|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 13, 2020 17:58:57 GMT
No it doesn’t. And you ought to have spotted that fact the moment you saw yourself writing “In 2005”.
As percent of the voters means almost nothing in FPTP, percent of the electorate is even more meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 13, 2020 18:06:27 GMT
The precise opposite to 2005. However, that also indicates volatility. But Labour benefits the most from the current system - winning a big majority in 2005 with support from only 21% of the electorate. It did in 2005. But not in 2019
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 18:09:50 GMT
No it doesn’t. And you ought to have spotted that fact the moment you saw yourself writing “In 2005”. As percent of the voters means almost nothing in FPTP, percent of the electorate is even more meaningless. Your party going from 45% to 18% in Scotland explains that.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 13, 2020 19:35:31 GMT
No it doesn’t. And you ought to have spotted that fact the moment you saw yourself writing “In 2005”. As percent of the voters means almost nothing in FPTP, percent of the electorate is even more meaningless. Your party going from 45% to 18% in Scotland explains that. That's a point against you. You can't possibly argue that the electoral system is biased in favour of Labour now, because of the collapse in the number of Labour seats from Scotland. Why do I get the feeling I am arguing against an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 20:11:46 GMT
Your party going from 45% to 18% in Scotland explains that. That's a point against you. You can't possibly argue that the electoral system is biased in favour of Labour now, because of the collapse in the number of Labour seats from Scotland. Why do I get the feeling I am arguing against an idiot. I can as a disproportionate number of Labour seats in Wales and the North East have below average electorates.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 13, 2020 20:13:54 GMT
That's a point against you. You can't possibly argue that the electoral system is biased in favour of Labour now, because of the collapse in the number of Labour seats from Scotland. Why do I get the feeling I am arguing against an idiot. I can as a disproportionate number of Labour seats in Wales and the North East have below average electorates. But that doesn't work, because there are a lot of London and other inner-city seats which are strongly Labour and oversized. Labour doesn't get any advantage from average electorate size now, especially since Conservative gains in the 2019 election.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jan 13, 2020 20:44:03 GMT
On December 2019 electorates, of the sixty largest seats, 33 were Conservative, 24 Labour, 2 SNP and 1 LD.
Of the sixty smallest, 26 were Conservative, 22 Labour, 7 SNP, 4 PC and 1 LD.
Things have changed a lot in British politics since the 2005 election, so setting rules to fix supposed deficiencies in that election (which in any case was an outlier and is pretty much ancient history now) may not go as intended.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 13, 2020 20:53:56 GMT
Clearly the underlying notion is that, as long as the system has never produced an outcome as hilariously favorable to the Tories as 2005 was to Labour, Labour have an unfair advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 21:15:38 GMT
On December 2019 electorates, of the sixty largest seats, 33 were Conservative, 24 Labour, 2 SNP and 1 LD. Of the sixty smallest, 26 were Conservative, 22 Labour, 7 SNP, 4 PC and 1 LD. Things have changed a lot in British politics since the 2005 election, so setting rules to fix supposed deficiencies in that election (which in any case was an outlier and is pretty much ancient history now) may not go as intended. Happy to change my view in the face of evidence and not ad hominem. Clearly the system is no longer as bad for the Tories as it was from 1992 to 2010.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,274
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jan 14, 2020 8:27:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 14, 2020 9:25:51 GMT
That's a point against you. You can't possibly argue that the electoral system is biased in favour of Labour now, because of the collapse in the number of Labour seats from Scotland. Why do I get the feeling I am arguing against an idiot. I can as a disproportionate number of Labour seats in Wales and the North East have below average electorates. The problem is that sorting the boundaries out in Wales is inevitably bad for us and favourable to Labour now: 1) Adding anything from the mainland to Ynys Môn will tip it into being a fairly safe Labour seat. (potential -1) 2) The seven constituencies in Clwyd (six of which are currently Conservative) need to be reduced to five, and one is likely to be a clear successor to Alyn and Deeside (the only Labour seat) – if this adds Flint town (like the old East Flintshire before 1983), then it's only going to become safer for Labour. (potential -2) 3) The five constituencies in Dyfed need reducing to four, and it's fairly clear what the pattern will end up being – although we only have two of the five at present, this could easily turn into 1/4, as I doubt that enough of our supporters would end up in either Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire or Carmarthen. (potential -1) 4) Montgomeryshire thankfully doesn't get massacred on 32 seats, but by having to add Radnorshire northward, this means that whatever Brecknockshire gets added to will either be a marginal itself (e.g. by adding Neath) or shred Monmouth badly enough to replace that with a giant sort of Newport East marginal. (potential -1) 5) The Bridgend constituency will need to add something, and the options are all likely to swing it towards Labour. (potential -1) 6) The Vale of Glamorgan constituency will need to shed a ward again (it's previously lost Sully, and I imagine it'll be Dinas Powys next). This tips the balance another notch towards Barry town, making it more marginal. Although this will require some redrawing in Cardiff (to deal with South and Penarth being too large and Central being too small), I don't think it's possible any more to draw a Conservative seat in the city. (potential -1) In short, it's all too easy to envisage 7/8 of the seats lost in reducing Wales from 40 to 32 being Conservative. The 8th is of course from Plaid Cymru (i.e. abolishing Arfon and putting the Labour bits into Ynys Môn and the Plaid Cymru bits into Dwyfor Meirionnydd). Yes, I could be being too negative about the two Conservative v Plaid Cymru fights this sets up out west, but those are a bit beside the point. All that's needed is a semi-decent Labour campaign in the slightly slimmed down Vale of Glamorgan, the slightly enlarged Bridgend, and whatever marginal results from combining Brecknockshire southwards, and they won't have lost any seats at all from the reduction from 40 to 32.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 9:40:10 GMT
I can as a disproportionate number of Labour seats in Wales and the North East have below average electorates. The problem is that sorting the boundaries out in Wales is inevitably bad for us and favourable to Labour now: 1) Adding anything from the mainland to Ynys Môn will tip it into being a fairly safe Labour seat. (potential -1) 2) The seven constituencies in Clwyd (six of which are currently Conservative) need to be reduced to five, and one is likely to be a clear successor to Alyn and Deeside (the only Labour seat) – if this adds Flint town (like the old East Flintshire before 1983), then it's only going to become safer for Labour. (potential -2) 3) The five constituencies in Dyfed need reducing to four, and it's fairly clear what the pattern will end up being – although we only have two of the five at present, this could easily turn into 1/4, as I doubt that enough of our supporters would end up in either Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire or Carmarthen. (potential -1) 4) Montgomeryshire thankfully doesn't get massacred on 32 seats, but by having to add Radnorshire northward, this means that whatever Brecknockshire gets added to will either be a marginal itself (e.g. by adding Neath) or shred Monmouth badly enough to replace that with a giant sort of Newport East marginal. (potential -1) 5) The Bridgend constituency will need to add something, and the options are all likely to swing it towards Labour. (potential -1) 6) The Vale of Glamorgan constituency will need to shed a ward again (it's previously lost Sully, and I imagine it'll be Dinas Powys next). This tips the balance another notch towards Barry town, making it more marginal. Although this will require some redrawing in Cardiff (to deal with South and Penarth being too large and Central being too small), I don't think it's possible any more to draw a Conservative seat in the city. (potential -1) In short, it's all too easy to envisage 7/8 of the seats lost in reducing Wales from 40 to 32 being Conservative. The 8th is of course from Plaid Cymru (i.e. abolishing Arfon and putting the Labour bits into Ynys Môn and the Plaid Cymru bits into Dwyfor Meirionnydd). Yes, I could be being too negative about the two Conservative v Plaid Cymru fights this sets up out west, but those are a bit beside the point. All that's needed is a semi-decent Labour campaign in the slightly slimmed down Vale of Glamorgan, the slightly enlarged Bridgend, and whatever marginal results from combining Brecknockshire southwards, and they won't have lost any seats at all from the reduction from 40 to 32. Fair point.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jan 14, 2020 22:18:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jan 17, 2020 8:06:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 15:58:28 GMT
In 1997 the swing against Michael Portillo was 17.4%.
In 2019 the swing against Dominic Raab was 17.2%.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 19, 2020 17:00:06 GMT
In 1997 the swing against Michael Portillo was 17.4%. In 2019 the swing against Dominic Raab was 17.2%. Don't think Raab would have been much good at rail journeys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 17:00:41 GMT
In 1997 the swing against Michael Portillo was 17.4%. In 2019 the swing against Dominic Raab was 17.2%. Don't think Raab would have been much good at rail journeys. Or Strictly Come Dancing...
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jan 21, 2020 8:42:26 GMT
Labour's 'Claw of Doom':-
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 21, 2020 8:44:17 GMT
Labour's 'Claw of Doom':- Yes. Almost a mirror image of 2005 when Labour got a working majority on little more than 35% of the vote Neither situation is very satisfactory
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 21, 2020 10:16:33 GMT
Labour's 'Claw of Doom':- And that was precisely the post-17GE analysis that led me to make my structural analysis projections a couple of years ago. We have the efficient model and with a good campaign, a poll lead and effective targetting we are far more likely to win well. We had a complete cock-up in 2017 and still came in as largest and close to majority. In 2019 we ran a tauter tighter campaign on the correct issues and completely cleaned up as the model rewarded us.
|
|