Personal insults are not permitted in Elections.
Warning issued. Don’t do it again.
It isn’t a personal insult. He didn’t read what he posted.
Two percent deviation doesn’t sound out of line for a geographic-constituency system.
But I guess I can see how a Tory would hate that, considering they only beat Labour last time with a plurality. Why should London have to suffer the opinions of the rest of Britain, amirite?
I deliberately underplayed the deviation in order not to court controversy in the thread. I assume these figures are not set in stone. That tactical voting etc may favour either party during any given election. Ive read elsewhere that it’s in fact 3% the tories need in order to maintain a parity of seats with Labour . And a quote here gives a more glaring warning:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-voting-system-rigged-favour-labour/19025
“Prof Curtice reckons the system has become so biased that, where Labour won a safe majority with a lead of just three percentage points in the popular vote in 2005, the Tories would need an 11-point lead over Labour to secure an overall majority.”
I also understand that the problem is becoming worse not better. If it’s not fixed soon there will be a consitutional mini crisis in the aftermath of a future election.
It was supposed to be fixed in the current parliament with the Sixth Boundary Review - which was a general redrawing, and a reduction in seats from 650 to 600. For some reason it was dropped in 2013.
Because the AV referendum didn’t go the way the Lib Dems wanted it to, they voted to repeal the redrawing and seat-reduction provisions through a related piece of legislation in the Lords in 2013. There was considerable resentment at the time!
London is a Labour stronghold like most (all?) British cities. It’s also the least likely to vote UKIP, the most Euro-friendly, and the most socially-liberal place in the country.
Anyway, latest IPSOS MORI poll: UKIP drop into single figures with Labour leading at 36 (+3 over Tories).
An Oxford economics professor has also spoken out and claimed that Labour has the best macroeconomics policies of any major party, with the Tories being so obsessed by austerity, debt and deficits that they’re missing the ongoing productivity crisis in the UK. An FT poll of other economists seems to suggest that his view is the mainstream view amongst professional economists, with productivity being a far larger problem for the country than the deficit.
Exclusive: Ms Sturgeon wants to build a ‘progressive alliance’ capable of propelling Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street in May
Looking like a confidence and supply agreement between LibDem, SNP, DUP, SDLP, Plaid Cymru- all parties who are in favour of increased public spending.
They might even together hold a majority of votes divided between austerity and spending policies!
… and don’t forget cancelling the Trident upgrade will fund it!
It just all fits!
If you read the article it notes that Labour’s refusal to stop the trident renewal would militate against the SNP entering a coalition.
It is you position that Labour will refuse power because they support a nuclear upgrade?
The productivity “crisis” is also exaggerated imo. Not to go off topic but there will be a loose correlation between employment levels annd productivity. A country with unemployment rates of 20% or so will in general be employing the best and the brightest - usually the ones with the highest productivity levels. As you employ people further down the socio-economic pecking order productivity often falls off.
As for economists: most of these “experts” were cheering on the policies which got us into this mess. Gordon Brown was celebrated by most mainstream economists for a long time as Chancellor.
Any poll that treats the whole UK as a single constituency is going to be in error, particularly in Scotland. Labour may be three points ahead in the UK as a whole, but is likely to have this counteracted by the SNP IN Scotland. I suspect that the most likely outcome now is a fairly even split between Labour and Conservative seats with Labour’s nominal advantage of smaller seats leading to increased representation will be balanced by a loss on Scottish Labour seats to the SNP.
No. The SNP will only countenance a confidence and supply agreement unless the trident problem is settled. If they joined a formal coalition which intended to keep trident, they would have to accept collective responsibility for that policy. Merely agreeing confidence and supply leaves Labour free to support trident with conservative votes when needed, but maintain non-austerity policies using votes from non-austerity parties.
Were they? I don’t remember that. Which academic economists were cheering on Gordon Brown?
An interesting analysis of the situation in the New Statesman based on an interview with the SNP leader at Westminster.
He had considerable support from Economists as Chancellor, and less support for his government’s policies when party leader.
Which economists (think tanks, those working in the private sector, those working in academia? who?), and what do you mean by “support”? Did economists claim he was the least bad option when compared to Tory economic policy, or did they actually claim he was enacting policy that academic economists would enact themselves if given free reign? I can see the first happening, given the abject mess the Tory party was for most of his tenure as Chancellor, yet I cannot see the second.
The economics was fine, ‘light touch regulation’ not so much.