Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some pretty grim polling in London for the Tories, Labour, and

245

Comments

  • Pulpstar said:
    Yes they do.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Well, that's the thing isn't it? We're unusual in that the legislature also supplies the executive. If we did away with that, then I think there'd be an excellent case for cutting the size of the chamber further. But that's not the way the UK works.
  • MP for Canterbury is facing a vote of censure for her recent behaviour

    #purgecontinues

    https://twitter.com/Rajdeep1/status/1039167505221275649

    Dissent will not be tolerated by the party formally known as the Labour party, now the institutionally racist party, with added nuts.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
  • MP for Canterbury is facing a vote of censure for her recent behaviour

    #purgecontinues

    https://twitter.com/Rajdeep1/status/1039167505221275649

    Dissent will not be tolerated by the party formally known as the Labour party, now the institutionally racist party, with added nuts.
    She managed to win a Tory seat so that should immediately raise suspicions that she doesn't belong in the party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
  • Mr. JohnL, were the boundaries not drawn up by a neutral body?

    Yes, but the decision to reduce the number of MPs was far from neutral
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
  • Mr. JohnL, were the boundaries not drawn up by a neutral body?

    Yes, but the decision to reduce the number of MPs was far from neutral
    And was taken a long, long time ago. Failing to pass these changes would be a bad day for Parliament.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    That does not make it right. You could generally accept that there is no appetite for any constitutional reform, but it shouldn't stop people who recognise our democratic deficit from (maybe hopelessly) advancing its cause
  • Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?

    Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
    Hear hear. And if it is good enough for people to bang on about the democratic inadequacies of the EU then it is time we sorted out our extremely flawed system
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    Well, I think that rejecting another non-proportional system (and usually less proportional than FPTP) means people can still advocate for a proportional one instead, really.
    I know some describe any change or any other system as "Proportional Representation", but that doesn't make it so.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
    Perhaps we can have a thread on AV during your stint in the hot seat
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
    It's a decent system to elect an individual; a lousy one to elect a representative body, unless you only have 2 national parties.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    I'm pretty sure it will pass.

    But after Brexit.
  • Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?

    Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.

    ..or perhaps suggesting he is an Anti-Semite
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.

    We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    felix said:

    Have we covered the loss of Jezza's seat under boundary review?

    Yup - various alternatives suggested - my favourite would be Jerusalem NW.
    Gaza.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    Aboundary review should be initiated after each GE. With fixed term parliaments the new boundaries could be in place for the next GE. It should be an automatic process and this way would work on the latest registrations.
  • Ken Clarke's is interesting. Seems to have been cut in half and the Clifton estate added.

    Not that he'll stand again.

    ... not even if he's made interim PM by the new Centre Party?
  • Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?

    Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.

    Thou shalt love the Lord Jeremy with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, provided they are a member of Momentum, and if they are not you should hate them and abuse them for being Tory/Jewish scum.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.

    We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.
    Post of the decade.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    Freggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    Perhaps we should have "Stay" or "Dump" referendum on the current voting system with no agreement about what we will replace it with.

    We can then have people arguing about what exactly what the "Dump" result meant.
    Post of the decade.
    +1
  • Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?

    Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.

    Because it is clearly intended to favour the interests of the larger parties and make the system (even) less proportional. And with Brexit we need more MPs, not fewer!
  • Ken Clarke's is interesting. Seems to have been cut in half and the Clifton estate added.

    Not that he'll stand again.

    ... not even if he's made interim PM by the new Centre Party?
    What a utopian outcome of Brexit that would be. Shame it is unlikely
  • Penrith has changed quite a bit under new proposals.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    I cannot see any of the 3 Tories being high profile enough or charismatic enough to beat Khan but on these falling numbers for the Mayor if Alan Sugar ran as an independent he could beat Khan
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    Yes, so oxfordsimon's argument is incorrect.
  • HYUFD said:

    I cannot see any of the 3 Tories being high profile enough or charismatic enough to beat Khan but on these falling numbers for the Mayor if Alan Sugar ran as an independent he could beat Khan

    Is that based on evidence or HYUFD instinct?
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
  • Shame that never applied to those that criticised Blair. That would have been a bit of a clear out
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    What's interesting from this tweet and from the whole reaction to the anti-Semitism issue is that there seems to be a deliberate effort to push out the moderates. The Corbyn big tent is getting smaller by the day.
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
    Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.
  • This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384
  • Mr. Fire, I agree on the perverse coincidence of decreasing the number of MPs as we leave the EU.

    As for proportionality, that's not the way our system works, and pretending it is is usually the preserve of Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, and other losing parties who either fail to understand the system or seek to excuse their failure in a manner akin to a football team bragging about how many corners they got.

    [If you genuinely believe we should have a proportional system, fair enough. But claiming the current one is or should take any account of that when it's designed as 650 single elections, as it were, is just daft].
  • Thornberry seems tone deaf on Syria

    https://twitter.com/SyriaUK/status/1039179436531351552
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
    No and Blair simply had a propensity to think he was a Jeremy, and it was this deluded complex that caused him to do all those awful things. The other "leaders" were all the false messiahs that had to precede the coming of the true Lord in all his glory. Amen
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    What's interesting from this tweet and from the whole reaction to the anti-Semitism issue is that there seems to be a deliberate effort to push out the moderates. The Corbyn big tent is getting smaller by the day.
    I will die laughing if they keep this up and enough do jump to form some kind of alternative. Small but enough to cost Jezza any chance of a majority or even a coalition with who knows what.

    The desperation for purity will have cost them.

    It is all very odd, when you read in the Newstatesman that the leader's inner team are terrified of a centre party split costing them the election. Has no one told the union baron idiots, never mind the Momentum cannon fodder?
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
    Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.
    Of course, I forgot that Labour is and always has been a Marxist, anti-semitic party. It just didn't know it until Corbyn revealed their true nature to the world.
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
    Neither is any leader. Labour have never been led by a Marxist, anti-semite before.
    Of course, I forgot that Labour is and always has been a Marxist, anti-semitic party. It just didn't know it until Corbyn revealed their true nature to the world.
    The Party has been under a hundred year spell of False Consciousness.
  • Mr. Fire, how is it not neutral?

    Mr. Urquhart, it's their own fault. If they only loved Jeremy the way he loves them, all would be harmony. But they choose to breed dissent and sow hatred by disagreeing with Jeremy's wisdom. Of all the sins, only denying the divinity of Jeremy cannot be forgiven.

    Because it is clearly intended to favour the interests of the larger parties and make the system (even) less proportional. And with Brexit we need more MPs, not fewer!
    More MP's? The only bit of Parliamentary procedure I've watched recently was the DCMS Com on Fake News. The MP's on that were woefully unprepared/badly briefed, or maybe just woeful. Far too many sycophants and time servers infest the back benches
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Please delete that post before the 6 minute edit window closes, and never post on PB again.
  • Anyway, time for me to sod off. Be nice, everyone, and remember to praise Jeremy thrice before bed to guarantee happy dreams.
  • This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384

    It's not true.

    Don't think they were ever married and they split up last year.
  • Mr. Fire, I agree on the perverse coincidence of decreasing the number of MPs as we leave the EU.

    As for proportionality, that's not the way our system works, and pretending it is is usually the preserve of Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, and other losing parties who either fail to understand the system or seek to excuse their failure in a manner akin to a football team bragging about how many corners they got.

    [If you genuinely believe we should have a proportional system, fair enough. But claiming the current one is or should take any account of that when it's designed as 650 single elections, as it were, is just daft].

    Does anyone really understand our system Mr Dancer? It has evolved from a constituency system that was originally devised to represent centres of power rather than populations. The boundaries commission have an impossible task. How can you make something look fair that is fundamentally without logic. I have been a Tory most of my adult life, but the logical part of my brain completely fails to be able to defend FPTP as it currently stands. The only FPTP that would make sense would be if we had a directly elected PM. Even then it would need to be more like AV to get to a majority position.
  • For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306
  • You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
    If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
    I have been reading PB since 2009, I think, so it pains me to have to admit it, but I have just had to Google AV to remind myself what it stands for. All I could call to mind was Authorised Version. Could this possibly mean the merits of different voting systems aren't discussed often enough?

    Good evening, everyone.
  • Dawn Butler really is thick, isn't she?

    https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1039164318070304768
  • For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306

    He makes a very valid and disturbing point
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

    That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Sadiq is beatable. His excuses on crime are no longer cutting the mustard. Unfortunately we don't have a candidate that can beat him and our party brand is pretty toxic at the moment.
  • eek said:

    You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

    That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...
    It also sounds very British so it could work fine. 401 mps elected on fptp and 100 based on final %. Its called the 501 method or the Brian Lara system for the cricket fans.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited September 2018

    This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384

    It takes a heart of stone to not shed a tear - of laughter!

    It also shows how inbred and incestuous our political bubble is, worse than a fenland village.
  • Roger said:

    Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?

    That would depend on us caring what IDS has to say 😏
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Roger said:

    Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?

    What's he done now.

    Thanks for flagging up The White Hotel on BBC R4, it was well worth the listen. SeanT has a great writer for a dad.
  • To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...
  • This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384

    It's not true.

    Don't think they were ever married and they split up last year.
    Shame. Because my jaw dropped when I first read it!
  • To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...
    Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    That’s what the evidence suggests.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306

    He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.
  • I have a feeling that if they did just that he would be among the first to blow his top.
  • To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...
    Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?
    That does have a certain appeal. However if often has consequences.

    As an example:
    The Syrian civil war starts.
    We say 'none of our business', even after the regime uses chemical weapons on civilians.
    Vast numbers of refugees move to neighbouring countries.
    After a few years, they move on to other, richer, countries.
    This causes massive problems for those countries, e.g Germany.
    Germany allows refugees in.
    This encourages economic migrants to take advantage.
    This leads to a large uptick in concern about the immigration.
    This is abused by leavers in the Brexit referendum.
    We leave the EU.

    The situation was much more complex and multifaceted than that, but it would be hard for an early intervention in Syria to have caused *more* deaths, suffering and disruption than turning a blind eye has.

    Inaction has consequences.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384

    Harry & Apples just dated - not married. I suspect that their break up last year might not be unconnected with BJ
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    There is a suggestion on Vote UK Forum from a Tory source that at least 30 Tory MPs will oppose the Boundary proposals .
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384


    Is anyone else not just a bit concerned how someone’s private family life has now become so public, with so many people expressing pleasure? It seems to be all those privacy advocates and campaigning groups have lost their voice when it isn’t one of their own getting it.
    The Hacked Off equivalent of “she was asking for it”
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Scott_P said:
    Theresa May brilliantly "solves" another problem
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    notme said:

    For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306

    He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.
    And utterly wrong on several other key predictions.

    Hillary to win Potus 2016.

    Remain to win the Brexit referendum 55/45.

    And Andy Murray to be defeated by Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final.
  • What, you mean like Corbyn and McD did when Blair, Brown or John Smith were leader.
    Blair, Brown and Smith weren't real Labour like Corbyn. Surely you got that memo?
    No and Blair simply had a propensity to think he was a Jeremy, and it was this deluded complex that caused him to do all those awful things. The other "leaders" were all the false messiahs that had to precede the coming of the true Lord in all his glory. Amen
    Blair himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Can any Brexit voter after hearing IDS today say with a straight face that they don't feel foolish and embarrassed?

    What's he done now.

    Thanks for flagging up The White Hotel on BBC R4, it was well worth the listen. SeanT has a great writer for a dad.
    He certainly has. Probably the root of his anger ever since!

    IDS said the Brexiteers weren't responsible for saying what sort of Brexit they wanted. That's the governments job. They just have to say what they don't want 'and you can start with Chequers'.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    For all the abuse Dan Hodges gets, he is remarkably resilient in the face of the Mob

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1039197358658146306

    He was proven utterly right on the EICEINPM position though which he held against all the evidence pointing the other way.
    And utterly wrong on several other key predictions.

    Hillary to win Potus 2016.

    Remain to win the Brexit referendum 55/45.

    And Andy Murray to be defeated by Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final.
    Yup.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Foxy said:

    This latest one (just retweeted by OGH) had me choking on my coffee:

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1039086397687312384

    It takes a heart of stone to not shed a tear - of laughter!

    It also shows how inbred and incestuous our political bubble is, worse than a fenland village.
    Fake news? Cole is not married to her; once dated her; (according to the Mail so treat with caution)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    Scotland is dire, poor sods in Highlands will take weeks to get round their patch
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    rcs1000 said:

    I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.

    I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.

    I don't agree with the reduction.

    I doubt it will pass to be honest.
    600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.

    We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.

    It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
    Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
    We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
    We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
    Some might say that the discussion of AV on PB is indeed deeply disproportionate to the level of interest in the topic.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
    https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696

    I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.
  • eek said:

    You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

    That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...
    Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
    Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
    Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    eek said:

    You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

    That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...
    Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
    Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
    Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.
    It would only be as proportional on average as fptp
  • On topic, you do have to wonder who comprises the 26% who are supporting the Conservatives in London. Given the party's entire raison d'etre at present is to stand against everything that London stands for, it's remarkable that they poll so highly. The self-hatred among this cohort must be off the scale.
  • Anorak said:

    Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
    https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696

    I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.
    I'm more worried by those parts of the graph which show probabilites of more than 100% or less than 0%.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    eek said:

    You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

    That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...
    Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
    Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
    Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.
    It would only be as proportional on average as fptp
    Oh actually that's not true for third parties. But disproportionality due to, e.g., turnout differences would remain
  • The Green party is heading towards second place in Germany.
    https://twitter.com/Wahlrecht_de/status/1039039748071993345
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Maybe we could do a Duckworth Lewis Method Brexit to bring matters to speedy conclusion?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    If Govt really can't get Boundary review through then surely they should accept Lab Private Members Bill (currently stalled in Committee) for 650 MPs and a larger variation from quota.

    If they kick-off now there is plenty of time before a 2022 GE - current review began early 2016 and ended Sept 2018 - so same timetable would be early 2019 to Sept 2021.

    Separate question - can Govt have more than one shot at the vote? ie Even if Commons rejects it, can they simply relay the Statutory Instrument? That is what happened in 1969 / 1970 - Wilson Govt rejected proposals before 1970 GE and the same proposals were then passed afterwards.

    If answer is "Yes" it would give Govt a bit more scope.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    Mr. 1000, nice graphic here on the subject:
    https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/978249963476893696

    I like the fact there's a little bobble at the opposite end of most charts which captures the people whose understanding of percentage chance is inverted.
    I'm more worried by those parts of the graph which show probabilites of more than 100% or less than 0%.
    Pfff. Details.

    And over-zealous smoothing software, natch.
  • welshowl said:

    Maybe we could do a Duckworth Lewis Method Brexit to bring matters to speedy conclusion?
    A Blind Brexit would really be just the EU enforcing the follow on, putting Dominic Raab back in to bat again until 2021.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    To be fair to her, that line has been used many times on here. It appears to be based on a rather odd idea that the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran can be fully trusted to decide on who the bad guys are ...
    Might I suggest the 'everyone is bad, so none of our business approach'?
    That does have a certain appeal. However if often has consequences.

    As an example:
    The Syrian civil war starts.
    We say 'none of our business', even after the regime uses chemical weapons on civilians.
    Vast numbers of refugees move to neighbouring countries.
    After a few years, they move on to other, richer, countries.
    This causes massive problems for those countries, e.g Germany.
    Germany allows refugees in.
    This encourages economic migrants to take advantage.
    This leads to a large uptick in concern about the immigration.
    This is abused by leavers in the Brexit referendum.
    We leave the EU.

    The situation was much more complex and multifaceted than that, but it would be hard for an early intervention in Syria to have caused *more* deaths, suffering and disruption than turning a blind eye has.

    Inaction has consequences.
    Ed Miliband has more blood on his hand than Tony Blair ever did, and made the decision for far more unethical reasons.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I love how you bang on sanctimoniously about Labour members' "abuse", yet you feel no qualms about abusing a politician as "thick".

    Will you be calling on Theresa May to take "action" against yourself?
This discussion has been closed.