General Election 2015

An interesting 'piece' by Katie Hopkins on her approach to illegal immigration...

there is a QT special on 30th April. Clegg, Cameron and Milliband only. There was the paxman borefest with milliband and clegg

I think having a varied selection is better than the same three debates. (if we really need to have any)

They've done the leaders Question Time thing pretty much every election since at least the Blair era, so hardly counts as anything particularly new or different.

The "opposition" debate was utterly pointless, of course.

An interesting 'piece' by Katie Hopkins on her approach to illegal immigration...

 

Nicely balanced and clearly very well thought through.

there is a QT special on 30th April. Clegg, Cameron and Milliband only. There was the paxman borefest with milliband and clegg

I think having a varied selection is better than the same three debates. (if we really need to have any)

Fair enough to make that argument, but pretending that he wasn't invited when he actually engineered the whole situation by refusing from the outset to take part is just blatantly misleading the public

Nicely balanced and clearly very well thought through.

Balanced? Yep, I agree. I was particularly impressed with how she managed to simultaneously channel Mother Theresa and Hitler, and then ignored Mummy T.

Well thought through? Yep, and she impressively seems to answer all of the problems of immigration, without causing a single other problem. You could say that it's close to a final solution.

I would also like to say that I will remember the phrase "this plague of feral humans" for some time.

Well, Doctoroncall, I'm not sure I'm an expert on either left-wing ideologies or the Labour manifesto. Comrade pap might be along soon to help me out, but I'd say that someone on the left might search the Labour manifesto for policies that try to reduce the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest.

 

You can reduce the gap between rich and poor by lowering the wealth of the rich and leaving the poor as poor. Personally I couldn't care less about how rich people are ( provided they've acted legally) or what the gap is, its irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the wealth of the bottom 20%.

They've done the leaders Question Time thing pretty much every election since at least the Blair era, so hardly counts as anything particularly new or different.

 

The "opposition" debate was utterly pointless, of course.

Why do we need anything new or different?

Balanced? Yep, I agree. I was particularly impressed with how she managed to simultaneously channel Mother Theresa and Hitler, and then ignored Mummy T.

 

Well thought through? Yep, and she impressively seems to answer all of the problems of immigration, without causing a single other problem. You could say that it's close to a final solution.

 

I would also like to say that I will remember the phrase "this plague of feral humans" for some time.

A bit harsh imo. If however she was referring to our scaley chums down the road then she would have been bang on.

she really is a horrible creature

You can reduce the gap between rich and poor by lowering the wealth of the rich and leaving the poor as poor. Personally I couldn't care less about how rich people are ( provided they've acted legally) or what the gap is, its irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the wealth of the bottom 20%.

That's a sound observation, and a good qualification, Lord Duckhunter.

I guess, a left-wing ideologue might point out that as long as the least well off in society are protected by the State, then absolute wealth is largely irrelevant.

Balanced? Yep, I agree. I was particularly impressed with how she managed to simultaneously channel Mother Theresa and Hitler, and then ignored Mummy T.

 

Well thought through? Yep, and she impressively seems to answer all of the problems of immigration, without causing a single other problem. You could say that it's close to a final solution.

 

I would also like to say that I will remember the phrase "this plague of feral humans" for some time.

I liked the bit where she said "unless we take the emotion out of this....." Wise words.

Balanced? Yep, I agree. I was particularly impressed with how she managed to simultaneously channel Mother Theresa and Hitler, and then ignored Mummy T.

 

Well thought through? Yep, and she impressively seems to answer all of the problems of immigration, without causing a single other problem. You could say that it's close to a final solution.

 

I would also like to say that I will remember the phrase "this plague of feral humans" for some time.

Must be dangerously close to race hate. Predictable response that she/the Sun want although worrying they see no issue with what amounts to a Nazi rant.

The woman that produced the BBC debate confirmed that Clegg and Cameron were not invited so to speak. It was always down as the 'opposition' debate

 

probably why it got significantly less viewers compared to the others

One born every minute. What is more an issue is why they let Hague and Alexander in the 'spin room' being interviewed. If you don't have the balls to turn up then fck their contribution.

One born every minute. What is more an issue is why they let Hague and Alexander in the 'spin room' being interviewed. If you don't have the balls to turn up then fck their contribution.

why does he need to be there? bennett will not be on QT next week, nor was the welsh bird when paxman ave an interview

why does there need to be 3 identical debates?

One born every minute. What is more an issue is why they let Hague and Alexander in the 'spin room' being interviewed. If you don't have the balls to turn up then fck their contribution.

Agree with this. Had stern words at the TV on Thursday to that end.

why does he need to be there? bennett will not be on QT next week, nor was the welsh bird when paxman ave an interview

 

why does there need to be 3 identical debates?

You're taking your usual routine to unbelievable new heights on this one.

An interesting point on Radio 4 this morning. With all the targeted advertising and recommendations on social media websites and search engines those who hold a particular political viewpoint will tend to have that view reinforced by the targeted suggestions. This apparently was a factor in Scotland where those who supported one line did not on the whole receive the opposing arguments. This tends to polarise the whole political debate.

You're taking your usual routine to unbelievable new heights on this one.

just like you are. both same old, same old

One born every minute. What is more an issue is why they let Hague and Alexander in the 'spin room' being interviewed. If you don't have the balls to turn up then fck their contribution.

The very fact that they need this is proof that these debates are a total waste of time.

I liked the bit where she said "unless we take the emotion out of this....." Wise words.

Wise words indeed,CB Fry.

To be fair, she is simply saying the things that we're all thinking, but are too cowed by the PC brigade and the Westminster elite to say.

An interesting point on Radio 4 this morning. With all the targeted advertising and recommendations on social media websites and search engines those who hold a particular political viewpoint will tend to have that view reinforced by the targeted suggestions. This apparently was a factor in Scotland where those who supported one line did not on the whole receive the opposing arguments. This tends to polarise the whole political debate.

I agree. Targeted communication in this election is doing exactly as you say. But it does need the no-entry sign of the predisposed mind to ensure it is consumed whilst other channels are ignored.

But our politicians have to take most of the blame / responsibility for allowing us to abstract complex and subtle arguments into a single, favourite colour.

Surely?

Personally I couldn't care less about how rich people are ( provided they've acted legally) or what the gap is, its irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the wealth of the bottom 20%.

I have no real beef with that viewpoint. I don't care if people are wealthy, I enjoy a comfortable life myself, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the of the weakest and most vulnerable.

I agree. Targeted communication in this election is doing exactly as you say. But it does need the no-entry sign of the predisposed mind to ensure it is consumed whilst other channels are ignored.

 

But our politicians have to take most of the blame / responsibility for allowing us to abstract complex and subtle arguments into a single, favourite colour.

 

Surely?

That's the problem with modern media politics. There is no real proper debate about the different options, which to be honest are limited. All we get are sound bites and catchy headline phrases. It's all too much Big Brother or Celebrity Get Me Out of Here for me.

Still, let's not kid ourselves. My vote, like my tax contributions, will make bugger all difference.

That's the problem with modern media politics. There is no real proper debate about the different options, which to be honest are limited. All we get are sound bites and catchy headline phrases. It's all too much Big Brother or Celebrity Get Me Out of Here for me.

 

Still, let's not kid ourselves. My vote, like my tax contributions, will make bugger all difference.

But like me, you're in the Eastleigh consituency which is very marginal, so our votes will count for much more than in most constituencies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044340/ROBERT-HARDMAN-spent-week-north-border-chilled-voters-blind-determination-elect-party-bungling-neurotic-far-Left-dinosaurs-ll-wreck-booming-economy.html

When it comes to casting their votes, most look set to vote SNP. And, thanks to the way votes translate into seats, that could create some extraordinary scenarios.

 

As things stand, for example, the SNP are on course for a third of the number of UKIP’s vote but ten times the number of seats (not to mention added electoral clout).

 

That is because UKIP’s current 12 per cent of the vote (around 3.5 million voters on a 2010 turnout) would be spread across the country, delivering four or five seats at most.

 

The SNP on the other hand could be looking at 1.2 million votes and 50 seats.

 

It would be a democratic deficit to make blood boil in parts of the Home Counties.

 

Why doesn't the UK have equal sized constituencies in order to make the FPTP as fair as possible?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044340/ROBERT-HARDMAN-spent-week-north-border-chilled-voters-blind-determination-elect-party-bungling-neurotic-far-Left-dinosaurs-ll-wreck-booming-economy.html

Why doesn't the UK have equal sized constituencies in order to make the FPTP as fair as possible?

Or why don't all the UKIP voters move into just 50 marginal constituencies?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044340/ROBERT-HARDMAN-spent-week-north-border-chilled-voters-blind-determination-elect-party-bungling-neurotic-far-Left-dinosaurs-ll-wreck-booming-economy.html

 

 

 

Why doesn't the UK have equal sized constituencies in order to make the FPTP as fair as possible?

Do you mean equal in area or equal in population?

Do you mean equal in area or equal in population?

Population. The more I think about it the more I'm advocating PR, which goes against what I thought was my natural instinct. Tough gig this being a human being malarkey. Makes me think too hard!

Population. The more I think about it the more I'm advocating PR, which goes against what I thought was my natural instinct. Tough gig this being a human being malarkey. Makes me think too hard!

How would that work in practice? It could mean either exceptionally large rural constituencies that could almost be unmanageable or it could mean many, many more inner city constituencies because of the density.

I don't have a particular view on this but I would be keen to know the practicalities of any such change.

Population. The more I think about it the more I'm advocating PR, which goes against what I thought was my natural instinct. Tough gig this being a human being malarkey. Makes me think too hard!

I thought they were roughly done on population?

I thought they were roughly done on population?

They are. Making all of them equal is statistically all nice and neat but not really practical.

Isle of Wight is a good example. You'd end up with one constituency of, say 7-80% of the island with the rest lumped in with Portsmouth or Southampton or something. Which bit do you pick to remove from the island and why. At the end of the day they do need to have a degree of geographical logic. Most of them are within 10k tolerance of each other with a few outliers.

The bottom line for me is that it can't be right that a party that gets c.3.5 million votes gets 5 seats whereas a party that gets c.1.5 million votes potentially gets ten times as many seats.

Likewise, in the 2010 general election, Cameron's Tories got over a million more votes than Blair's Labour in 2005, yet Labour got 50 more seats than the Tories did in 2010.

Something's not quite right

The bottom line for me is that it can't be right that a party that gets c.3.5 million votes gets 5 seats whereas a party that gets c.1.5 million votes potentially gets ten times as many seats.

 

Likewise, in the 2010 general election, Cameron's Tories got over a million more votes than Blair's Labour in 2005, yet Labour got 50 more seats than the Tories did in 2010.

 

Something's not quite right

Country had the opportunity to take the first step towards PR and the powers to be ensured it wasn't allowed to happen. We've only ourselves to blame.

Country had the opportunity to take the first step towards PR and the powers to be ensured it wasn't allowed to happen. We've only ourselves to blame.

I've never instinctively been a fan of PR.... I guess because of the perception that it opens the door for crackpot parties (e.g. the BNP got over half a million votes in 2010 which would have got them 13 seats (2% of 650)).....but maybe there's a best of both worlds system..... i.e. proportional representation but only allocate seats to parties that poll more than, say, 5% of the turnout (i.e. c.1,500,000 votes based on 2010 figures).....?

I've never instinctively been a fan of PR.... I guess because of the perception that it opens the door for crackpot parties (e.g. the BNP got over half a million votes in 2010 which would have got them 13 seats (2% of 650)).....but maybe there's a best of both worlds system..... i.e. proportional representation but only allocate seats to parties that poll more than, say, 5% of the turnout (i.e. c.1,500,000 votes based on 2010 figures).....?

Yep, and those crackpot parties get to say, with some justification, that they are being marginalised and denied a voice.

Bring them on. If their arguments cannot be defeated easily, then that speaks more to the quality of mainstream politicians.

The bottom line for me is that it can't be right that a party that gets c.3.5 million votes gets 5 seats whereas a party that gets c.1.5 million votes potentially gets ten times as many seats.

 

Likewise, in the 2010 general election, Cameron's Tories got over a million more votes than Blair's Labour in 2005, yet Labour got 50 more seats than the Tories did in 2010.

 

Something's not quite right

Highly likely a coalition either way could include another bill to change the voting system.

I guess it was always going to take a perceived injustice to the Conservatives/the right to start the swing of mainstream opinion to a more proportional system.

When it was the Lib Dems suffering it election after election few gave a monkeys. 23% share in 2010 their share went up and they still lost seats ending up with 57 seats, less than 9%.

Highly likely a coalition either way could include another bill to change the voting system.

 

I guess it was always going to take a perceived injustice to the Conservatives/the right to start the swing of mainstream opinion to a more proportional system.

 

When it was the Lib Dems suffering it election after election few gave a monkeys. 23% share in 2010 their share went up and they still lost seats ending up with 57 seats, less than 9%.

Labour had been in power for 13 years under Blair/ Brown, yet there was no clamour from the Conservatives to ditch FPTP.

What is scandalous in terms of the lack of a level playing field, is the number of votes which is required to elect a Labour MP compared to that required to elect a Conservative MP. Boundary changes which would have addressed this were due to take place in 2013 with a proposal to cut the number of MPs to 600, but the Lib Dems reneged on it and 2018 is the earliest it can now take place. Naturally as is shown in this article, Labour would stand to lose a number of seats, as would the SNP and Plaid Cymru, so it's unlikely to change any time soon, because it would require a Tory majority to bring it about and the unfair boundaries themselves legislate against the majority being achievable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

I've never instinctively been a fan of PR.... I guess because of the perception that it opens the door for crackpot parties (e.g. the BNP got over half a million votes in 2010 which would have got them 13 seats (2% of 650)).....but maybe there's a best of both worlds system..... i.e. proportional representation but only allocate seats to parties that poll more than, say, 5% of the turnout (i.e. c.1,500,000 votes based on 2010 figures).....?

Could any party grabbing 1.5m votes be described as crackpot, trousers?

Surely it would've have led to a more 'legitimate' expression of immigration concern - such that the rise of UKIP would have come about more quickly,or major parties would have morphed to address those concerns.

PR represents the ratio of views amongst the electorate. It seems arrogant or even churlish to then try to interpret the results to reach a more palatable result.

I do recognise that we've been 'spoiled' with this version of coalition in that the Tories have said "Bend over" and the Lib Dems have often asked "How far?". PR might deliver a more fractured coalition which might lead to impasse and schisms.

Overall though, and realising that unless I move, my vote will likely be worthless, something like PR has to be introduced.

As much as PR would be good.

How would a government be formed?? More so when a party comes into a position of power and "pays the price" for giving up pledges in order to get others through in this coalition

Labour had been in power for 13 years under Blair/ Brown, yet there was no clamour from the Conservatives to ditch FPTP.

 

What is scandalous in terms of the lack of a level playing field, is the number of votes which is required to elect a Labour MP compared to that required to elect a Conservative MP. Boundary changes which would have addressed this were due to take place in 2013 with a proposal to cut the number of MPs to 600, but the Lib Dems reneged on it and 2018 is the earliest it can now take place. Naturally as is shown in this article, Labour would stand to lose a number of seats, as would the SNP and Plaid Cymru, so it's unlikely to change any time soon, because it would require a Tory majority to bring it about and the unfair boundaries themselves legislate against the majority being achievable.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

How do you choose where to draw boundaries that provide a 'balanced' electorate in every constituencey ? How do you get additional Tories into a Barnsley seat, how do you get Labour voters into Henley ? What happens with the new boundaries when population demographics shift and the political leanings of the local electorate change accordingly ?

This is exactly the sort of thing that true PR would mitigate.

How do you choose where to draw boundaries that provide a 'balanced' electorate in every constituencey ? How do you get additional Tories into a Barnsley seat, how do you get Labour voters into Henley ? This is exactly the sort of thing that true PR would mitigate.

Nah, in fairness to Wes he does have a point. Mainly driven by places like Wales/North East (Labour) with small/falling population density versus the South East (Tory) with the opposite.

The proposals - Fewer MPs allowing for more even constituencies - would be fine and fairer. But I'd like to see PR at the same time.

The point is that Cameron may rue the day he didn't get the boundary changes through when Lords reform fell over a couple of years ago.

You can't have a voting system that will ever deliver the exact % of influence for votes cast , as it'll mean vast areas if the country not having a voice. If 10% of the popular vote gave you 10% of the mp's , who is going to look after the interests of Cumbria , North Wales, Devon . You only need to look after London and a few other big cities and you'll win the election . The American president isn't elected by popular vote and that's a two horse race . The European elections seem to have a pretty decent system that seems a bit fairer , but the flaw is it's based on party lists , which concentrates control of mp's to the party . We will end up with even more yes men . Perhaps a uk FPTP parliament and a PR English parliament , although I'm sure in the interests of fairness the sweatys would want one as well, oh hang on!!!!!

Could any party grabbing 1.5m votes be described as crackpot, trousers?

 

Surely it would've have led to a more 'legitimate' expression of immigration concern - such that the rise of UKIP would have come about more quickly,or major parties would have morphed to address those concerns.

 

PR represents the ratio of views amongst the electorate. It seems arrogant or even churlish to then try to interpret the results to reach a more palatable result.

Trousers in 'caught thinking out loud' shocker....

Trousers in 'caught thinking out loud' shocker....

:-)

For the record I agree with your analysis of the apparent inequity of the number of Scottish MPs compared to the absolute share of UK votes. It seems wrong.

Then again, it's the fact that all those seats in Scotland have (apparently) swung toward a single party that makes it look so wrong. Perhaps Labour and the Conservatives should change their product to meet market demand? I mean the market is there for the Conservatives, they have an equal opportunity to win over Scottish voters.

I hope you'll also forgive me a little schadenfreude that a) certain parties campaigned aggressively to keep those Scots inside the tent, and b) certain parties campaigned aggressively against voting reform.

:-)

Very good piece from Armando Iannucci. http://gu.com/p/47j94/stw

How do you choose where to draw boundaries that provide a 'balanced' electorate in every constituencey ? How do you get additional Tories into a Barnsley seat, how do you get Labour voters into Henley ? What happens with the new boundaries when population demographics shift and the political leanings of the local electorate change accordingly ?

This is exactly the sort of thing that true PR would mitigate.

The guidelines for assessing how the boundaries are decided and the system whereby those decisions can be debated locally and then reassessed are laid out here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_(United_Kingdom)

But I don't see why you ask how you get more Tory voters into Barnsley and conversely Labour voters into Henley. The likelihood is that where there are large cities having several constituencies with smaller numbers of voters in them, that the boundaries will be changed to include the dormitory areas around them, therefore generally increasing the span of votes over more parties. Smaller places like Henley already feature large areas around the town and that surrounding area is largely Conservative anyway, so not any more scope to add Labour voters to the seat than there is to add Tory numbers to the Barnsley area.

What happens when population demographics or political leanings shift? Well, the Boundaries Commission is supposed to tweak the boundaries every five years, so the population demographics shouldn't be an issue. As for the shift in political leanings, the constituency boundaries have nothing to do with those. The boundaries should only reflect a more or less even voting age population split for each constituency, to address the current situation whereby large cities would have two MPs representing them as against only one representing a large sparsely populated area.

One only has to look at the sometimes huge disparities between the number of voters in the constituencies in the UK to realise that the current system is badly in need of an overhaul. And look at the average size of constituency in England compared to the figures for Scotland and Wales, which also have their own Parliaments but also interfere in English matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies

Our Prime Minister is getting a bit of a kicking from Andrew Marr right now.

He's just appealed to Marr to stop interrupting his long lists of soundbites so that he has a chance to answer, by which he presumably means give him a chance to not answer the question, but instead provide a further list of soundbites.

He's also pointed out to Marr that he didn't interrupt his previous guests in the same way.

He might be right, and Marr looks particularly feisty (biased) this morning, but it makes DC look weak, and being attacked aggressively and then complaining like this makes him look just a little less prime ministerial.

Our Prime Minister is getting a bit of a kicking from Andrew Marr right now.

 

He's just appealed to Marr to stop interrupting his long lists of soundbites so that he has a chance to answer, by which he presumably means give him a chance to not answer the question, but instead provide a further list of soundbites.

 

He's also pointed out to Marr that he didn't interrupt his previous guests in the same way.

 

He might be right, and Marr looks particularly feisty (biased) this morning, but it makes DC look weak, and being attacked aggressively and then complaining like this makes him look just a little less prime ministerial.

But Marr is biased, always has been. I hate the TV interrogators who ask a question and then refuse to let their interviewee answer it. By all means prevent them indulging in a party election broadcast, but it isn't very good technique to hector people in that way. And Cameron does himself no harm in claiming that Marr didn't hector his other interviewees in the same way, provided that people see that to be the case. Does it make Cameron weak, standing up to an attempt to bully him? Surely he would look weaker letting Marr bulldoze him to his own agenda.

But Marr is biased, always has been. I hate the TV interrogators who ask a question and then refuse to let their interviewee answer it. By all means prevent them indulging in a party election broadcast, but it isn't very good technique to hector people in that way. And Cameron does himself no harm in claiming that Marr didn't hector his other interviewees in the same way, provided that people see that to be the case. Does it make Cameron weak, standing up to an attempt to bully him? Surely he would look weaker letting Marr bulldoze him to his own agenda.

I hate that too. Sometimes I wish the interviewee would just say 'would you please let me finish?'

But Marr is biased, always has been. I hate the TV interrogators who ask a question and then refuse to let their interviewee answer it. By all means prevent them indulging in a party election broadcast, but it isn't very good technique to hector people in that way. And Cameron does himself no harm in claiming that Marr didn't hector his other interviewees in the same way, provided that people see that to be the case. Does it make Cameron weak, standing up to an attempt to bully him? Surely he would look weaker letting Marr bulldoze him to his own agenda.

Didn't he complain about Paxman being biased too? Even though Jeremy Paxman is quite right-wing?

Andrew Marr is a self-important little weasel apparently...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-accuses-andrew-marr-of-personal-bias-1-3342579

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10704063/Cybernats-Andrew-Marr-called-self-important-little-weasel-after-independence-comments.html