h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>What are the odds on FPTP being retained..co-alition falling apart...another election..Tories get an overall majority..Lib Dems destroyed...business as usual?<<

Wouldn't happen - if an election were called tomorrow, Labour would win possibly with a landslide, they have poll ratings of around 40% and 40-42% gets them a landslide; the Tories would lose seats but not that many because they'd be compensated by picking up seats from the imploding Lib Dems. Bear in mind the Tories are extremely popular in their core constituencies (i.e those not affected by the cuts).

The Lib Dems have the tiger by the tail right now - if they walked out en masse they'd bring the government down and it'd be replaced by a Labour one, but they'd be wiped out in the ensuing election. At the moment they have similar poll ratings to UKIP so losing every single MP is, however unlikely, certainly conceivable.

>>Boundary changes will mean a lot of inner city constituencies disappearing (many such constituencies base their size on outdated voter rolls and voter registration has been falling for years), this means less Labour MPs.<<

But not population. In the M62 belt (I don't know the figures for other major cities) the inner city populations have been holding steady or rising slightly. Inner cities have the worst voter participation rates but does that mean they should get less representation?

I just asked the odds, so why are you saying, 'wouldn't happen'?

>.if an election were called tomorrow, Labour would win possibly with a landslide,<

Yep possibly. We all know that the context of being asked these questions is 1 year into a Parliament. Thatcher got incredibly low ratings between *real polls*

As you say possibly.

And I just asked the odds as a rhetorical question.

My own bet is that if an election was called tomorrow the Tories would get in with an overall majority. Just a bet though.

<>

Yeah, I've seen that argument made across at Labour Uncut. The assumption is that people who do not vote are automatically represented by Labour MPs, a claim rather undermined by the fact that when you ask an MP for help, the first thing they do is look to see if you're on the Electoral Roll.

>>The assumption is that people who do not vote are automatically represented by Labour MPs, a claim rather undermined by the fact that when you ask an MP for help, the first thing they do is look to see if you're on the Electoral Roll.<<

Good point.

That said I got the local MP to help an asylum seeker. That might have something to do with I work at the MPs former school though.

Would someone please explain what is meant, within this thread, by 'a landslide'?

>>I just asked the odds, so why are you saying, 'wouldn't happen'<<

Might be a strange concept, but I answered a question that was asked. Your scenario is unlikely enough for me to feel comfortable to simply dismiss it out of hand. I did show my working out though.

>>Yep possibly<<

No m'dear, you misunderstood. If an election were called tomorrow, Labour would win it - no doubt about that as they would be the main beneficiaries of the Lib Dem demise - the possibly related to whether it would be a landslide victory. Labour's poll ratings are currently on the lower boundary of what would give them a landslide. They would win, possibly with a landslide.

>>And I just asked the odds as a rhetorical question<<

And I've given you the answer. Consider it an unexpected little gift on this bright Saturday morning.

>>My own bet is that if an election was called tomorrow the Tories would get in with an overall majority. Just a bet though<<

Were it possible I would take that bet and take your money.

Rod, it means a party has a majority of around 100 seats or more. The electoral bias in the UK makes it easier for Labour to achieve one than the Tories.

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought.
It's being bandied about so much that I was beginning to think it was suffering from the *very unique* syndrome.

Tarantoes: "Discussion of which party will win the most
seats / will form the Government is IRRELEVANT to this referendum."

Researcher U206500: "False. Candidates from constituency elections go
the the house of commons, where the party with largest number of
members is allowed to seek to govern the entire UK. Whilst in
principle elections are on which candidate a voter believes will
best represent their constituency, are de facto races between
parties for government."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It is "EFFECTIVELY" irrelevant to the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to be made
in this referendum as we are given one of two systems of CONSTITUENCY
elections. There is no "parliamentary" reform on offer in this
referendum - that remains the same whether FPTP or AV is chosen.

If people want "parliamentary reform" that is a separate issue.
Indeed there will be some parliamentary reform but that is going to
be IMPOSED on us by our government: reduction from 650 to 600 MPs
and changes in constituency boundaries.

Landslide:

Actually, that's not what I thought but what I've come to accept.

What I thought was Party B wins a comfortable majority in the house - by a landslide - over Party A who had such a majority pre-election.



But don't tarry over this - carry on, it's interesting.

>> It is "EFFECTIVELY" irrelevant to the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to be made
in this referendum as we are given one of two systems of CONSTITUENCY
elections.

Yes .. that's right.
At the moment, if you live in an area where there's a safe-seat,
ie. the same party practically always wins it
then that doesn't encourage others to go and vote, or if they do, they will probably be encouraged to vote tactically.

With the new AV system, there is more reason to bother to go and vote, because it's harder for the "safe-seat" to be won, and tactical voting becomes unnecessary.

This is surely an improvement on the present system, which has served us well up to now, but in this modern era no longer seems to be a fine enough balance to manage the global nature of the economy in particular!

>Were it possible I would take that bet and take your money. <

Yes that's a real shame.

But we might still be able to do it if an election comes about and Labour are still apparently way ahead in the polls.

I'll donate my winnings to h2g2.

>>It is "EFFECTIVELY" irrelevant to the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to be made
in this referendum as we are given one of two systems of CONSTITUENCY
elections.<<

The relevant constituency elections are national elections for the UK to elect members of parliament standing, with few exceptions; such as independents with realistic chance of success -- even fewer if AV is passed --, on party platforms/manifestos of national policy agendas for government.

How the system impinges on government may effectively irrelevant in your individual choice. It is, however, asinine to argue that it effectively irrelevant in any absolute or overriding sense.

>>There is no "parliamentary" reform on offer in this
referendum - that remains the same whether FPTP or AV is chosen.<<

The question is should the system by which parliament is formed be changed.
It may not be referendum on parliamentary procedural minutiae or on the substantive issue of Royal Prerogative. It is though very much a referendum on how we are represented in parliament.


>>If people want "parliamentary reform" that is a separate issue.
Indeed there will be some parliamentary reform but that is going to
be IMPOSED on us by our government: reduction from 650 to 600 MPs
and changes in constituency boundaries.<<

How do evade cognitive dissonance when arguing that changes to constituency elections have nought to do with parliamentary reform; before going on to bemoan the imposition of changes to the constituencies, by a majority of constituency MPs in parliament?

>>asinine to argue<<

You haven't proven the above statement and you are not engaging with
the crux of the FPTP and AV debate, which are two constituency
elective systems. The perspective of an individual voter is of
voting for one local MP. The party forming the government will
depend on what happens in the other five hundred and ninety nine
constituencies for which the individual elector has no say.

By focusing on irrelevant issues the debate is being shifted away
from the "FTPT" / AV choice (a very simple debate) to matters that
lie outside of the referendum. This is what is being done by some
advocates in the "No Camp", muddling the referendum issue as well as
attempting to instill fear in people so that they go out and vote
accordingly.

In summary the only relevant issue in this referendum is which of
FPTP or AV is a fairer system for voting in your local MP.

>>You haven't proven the above statement<<

No, you did the hard the work with that...

>> and you are not engaging with
the crux of the FPTP and AV debat<<

I'm sorry you belive that, too.

>>which are two constituency
elective systems.<<

Indeed they are. However as I already showed being that and system for electing a national government are mutually exclusive.

>> The perspective of an individual voter is of
voting for one local MP. <<

That something for you demonstrate.
Whatever you believe a such an election to be, it doesn't necessarily follow what it is to other voters. Or, de facto, in practice is.

>>The party forming the government will
depend on what happens in the other five hundred and ninety nine
constituencies for which the individual elector has no say. <<

Each poll, in all constituencies being carried out under the same system; as such being the system by which a national government is formed.


>>By focusing on irrelevant issues the debate is being shifted away
from the "FTPT" / AV choice (a very simple debate) to matters that
lie outside of the referendum. <<

Those being such irrelevancies as not liking spending cuts and UN mandated humanitarian interventions?

>>This is what is being done by some
advocates in the "No Camp", muddling the referendum issue as well as
attempting to instill fear in people so that they go out and vote
accordingly.<<

That would be insulting if it weren't so laughably vacuous.
The No Campaign consists of misinformation and and outright dissembling...
That however doesn't mean that they can't be arguing for right voting intention, either with ill intent or mistakenly.



>>In summary the only relevant issue in this referendum is which of
FPTP or AV is a fairer system for voting in your local MP.<<

You repeatedly assert this, but never deign to put forward a case for it. Do even know why you're asserting it?

>>You repeatedly assert this, but never deign to put forward a case
for it. Do even know why you're asserting it?<<

Please go back and read Prof Gowers blog (link provided above) and
comments arising. I also notice you introducing other irrelevancies
to the FPTP/AV debate e.g. spending cuts and UN mandates.

Please put forward your view of the "meaning" of this referendum.

>> I also notice you introducing other irrelevancies
to the FPTP/AV debate e.g. spending cuts and UN mandates.<<

No. You did in post 87. You don't notice much.




>>Please go back and read Prof Gowers blog (link provided above) and
comments arising.<<

I rather expected you do that. Refer me to someone else arguments that you lack the ability to comprehend yourself.

>>Please put forward your view of the "meaning" of this referendum.<<

No dear. You go away and try thinking for yourself, not too hard mind. Don't want you getting a strain.

(This person likes to snipe and use put-downs tarantoes...in quite an unpleasant way..not in jokey banter.

Some of us have had the pleasure earlier. )

Hang on- when I last looked this was a sensible and interesting debate. Who started slinging sh*t?