cricketers' Appreciation Society:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-england-2017/content/story/1131092.html

    I especially liked these two comments:

    'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'

    But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:

    [Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'

    The coverage from BT isn't much better.
    You don't say.

    After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
    Watching the Ashes coverage has been nearly as bad as sitting through The Last Jedi on repeat ;-)
    Though still better than sitting through Rogue One
    I wouldn't make even Gove sit through that on repeat.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    tpfkar said:

    This review, going against formal advice to insist on the 2015 register being used, blocking AV or any more proportional system, individual voter registration, trialling ID to vote, blocking Lords Reform, blocking votes at 16. Some of these changes are no bad things and I've no doubt that many Tories believe they are the right things to do, but there is a persistent pattern of putting party self-interest first, over many years.

    The voter ID trial is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. It seems designed to particularly affect older voters, such as those who no longer drive and so don't have a driving licence. People who would skew towards the Tories more than the electorate as a whole.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    új téma

  • NEW THREAD

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    FPTnP is crap. Next thread.....
  • Charles said:

    tpfkar said:



    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    Because it's the law. The review was launched by the Boundary Commission because that's its job.
    And Dave gave it the ToR with the reduction to 600
    At 650 members the only other countries in the world with larger primary chambers are China, North Korea and Germany. Even reducing to 600 would only put us behind Cuba, Italy and Nepal.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Charles said:

    tpfkar said:



    4 - Why was the review ever launched without cross-party support? In 2010 it was in the Coalition agreement so some excuse, but every other party has been against it since 2013. The Tories have ploughed on regardless for 4 years, and their arrogance looks like it'll bring the whole thing down. Previous boundary reviews had always been done on a cross-party agreed methodology and the Tories broke with convention. Hardly difficult to convene a working group to hammer out an agreement; it would probably look much like the Afzal Khan bill.

    Because it's the law. The review was launched by the Boundary Commission because that's its job.
    And Dave gave it the ToR with the reduction to 600
    At 650 members the only other countries in the world with larger primary chambers are China, North Korea and Germany. Even reducing to 600 would only put us behind Cuba, Italy and Nepal.
    Once we have a fair voting system, we can think about such matters. Meanwhile, next thread...

This discussion has been closed.