|
Post by batman on Dec 2, 2023 23:52:30 GMT
I would urge you not to hold back, but to say what you really feel.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Dec 3, 2023 20:48:25 GMT
The salmon-faced Tory incumbent won’t need to take much time away from his daily routine of laughing at the people who pay him almost £100,000 a year for doing fuck all, thanks to the gerrymandering of the voting system. Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering.
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 4, 2023 16:00:09 GMT
The salmon-faced Tory incumbent won’t need to take much time away from his daily routine of laughing at the people who pay him almost £100,000 a year for doing fuck all, thanks to the gerrymandering of the voting system. Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering. Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,888
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 4, 2023 16:51:22 GMT
Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering. Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality. You seem to have forgotten the existence of Canada USA India Bangladesh Nigeria Jamaica Gambia Uganda Kenya and dozens of other countries
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,888
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 4, 2023 16:55:57 GMT
The might be a half-decent chance of a Lib Dem challenge, given recent local government results in this area. Indeed, if the Lib Dems can put up someone who can appeal in both Slough and MK (which is doable) then… I read that sentence that far, didn’t go any further, and thought that the Boundary Commission should draw a constituency including Slough and M(ilton) K(eynes) which it should name “Sluff and Muck”.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Dec 4, 2023 20:13:56 GMT
Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering. Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality. Even if I accepted your argument what you are describing is not gerrymandering. Also FPTP does not result in government with minority support, it generally results in government with plurality support. Your case against FPTP would be stronger if you stopped using words that you clearly do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 4, 2023 21:42:18 GMT
Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality. Even if I accepted your argument what you are describing is not gerrymandering. Also FPTP does not result in government with minority support, it generally results in government with plurality support. Your case against FPTP would be stronger if you stopped using words that you clearly do not understand. If you don’t understand that FPTP delivers government with minority support, you are too stupid to understand what a minority is. (No surprise there…..)
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,611
|
Post by john07 on Dec 5, 2023 14:24:07 GMT
Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering. Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality. You obviously haven't a clue what Gerrymandering is. I suspect that don’t know how it differs from malapportionment or other forms of electoral manipulation. Because you don’t like FPTP, you are throwing around inaccurate insults. You may get away with that elsewhere but not on this site.
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 6, 2023 13:46:58 GMT
Utter nonsense: it is a system kept in place by the Tories to keep them in almost perpetual power with a minority of support. The only other country that uses it is Belarus - with a government of similar morality. You obviously haven't a clue what Gerrymandering is. I suspect that don’t know how it differs from malapportionment or other forms of electoral manipulation. Because you don’t like FPTP, you are throwing around inaccurate insults. You may get away with that elsewhere but not on this site. Garbage. It is a largescale form of gerrymandering, a corrupt voting system designed to manipulate a specific outcome. For anyone from Labour to defend FPTP is risible, given that throughout the party’s history it has kept them from power for substantial periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 6, 2023 14:10:56 GMT
You obviously haven't a clue what Gerrymandering is. I suspect that don’t know how it differs from malapportionment or other forms of electoral manipulation. Because you don’t like FPTP, you are throwing around inaccurate insults. You may get away with that elsewhere but not on this site. Garbage. It is a largescale form of gerrymandering, a corrupt voting system designed to manipulate a specific outcome. For anyone from Labour to defend FPTP is risible, given that throughout the party’s history it has kept them from power for substantial periods of time. Labour does more than 'defend FPTP'; it actively maintains it. We've had, in aggregate, about three decades of Labour governments, all elected under FPTP, and not one of them has taken the opportunity of being in power to change the system.
The idea that Labour is kept of of power by FPTP is (to use your word) risible. What has kept Labour out of power is getting fewer votes than the Tories and this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome in a democratic system. (We'll quietly ignore the 1951 GE, obviously.)
The only way you can make out that FPTP has kept Labour out of power is if you believe the utter nonsense of the so-called 'Progressive Majority' and add the Liberal / SDP / LibDem vote to Labour's. It's true that if you do this, the total 'Progressive' vote will normally exceed the Tories', but the trouble with this theory is that it doesn't explain why all these electors, if they really wanted a Labour government, absent-mindedly voted LIberal, &c, instead.
If the identity of outlook and policy between Labour and the LibDems is as close as you imply, then why don't you unite into a single party, put up one candidate in each seat, and sit back and watch as your progressive voters duly deliver you a huge GE win?
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 6, 2023 18:35:46 GMT
Garbage. It is a largescale form of gerrymandering, a corrupt voting system designed to manipulate a specific outcome. For anyone from Labour to defend FPTP is risible, given that throughout the party’s history it has kept them from power for substantial periods of time. Labour does more than 'defend FPTP'; it actively maintains it. We've had, in aggregate, about three decades of Labour governments, all elected under FPTP, and not one of them has taken the opportunity of being in power to change the system.
The idea that Labour is kept of of power by FPTP is (to use your word) risible. What has kept Labour out of power is getting fewer votes than the Tories and this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome in a democratic system. (We'll quietly ignore the 1951 GE, obviously.)
The only way you can make out that FPTP has kept Labour out of power is if you believe the utter nonsense of the so-called 'Progressive Majority' and add the Liberal / SDP / LibDem vote to Labour's. It's true that if you do this, the total 'Progressive' vote will normally exceed the Tories', but the trouble with this theory is that it doesn't explain why all these electors, if they really wanted a Labour government, absent-mindedly voted LIberal, &c, instead.
If the identity of outlook and policy between Labour and the LibDems is as close as you imply, then why don't you unite into a single party, put up one candidate in each seat, and sit back and watch as your progressive voters duly deliver you a huge GE win?
Labour has, to date, actively maintained it (we shall see what happens now its policy has changed. That fact is probably the single most obvious indicator why a “progressive alliance” is doomed as a concept. However, as the increased prevalence of tactical voting shows, voters take a different view and are increasingly angry at cloth-eared politicians who keep in a place a system that distorts electoral results and outcomes. Yes, there are other factors that keep Labour out of power, 1951 (and almost February 1974) aside. I suspect quite a number in the Blair government regret their failure to enact this one of their pledges. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, which is more than you can say for Belarus.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 6, 2023 19:11:43 GMT
Labour does more than 'defend FPTP'; it actively maintains it. We've had, in aggregate, about three decades of Labour governments, all elected under FPTP, and not one of them has taken the opportunity of being in power to change the system.
The idea that Labour is kept of of power by FPTP is (to use your word) risible. What has kept Labour out of power is getting fewer votes than the Tories and this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome in a democratic system. (We'll quietly ignore the 1951 GE, obviously.)
The only way you can make out that FPTP has kept Labour out of power is if you believe the utter nonsense of the so-called 'Progressive Majority' and add the Liberal / SDP / LibDem vote to Labour's. It's true that if you do this, the total 'Progressive' vote will normally exceed the Tories', but the trouble with this theory is that it doesn't explain why all these electors, if they really wanted a Labour government, absent-mindedly voted LIberal, &c, instead.
If the identity of outlook and policy between Labour and the LibDems is as close as you imply, then why don't you unite into a single party, put up one candidate in each seat, and sit back and watch as your progressive voters duly deliver you a huge GE win?
Labour has, to date, actively maintained it (we shall see what happens now its policy has changed. That fact is probably the single most obvious indicator why a “progressive alliance” is doomed as a concept. However, as the increased prevalence of tactical voting shows, voters take a different view and are increasingly angry at cloth-eared politicians who keep in a place a system that distorts electoral results and outcomes. Yes, there are other factors that keep Labour out of power, 1951 (and almost February 1974) aside. I suspect quite a number in the Blair government regret their failure to enact this one of their pledges. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, which is more than you can say for Belarus. What is your evidence for thinking that tactical voting is increasingly prevalent?
It's not my impression that there is any greater incidence now of tactical voting than there was, say, thirty years ago. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but only if I'm presented with hard figures.
And I don't think you can cite tactical voting as evidence of dissatisfaction with FPTP. I'd argue that voting tactically, which could equally be described as using your vote effectively to achieve an outcome you prefer (or, more usually, to avoid an outcome you dislike), is a normal and healthy part of the operation of FPTP.
And anyway, you haven't answered my question: if Labour and the LibDems are so like-minded as you seem to think, why don't they merge and put up a single candidate in each seat?
I'll tell you why not. It's because a substantial chunk of LibDem voters feel no affinity at all for the Labour Party, actively do not want a Labour Government, and if they are forced to make a polar choice would probably grudgingly prefer the Tories. And likewise there is a body of Labour voters that dislikes the LibDems and if, as a result of some sort of electoral pact, they found themselves without an official Labour candidate to vote for, they would either stay home or vote for one of the unofficial independent Labour candidates who would undoubtedly come forward in such circumstances.
In other words, the imagined 'progressive majority' is no more than a Polly Toynbee pipe dream. At senior level, both Labour and the LibDems know this. That's why they avoid pacts and would never dream of merging.
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 6, 2023 19:36:29 GMT
The evidence in terms of anti-Tory (and anti-SNP) tactical voting is prevalent in the results of elections in this Parliament compared to those that went before. The figures are available to you.
I don’t think Lib Dem voters are the reason for the party staying separate. Where’s your evidence for that?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 7, 2023 14:13:05 GMT
The evidence in terms of anti-Tory (and anti-SNP) tactical voting is prevalent in the results of elections in this Parliament compared to those that went before. The figures are available to you. I don’t think Lib Dem voters are the reason for the party staying separate. Where’s your evidence for that? Voting figures are indeed available to me but I haven't analysed them to identify whether tactical voting is on the increase, because I'm not the one making that assertion.
It's true I'm querying it, because tactical voting has been a factor in FPTP elections, especially byelections, for as far back as I can remember. It still is, of course, but it's not my impression that its prevalence has increased of late. Of course I may be wrong about this, but your mere assertion, unsupported by evidence, isn't very persuasive.
My explanation of why Labour and the LibDems don't merge (or form an electoral pact) is that both of them, at least at leadership level, are aware that the commonality between them, and the potential transferability between them of their electoral support, is a lot less than you and Polly Toynbee seem to think. Since you apparently disagree with my interpretation, I'd be very interested to hear why you think it is that Labour and the LibDems remain separate competing parties.
And the evidence for my assertion is the very fact that no such merger (or pact) has taken place. Because if it were true that in a seat where Labour has stood down, Labour voters would obediently troop to the polling station to support the LibDem, and LibDem voters likewise support Labour in seats where their party is not standing, then the reward for a pact (or merger) is a sweeping GE victory. And the glory of this approach is that you don't have to mess around with the voting system - it would happen perfectly well under FPTP.
But they haven't done it. Why not?
Well, in my view the answer is that they know perfectly well that it wouldn't work. Voters are not mere counters on a board to be shifted around to suit the convenience of players; they have minds of their own and significant numbers of them would decline to co-operate.
Obviously you don't like my answer, so what's yours?
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Dec 7, 2023 23:23:49 GMT
The idea I have more than a passing acquaintance with the views of Polly Toynbee is risible.
I think you need to look at recent voting patterns before making any more silly posts.
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Feb 10, 2024 18:56:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Apr 5, 2024 16:36:19 GMT
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,611
|
Post by john07 on Apr 5, 2024 17:15:19 GMT
The salmon-faced Tory incumbent won’t need to take much time away from his daily routine of laughing at the people who pay him almost £100,000 a year for doing fuck all, thanks to the gerrymandering of the voting system. Whatever you think of FPTP it is absurd to claim that it is gerrymandering. It's not necessarily so in itself, but FPTP can lend itself to gerrmandering in certain circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by listener on Apr 23, 2024 14:45:49 GMT
THAMES VALLEY RESULT 2021
2021 PARO – Cherwell
Overall result (First Stage) (total valid ballots 629,809)
Conservatives ahead in all districts, except Reading, Slough and Oxford (Lab)
Con 267,404 – 42.5% Lab 175,123 – 27.8% Lib Dem 110,072 – 17.5% Independent 77,210 – 12.3%
Bracknell Forest (total valid ballots 19,456)
Con 9,598 – 49.3% Lab 5,012 – 25.8% Lib Dem 1,607 – 8.3% Independent 3,239 – 16.6%
Reading (total valid ballots 41,349)
Con 13,721 – 33.2% Lab 19,148 – 46.3% Lib Dem 4,547 – 11.0% Independent 3,933 – 9.5%
Slough (total valid ballots 30,519)
Con 9,702 – 31.8% Lab 16,870 – 55.3% Lib Dem 1,579 – 5.2% Independent 2,368 – 7.8%
West Berkshire (total valid ballots 31,234)
Con 15,555 – 49.8% Lab 5,535 – 17.7% Lib Dem 4,971 – 15.9% Independent 5,173 – 16.6%
Windsor and Maidenhead (total valid ballots 25,355)
Con 11,470 – 45.2% Lab 5,460 – 21.5% Lib Dem 3,685 – 14.5% Independent 4,740 – 18.7%
Wokingham (total valid ballots 52,414)
Con 24,081 – 45.9% Lab 10,150 – 19.4% Lib Dem 12,025 – 22.9% Independent 6,158 – 11.7%
Buckinghamshire (total valid ballots 156,578)
Con 75,837 – 48.4% Lab 31,328 – 20.0% Lib Dem 28,421 – 18.2% Independent 20,992 – 13.4%
Milton Keynes (total valid ballots 70,050)
Con 30,764 – 43.9% Lab 24,219 – 34.6% Lib Dem 8,836 – 12.6% Independent 6,231 – 8.9%
Cherwell (total valid ballots 41,863)
Con 19,252 – 46.0% Lab 10,772 – 25.7% Lib Dem 6,369 – 15.2% Independent 5,470 – 13.1%
Oxford (total valid ballots 40,643)
Con 6,501 – 16.0% Lab 22,698 – 55.8% Lib Dem 8,020 – 19.7% Independent 3,424 – 8.4%
South Oxfordshire (total valid ballots 43,811)
Con 18,882 – 43.1% Lab 8,536 – 19.5% Lib Dem 10,292 – 23.5% Independent 6,101 – 13.9%
Vale of White Horse (total valid ballots 41,772)
Con 16,634 – 39.8% Lab 6,762 – 16.2% Lib Dem 13,171 – 31.5% Independent 5,205 – 12.5%
West Oxfordshire (total valid ballots 34,765)
Con 15,407 – 44.3% Lab 8,633 – 24.8% Lib Dem 6,549 – 18.8% Independent 4,176 – 12.0%
|
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 323
|
Post by Ports on May 3, 2024 16:05:09 GMT
Windsor and Maidenhead is the first turnout figure at 17.1%
|
|