OV9

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:34 am**

I think that most Scottish people are for PR.

May be the national parties would do a bit better up here if the votes mattered more.

Every single person in Scotland could’ve voted for labour yesterday and it wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference.

Although it’s a moot point I reckon. If SNP manage to get another Indy Ref it’ll happen this time.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:40 am**

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:34 am I think that most Scottish people are for PR.

Yeah but that makes no logical sense. You could certainly kiss any idea of independence goodbye with just 1.2m voters to shout for it out of near 50m. Yet with 48 seats in Parliament you have far more clout. Christ, even the Brexit Party got over 800k votes, so 3/4 of the vote count of the SNP.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:45 am**

Yeah, seats by voting proportion is interesting:

CON 283
LAB 209
LD 75
SNP 25
GRN 18
BRX 13
Others 27

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:51 am**

Orange Cola wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:57 am
Beany wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:28 am Seems it's more bye bye Corbyn - he won't fight another election and will stand down once a replacement is found.

Good. Fucking. Riddance.
Abbott’s last tweet seems to suggest she might be sticking around. If Corbyn is 60% of the reason why labour have been heavily defeated then she’s the other 40%. I think it really is that simple, I don’t think people saw past the prospect of those two being in power against the benefits of their manifesto to think they were worth the vote.

Labour have five years to turn it around, I can’t see Boris calling an election any earlier if he gains the majority that he’s projected to gain.

Can't argue with that.

Best laugh of the night was definitely Bojos constituency, with Lord Buckethead and Count Binface

Lord Buckethead gets 125 votes. Accept this. Next to be read out is Count Binface, who gets 69 votes....and Lord Buckethead promptly turns around and gives Count Binface the finger.

I did enjoy that.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 am**

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:40 am
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:34 am I think that most Scottish people are for PR.

Yeah but that makes no logical sense. You could certainly kiss any idea of independence goodbye with just 1.2m voters to shout for it out of near 50m. Yet with 48 seats in Parliament you have far more clout. Christ, even the Brexit Party got over 800k votes, so 3/4 of the vote count of the SNP.

I admit it’s hard to say at this point as the general feeling here just now is that it’s time for another look at independence.

If we were to be part of the UK going forward PR makes more sense but then completely restructuring parliament and how we vote also makes sense to me

.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:06 am**

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 am
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:40 am
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:34 am I think that most Scottish people are for PR.

Yeah but that makes no logical sense. You could certainly kiss any idea of independence goodbye with just 1.2m voters to shout for it out of near 50m. Yet with 48 seats in Parliament you have far more clout. Christ, even the Brexit Party got over 800k votes, so 3/4 of the vote count of the SNP.
I admit it’s hard to say at this point as the general feeling here just now is that it’s time for another look at independence.

If we were to be part of the UK going forward PR makes more sense but then completely restructuring parliament and how we vote also makes sense to me .

In a perverse way I think it actually needed a result like this to potentially change the political landscape for the better. From Labour's perspective, and the other smaller parties, they have to get behind electoral reform as, if the Cons introduce the recommendations of the 2018 Boundary Reform findings, they stand even less chance of ever getting in than they do now. This result may galvanise them into giving serious consideration to support for PR.

The other aspect is that you now have a situation where a considerable number of dyed in the wool Lab voters have voted blue. That's going to make it an awful lot easier for them to vote blue again in future if they continue to remain disenfranchised by Labour - they've broken that lifelong loyalty. May also meant they're more likely to vote for A N Other party as well.

Maybe Nige is on to something...

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:09 am**

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:06 am
In a perverse way I think it actually needed a result like this to potentially change the political landscape for the better. From Labour's perspective, and the other smaller parties, they have to get behind electoral reform as, if the Cons introduce the recommendations of the 2018 Boundary Reform findings, they stand even less chance of ever getting in than they do now. This result may galvanise them into giving serious consideration to support for PR.

Or alternatively, listen to the masses and give them what they ask for - not tell them they're wrong..."THIS is what you want..." etc. If you have to change the political structure to gain power, your fundamentals are not correct.

Just a thought.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:13 am**

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:06 am
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 am
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:40 am

Yeah but that makes no logical sense. You could certainly kiss any idea of independence goodbye with just 1.2m voters to shout for it out of near 50m. Yet with 48 seats in Parliament you have far more clout. Christ, even the Brexit Party got over 800k votes, so 3/4 of the vote count of the SNP.
I admit it’s hard to say at this point as the general feeling here just now is that it’s time for another look at independence.

If we were to be part of the UK going forward PR makes more sense but then completely restructuring parliament and how we vote also makes sense to me .
In a perverse way I think it actually needed a result like this to potentially change the political landscape for the better. From Labour's perspective, and the other smaller parties, they have to get behind electoral reform as, if the Cons introduce the recommendations of the 2018 Boundary Reform findings, they stand even less chance of ever getting in than they do now. This result may galvanise them into giving serious consideration to support for PR.

The other aspect is that you now have a situation where a considerable number of dyed in the wool Lab voters have voted blue. That's going to make it an awful lot easier for them to vote blue again in future if they continue to remain disenfranchised by Labour - they've broken that lifelong loyalty. May also meant they're more likely to vote for A N Other party as well.

Maybe Nige is on to something...

Can't quite believe what I'm reading...

1) Boundary reform is to stop the current FPTP system being rigged in favour of Labour by 10-15 seats on the basis of unequal constituency sizes (bear that in mind when you look at these results - on a fair basis they're a conservative under-read).

2) PR would just have given us a Corbyn SNP Green coalition.

FPTP delivers stable majorities and if we've learnt anything from the past 2 years of squabbling its that we sure as hell don't want coalition/hung parliaments as a structural feature of our politics.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:13 am**

dinny_g wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:09 am
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:06 am
In a perverse way I think it actually needed a result like this to potentially change the political landscape for the better. From Labour's perspective, and the other smaller parties, they have to get behind electoral reform as, if the Cons introduce the recommendations of the 2018 Boundary Reform findings, they stand even less chance of ever getting in than they do now. This result may galvanise them into giving serious consideration to support for PR.

Or alternatively, listen to the masses and give them what they ask for - not tell them they're wrong..."THIS is what you want..." etc. If you have to change the political structure to gain power, your fundamentals are not correct.

Just a thought.

We're at the point where people are just voting for the person they see as least worst while being increasingly influenced by possibly dishonest advertising and reporting.

I would say the fundamentals are already fucked.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:15 am**

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:13 am
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:06 am
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:54 am

I admit it’s hard to say at this point as the general feeling here just now is that it’s time for another look at independence.

If we were to be part of the UK going forward PR makes more sense but then completely restructuring parliament and how we vote also makes sense to me .
In a perverse way I think it actually needed a result like this to potentially change the political landscape for the better. From Labour's perspective, and the other smaller parties, they have to get behind electoral reform as, if the Cons introduce the recommendations of the 2018 Boundary Reform findings, they stand even less chance of ever getting in than they do now. This result may galvanise them into giving serious consideration to support for PR.

The other aspect is that you now have a situation where a considerable number of dyed in the wool Lab voters have voted blue. That's going to make it an awful lot easier for them to vote blue again in future if they continue to remain disenfranchised by Labour - they've broken that lifelong loyalty. May also meant they're more likely to vote for A N Other party as well.

Maybe Nige is on to something...
Can't quite believe what I'm reading...

1) Boundary reform is to stop the current FTPT system being rigged in favour of Labour by 10-15 seats on the basis of unequal constituency sizes (bear that in mind when you look at these results).

2) PR would just have given us a Corbyn SNP Green coalition.

FPTP delivers stable majorities and if we've learnt anything from the past 2 years of squabbling its that we sure as hell don't want coalition/hung parliaments as a structural feature of our politics.

The conservatives have just breezed to a majority with an actual circus clown in charge, if FPTP could've been rigged in labour's favour they really should've taken advantage of it

.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:17 am**

Yep - they couldn't even win with the cards stacked in their favour. They had an advantage that they won't have in 5 years time post the Boundary Reform changes so will have to compete on a fair basis next time, too.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:19 am**

I think it’s nonsense that governments can mess around with constituency boundaries tbh.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:21 am**

They don't do it arbitrarily. It's based on an report by the independent Boundary Commission.

On an independently reviewed basis, the current system favours labour by around 10-15 seats all things being equal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bo ... 38971.html

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:26 am**

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:19 am I think it’s nonsense that governments can mess around with constituency boundaries tbh.

The Yanks are shocking for what they get up to. But yeah, as GG notes, the current recommendations are to re-level the field.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:28 am**

Isn't it do to with the fact a Member of Parliament can only represent a maximum number of people. As the population increases, towns and cities expand etc, they regularly have to be re-drawn.

That's the way it is back home anyway.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:31 am**

dinny_g wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:28 am Isn't it do to with the fact a Member of Parliament can only represent a maximum number of people. As the population increases, towns and cities expand etc, they regularly have to be re-drawn.

That's the way it is back home anyway.

No because the recommendations are to reduce the number of seats from 650-600.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:35 am**

Ah, OK - probably based on a proportion of the population then, rather than a specific number.

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:40 am**

The current seats favour Labour, do they?

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:47 am**

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:40 am The current seats favour Labour, do they?

Shit!

So, Scotland to try it on their own?

Posted: **Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:50 am**

That table is an argument against FPTP and in favour of PR - not one that shows that the population is unequally distributed across constituency boundaries.

You need a table of tory/labour seats and their total electorate size to disprove the fact that the way boundaries are drawn gives Labour a greater number of seats for a given size of electorate on a per constituency basis.

OV9

Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!