|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 15, 2024 23:07:19 GMT
Latest from the Muslim vote site recommending candidates:
Independent 24
Workers 14
Green 10
LibDem 6
No Party 2
Kubo 1
The site seems to be very volatile. There are now 33 seats with big Muslim population where there is no recommended candidate, and there is clearly no consensus nationwide. Notable that there are no Labour, though 31 of the 33 are Labour seats. I have no idea what Kubo is.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how much effect these recommendations have. Particularly in certain places such as Birmingham Ladywood. According to the site there is 43% Muslim population (49,000) and the Labour majority is 27,000. The recommended Independent candidate is the chap who recently got 70,000 votes in the recent mayoral election. I'd expect Labour to hold the seat but you never know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2024 23:07:50 GMT
Jesus Christ Keir Starmer's 61?! I thought he was quite a bit younger.
|
|
|
|
Post by ping on Jun 15, 2024 23:11:52 GMT
I've always liked the idea of AV as an electoral system (and voted for it in 2011). Under AV, candidates have to gain at least 50% of the vote (be they first, second preferences etc.) to win the seat. This strikes me as a system much better suited to our multi-party landscape - people could put their favourite candidate first and a more pragmatic choice second, knowing that they were unlikely to let [insert least favourite party] in. It also maintains the constituency-MP link. It is not proportional though. In fact it could easily be less proportional than FPTP! I'm an STV man myself, as it weakens the power of the party machines. The voters choose which candidates from each party they wish to prefer rather than the party under a list based system. The only issue I have with proportionality is the increased likelihood of coalitions, which I feel muddy the waters when it comes to accountability. Roy Jenkins et al. suggested AV+ (or AV top-up), a more proportional version of AV, but not sure I like the idea of two different types of MP. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 15, 2024 23:16:58 GMT
It is not proportional though. In fact it could easily be less proportional than FPTP! I'm an STV man myself, as it weakens the power of the party machines. The voters choose which candidates from each party they wish to prefer rather than the party under a list based system. Well that depends. STV can only work in multi member constituencies and each party will have a slate of candidates for that constituency equivalent to the seats available. So whilst you can rank the candidates you wish to select in order of preference, if you want to cast all three of your votes for a single party you will have to vote for the candidates the party has chosen to contest the seats. I guess you could have an open list/STV hybrid which would allow you to rank your three candidates from a wider party slate (of say 10 candidates).
It's rather unusual for a party to stand more candidates than they expect to get the vote share for. If they do, the vote is split too widely, and they can fail to get anyone elected.
Under certain circumstances, if you express more than one preference, your vote (or a proportion of it) can be transferred to your 2nd or subsequent preference. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jun 15, 2024 23:19:04 GMT
leftieliberal agree that claiming model accuracy retrospectively should be disregarded, in the same way that we disregard private polls when they're leaked, cos in both cases who knows how many other attempts there were that just didn't show the desired thing? It's also an interesting wider point on MRPs - if YouGov's 2017 and 2019 outcomes had been the other way around it would look like an emergent technology being honed... but 2019 missed by quite a lot on its seat projection, despite having a sample that was pretty accurate to the final vote shares. So even for them then 2024 could be viewed as a test to see whether they're really onto something with this approach or whether 2017 starts to look more like a fluke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2024 23:21:32 GMT
"Tories and Labour on course for lowest share of the vote since 1945"
Because the Tories are on course for their lowest share ever. Not because Labour are unpopular 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jun 15, 2024 23:23:41 GMT
A couple of thoughts that have occurred: 1) I wonder whether anyone's tried to predict the election result using AI? Even if they haven't, as AI improves will it make pollsters redundant? The answer is almost certainly yes, though I suspect it will go hand in hand with private polling. I tried using Microsoft copilot (their AI offering) with "who will win the next general election uk" I got the response "Looks like I can’t respond to this topic." Which suggests that there are certain topical subjects where it is being deliberately liimited. |
|
|
|
Post by ping on Jun 15, 2024 23:25:35 GMT
A couple of thoughts that have occurred: 1) I wonder whether anyone's tried to predict the election result using AI? Even if they haven't, as AI improves will it make pollsters redundant? Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT who the next Prime Minister would be: "Based on current predictions and polling, the Labour Party is expected to win the 2024 UK general election, with Keir Starmer likely becoming the next Prime Minister. Labour is projected to secure a significant majority, with predictions suggesting they could win around 321 seats or more, while the Conservatives are expected to suffer major losses, potentially reducing their seats to between 80 and 236​ (Electoral Calculus)​​ (William Hill News)​. Betting odds also reflect this trend, heavily favoring Labour to win the most seats. Odds for Keir Starmer becoming the next Prime Minister are much stronger compared to Rishi Sunak, who faces a steep challenge in retaining his position​ (William Hill News)​. It's important to note that while predictions and betting odds are strong indicators, they are not certainties, and actual election results can vary." Not bad, but I think it could do a lot better by mining the expert knowledge and thoughtful repartee on UKPR2 :-D Anyway, it's past midnight. Time for bed, mercian! |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 15, 2024 23:31:45 GMT
My least favourite letter box was on a house where the slot had been cut at the bottom of the door - but the door installed upside down! The local postie (she was about 5'6") agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 15, 2024 23:34:50 GMT
This is one of the problems with PR. There are so many different versions, each with enthusiastic supporters that it may well never happen. Even if there is eventually big public demand for it (and it's pretty low down the list of voters' priorities), any government can simply commission an enquiry to recommend a system and kick the whole thing into the long grass until after the next GE after which they'd hope it would be forgotten about.
The only way to get it to happen would be revolution, but do enough voters care and supporters of the various versions would just end up fighting each other (a bit like factions to the left of the Labour Party).
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 15, 2024 23:42:02 GMT
"Tories and Labour on course for lowest share of the vote since 1945" Because the Tories are on course for their lowest share ever. Not because Labour are unpopular 🙄 Labour aren't particularly popular either. I'd take a bet that they get fewer votes than in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 15, 2024 23:47:18 GMT
A couple of thoughts that have occurred: 1) I wonder whether anyone's tried to predict the election result using AI? Even if they haven't, as AI improves will it make pollsters redundant? Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT who the next Prime Minister would be: "Based on current predictions and polling, the Labour Party is expected to win the 2024 UK general election, with Keir Starmer likely becoming the next Prime Minister. Labour is projected to secure a significant majority, with predictions suggesting they could win around 321 seats or more, while the Conservatives are expected to suffer major losses, potentially reducing their seats to between 80 and 236​ (Electoral Calculus)​​ (William Hill News)​. Betting odds also reflect this trend, heavily favoring Labour to win the most seats. Odds for Keir Starmer becoming the next Prime Minister are much stronger compared to Rishi Sunak, who faces a steep challenge in retaining his position​ (William Hill News)​. It's important to note that while predictions and betting odds are strong indicators, they are not certainties, and actual election results can vary." Not bad, but I think it could do a lot better by mining the expert knowledge and thoughtful repartee on UKPR2 :-D Anyway, it's past midnight. Time for bed, mercian ! A bit disappointing that it's just regurgitating news reports. It seems that publicly-available AI still has a long way to go before it can actually 'think'. I heard of someone who tried to use ChatGPT to play chess and it was total rubbish! Anyway I will take your advice once I've caught up which I nearly have. |
|
RAF
Member
Posts: 1,019
Member is Online
|
Post by RAF on Jun 15, 2024 23:54:07 GMT
Well that depends. STV can only work in multi member constituencies and each party will have a slate of candidates for that constituency equivalent to the seats available. So whilst you can rank the candidates you wish to select in order of preference, if you want to cast all three of your votes for a single party you will have to vote for the candidates the party has chosen to contest the seats. I guess you could have an open list/STV hybrid which would allow you to rank your three candidates from a wider party slate (of say 10 candidates).
It's rather unusual for a party to stand more candidates than they expect to get the vote share for. If they do, the vote is split too widely, and they can fail to get anyone elected.
Under certain circumstances, if you express more than one preference, your vote (or a proportion of it) can be transferred to your 2nd or subsequent preference. I know how it works although I did express myself a little clumsily. The main point I was trying to make is that if the constituency elects 3 candidates and your party stands three candidates, you are most likely to rank them 1, 2 and 3 because (most likely) you hope if your 1st pref has already reached the quota, your vote will be transferred to your 2nd pref, or even 3rd pref. The party is still in control as you can only choose (in terns of preference) from the candidates on the slate - which as you say will only in my example be 3 candidates. With open list PR you really can choose your preferred candidate from a much larger slate. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 16, 2024 0:26:34 GMT
Under STV you have only one vote - hence "Single Transferable Vote".
It's rather unusual for a party to stand more candidates than they expect to get the vote share for. If they do, the vote is split too widely, and they can fail to get anyone elected.
Under certain circumstances, if you express more than one preference, your vote (or a proportion of it) can be transferred to your 2nd or subsequent preference. I know how it works although I did express myself a little clumsily. The main point I was trying to make is that if the constituency elects 3 candidates and your party stands three candidates, you are most likely to rank them 1, 2 and 3 because (most likely) you hope if your 1st pref has already reached the quota, your vote will be transferred to your 2nd pref, or even 3rd pref. The party is still in control as you can only choose (in terns of preference) from the candidates on the slate - which as you say will only in my example be 3 candidates. With open list PR you really can choose your preferred candidate from a much larger slate.
My ward has 5 councillors. There were 11 candidates in 2022 - 2 SNP : 3 Independents : 2 Lab : 1 LD : 2 Con : 1 Freedom Alliance. I chose 7 to express a reducing preference for. |
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Jun 16, 2024 0:36:37 GMT
I'd be very careful about using visual displays of support for a party as a reliable indicator of either levels of support or enthusiasm for the election more generally. Our political and electoral culture no longer produces the proliferation of posters and signs, certainly on the level we used to see. Those days have largely gone. The last election in which I remember seeing lots of political posters and boards on display on people's houses and in gardens was the 1992 one. They were everywhere in Redditch and most were for Labour. We all got very excited about what this favourably red plethora and proliferation might be telling us. The answer was nothing. We lost the election by a country mile! We won the poster count though but not the votes, alas These days, hardly anyone displays anything overtly political. The few that do are often party members and/or activists asked to display such signs. Latest poster/sign count in Redditch and outlying villages on the evidence of some time spent driving through the town and adjacent environs today. Three Tory and one Labour. Means the square root of diddly squat in terms of providing any indication of who's winning Sounds like Battersea in 87. Good old Alf Dubs survived the carnage of 83 and we all thought the seat was safe. To be fair we hadn't really taken account just how much impact the yuppiefication of the 80's would have on a traditional working class seat. I was fighting the good fight on behalf of Peter Hain against David Mellor in neighbouring Putney where to be honest it didn't look good. But every morning I'd get the train to work into Waterloo and every back window between Clapham Junction and Vauxhall seemed to have a Vote Dubs poster that was visible from the train, and it gave me some hope. Well the B*****ds must have had vote Tory in the front window cos Alf got dumped. John O'Farrell talks about that campaign in 'Things can only get better' and the sense of devastation in the London Labour Party that the loss of Battersea evoked. It really felt like if we couldn't win there, it would be a long road back for Labour. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 4:48:21 GMT
"The only issue I have with proportionality is the increased likelihood of coalitions, which I feel muddy the waters when it comes to accountability. " pingActually the likelihood of coalitions is the very reason I would like to see PR. I don't believe accountability is served by a party knowing it never has to achieve majority support to have outright control, going into an election knowing that it will be necessary to work with parties with other viewpoints with a degree of compromise and flexibility might make the parliamentary maths a tad more complex but it's more representative of the electorate. Opinion polls routinely show a 90%+ similarity in views between Labour, lib dem and green voters in England and secession aside similar figures for SNP and PC, in every election that I can recall these parties between them achieved more than 50% of the support and yet in no election including 2010 coalition was the resulting government reflective of the voters views. I include the 2010 coalition because while the resulting government reflected more than 50% of the votes cast it wasn't the choice of lib dem voters who would have much preferred a coalition with Labour. If PR had applied in 2010 and the lib dems had received around 150 seats consistent with their vote share I strongly suspect that's what would have happened. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jun 16, 2024 5:24:45 GMT
Am in favour of PR, an obvious reason is that it allows people to vote for who they want, rather than as in some cases now voting against who they don't want
It also gives a more representative Parliament
Lastly and I think as importantly, it can hold smaller parties to account. Under our current system minority parties can make all sorts of promises in their manifesto, knowing they'll never need to worry about whether they are even possible in practice
If they are part of a coalition the harsh realities of life will mean tough choices have to be made
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 5:44:49 GMT
Lastly and I think as importantly, it can hold smaller parties to account. Under our current system minority parties can make all sorts of promises in their manifesto, knowing they'll never need to worry about whether they are even possible in practice If they are part of a coalition the harsh realities of life will mean tough choices have to be made Like the LD pledge re tuition fees? au contraire coalitions mean you can just blame your coalition partner for the bits you said you wouldn't do Does amuse me when people vote for the minority parties under FPTP while moaning that it means their vote is wasted (or worst still, lets in the enemy). Why do it then? Thatcher got 42% of the vote in her landslide of 1983 - add up Lab and the SDP and it was more than half. The truth is that many SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Foot's Labour. I won't comment on whether I think they were right t do so, but they certainly knew that another bout of Thatcherism was a likely outcome. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 5:46:23 GMT
Regarding
Garden signs for parties, if I have time I will take a photo from the most sign infested road I've yet seen in Hemel, if anyone is familiar with the area they may know St John's Road in Boxmoor it's the local shopping centre in the space of just 100 meters there are currently 14 lib dems signs up, ok maybe not scientific in any way but given we've won every available election there since 2019 it doesn't indicate a lack of enthusiasm.
Overall there does seem a lack of interest for Labour and none at all for the Tories.
I don't expect we will win in Hemel but at least we have something positive to campaign for.
I don't do a lot of door knocking but the reporting back from those who do is overwhelmingly positive, not that everyone wants to vote for us but no one seems to viscerally hate or even dislike us.
It's quite pleasant to be honest being the " nice" party.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 5:51:09 GMT
Lastly and I think as importantly, it can hold smaller parties to account. Under our current system minority parties can make all sorts of promises in their manifesto, knowing they'll never need to worry about whether they are even possible in practice If they are part of a coalition the harsh realities of life will mean tough choices have to be made Like the LD pledge re tuition fees? au contraire coalitions mean you can just blame your coalition partner for the bits you said you wouldn't do Does amuse me when people vote for the minority parties under FPTP while moaning that it means their vote is wasted (or worst still, lets in the enemy). Why do it then? Thatcher got 42% of the vote in her landslide of 1983 - add up Lab and the SDP and it was more than half. The truth is that many SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Foot's Labour. I won't comment on whether I think they were right t do so, but they certainly knew that another bout of Thatcherism was a likely outcome. If I'm honest, my antipathy to the Lib Dems dates from then more than the coalition. The coalition and the betrayal over Brexit handing Johnson his early election just confirmed my opinion of them as chancers and Tory enablers. True, if there was PR I could vote for my leftish Labour, and others could vote for centrist Labour and they could if they wanted form an alliance if it meant governing. Under PR, Greens would be what they say on the tin and on the right you'd have Centrists v Faragists. But would the actual point of the Lib Dems be, if there was no more vote to split? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 6:09:16 GMT
Interesting to see antipathy to the lib dems dating back to five years before there was a liberal democrat party, but moving on from that novel rewriting of history.
Ben Habib one of the other loons at Refuk was on LBC on Friday and amongst a predictable load of old cobblers he mentioned their parties cunning plan to square the circle of hating immigrants while maintaining public services.
Apparently there's a huge pool of retired emergency services workers in their 60's and 70's just itching to break out the old uniform and go back to the front line.
A quick straw poll of the two emergency services retirees in our house hold produced a slightly different result , we think he's fucking bonkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 6:15:56 GMT
Interesting to see antipathy to the lib dems dating back to five years before there was a liberal democrat party, but moving on from that novel rewriting of history. Ben Habib one of the other loons at Refuk was on LBC on Friday and amongst a predictable load of old cobblers he mentioned their parties cunning plan to square the circle of hating immigrants while maintaining public services. Apparently there's a huge pool of retired emergency services workers in their 60's and 70's just itching to break out the old uniform and go back to the front line. A quick straw poll of the two emergency services retirees in our house hold produced a slightly different result , we think he's fucking bonkers. One thing the LDs can be now is the party of the EU - a sort of reverse UKIP, single issue get us back into EU party. But they seem to be going the 'all things to all voters' thing on even that - yes we want to be in the EU again but we won't bang on about it too much as we want people who aren't so bothered about it to vote for us to. So their position is we are more pro EU than Labour, but not enough to put going back into the EU into our manifesto for next parliament. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 6:16:08 GMT
In the lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the Tories the polling actually supports this.
Labour and the Tories are on course for their lowest combined vote share since the second world war, as the latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a shift away from the main parties.
While there is of course a stonking 17%+ lead for Labour over the Tories nearly 40% of the electorate, who said they intend to vote, don't intend to vote for either of them.
It feeds into the debate over fair voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Jun 16, 2024 6:24:56 GMT
In the lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the Tories the polling actually supports this. Labour and the Tories are on course for their lowest combined vote share since the second world war, as the latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a shift away from the main parties. While there is of course a stonking 17%+ lead for Labour over the Tories nearly 40% of the electorate, who said they intend to vote, don't intend to vote for either of them. It feeds into the debate over fair voting. But assuming Labour do get 40% plus of the vote that compares favourably with many post war landslides does it not? Pretty feeble from the Guardian and from you. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 6:33:48 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jun 16, 2024 6:47:11 GMT
"Tories and Labour on course for lowest share of the vote since 1945" Because the Tories are on course for their lowest share ever. Not because Labour are unpopular 🙄 Yes, the Guardian doing its thing again, clearly hoping that its readers don’t delve beyond the headline (of which, in the absence of an alternative, I am one). Very mis-leading but they do what they do. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 7:14:06 GMT
Dave I made it abundantly clear that Labour are far ahead , however if they do achieve 75%+ of the seats in Westminster based on around 40% of the vote this isn't because they're overwhelmingly popular it's because of fptp. It won't of course stop it being described as a landslide and it won't stop Labour saying they have an overwhelming majority.While both are of course true in terms of parliamentary representation it's not true in any other context. This doesn't just relate to this election it applies to all the Tory wins where their " massive mandate" reflected a minority vote.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jun 16, 2024 7:15:58 GMT
In the lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the Tories the polling actually supports this. Labour and the Tories are on course for their lowest combined vote share since the second world war, as the latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a shift away from the main parties. While there is of course a stonking 17%+ lead for Labour over the Tories nearly 40% of the electorate, who said they intend to vote, don't intend to vote for either of them. It feeds into the debate over fair voting. That’s Guardian-esque level spinning Steve - at least you didn’t make a nice bar chart out of it in the time honoured LibDem way 🙂 To put it another way, the three polls that Mark put up as the first post of this new thread show that respectively, 89%, 89% and 88% wouldn’t at this moment vote for your party. Yet if PR comes in and to be clear, I want it to, the Liberals would very likely be part of a government more often than either Labour or the Tories. Despite their rightfully talking of fairness, it’s easy to see what the real main reason of for wanting PR, not that I expect to hear Ed Davey admit to it any day soon. Not knocking them for it by the way - just seeing through the false piety. |
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jun 16, 2024 7:17:34 GMT
In the lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the Tories the polling actually supports this. Labour and the Tories are on course for their lowest combined vote share since the second world war, as the latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows a shift away from the main parties. While there is of course a stonking 17%+ lead for Labour over the Tories nearly 40% of the electorate, who said they intend to vote, don't intend to vote for either of them. It feeds into the debate over fair voting. That’s Guardian-esque level spinning Steve - at least you didn’t make a nice bar chart out of it in the time honoured LibDem way 🙂 To put it another way, the three polls that Mark put up as the first post of this new thread show that respectively, 89%, 89% and 88% wouldn’t at this moment vote for your party. Yet if PR comes in and to be clear, I want it to, the Liberals would very likely be part of a government more often than either Labour or the Tories. Despite their rightfully talking of fairness, it’s easy to see what their real main reason for wanting PR is, not that I expect to hear Ed Davey admit to it any day soon. Not knocking them for it by the way - just seeing through the false piety. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2024 7:23:16 GMT
DaveI doubt the liberal party would be part of any government, I also don't accept that the Liberal democrats would have any special advantage under PR , the coalitions that formed would presumably entail parties that had sufficient in common as to have a shared programme for government, as things stand at the moment I couldn't see either the Tories or their refukey pals achieving the necessary cross party consensus to form a government. Might be worth also considering that Labour's upcoming historic victory might well be achieved by a lower vote share than Theresa May receive in 2017, no one accused her of being popular.
|
|
