oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 3, 2024 19:49:11 GMT
After some extensive research through the archives, I can reveal that in 1983, neither the Tory Party, nor their leading newspaper supporters (Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph) warned about a super majority in spite of the fact that they won a 188 seat majority over Labour. In fact, they seemed rather pleased about it. Strange, eh? I keep hearing about a 'supermajority'. I thought it was a word with a specific meaning in US politics. What does it mean in a UK GE context? It appears to be being used to mean 'very big'. But what is that, over 100, 200, 300 or what?
It's the same stupid partisan crap as talking of a "one party state" - when your party isn't the one with the power! |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jul 3, 2024 19:50:15 GMT
Rafael Behr's article on Starmer says amongst other things that he always fies what hesays he will do. Setting aside the evidence to the contrary,if this is true then under his leadership the UK will never rejoin the Customs Union, the Single Market or the EU: "Keir Starmer has insisted the UK will not rejoin either the EU, the single market or the customs union within his lifetime, in his firmest pledge yet that Labour will not seek much closer relations with Europe for as long as he is prime minister." Of course he means it, he's been entirely clear on that for ages. It doesn't mean anything of importance, however, as given Starmer's age he will be PM for 10 years max and there is no chance of rejoining the EU in that time frame anyway. That is an issue for the 2030s. I think he is wrong about the lifetime thing though. Assuming he lives to the same age as his father, we will rejoin within his lifetime, and hopefully mine, but under a different PM. But he is ruling out rejoining the Customs Union which is eminently achievable in a few years let alone 10. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,710
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 19:50:20 GMT
After some extensive research through the archives, I can reveal that in 1983, neither the Tory Party, nor their leading newspaper supporters (Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph) warned about a super majority in spite of the fact that they won a 188 seat majority over Labour. In fact, they seemed rather pleased about it. Strange, eh? I keep hearing about a 'supermajority'. I thought it was a word with a specific meaning in US politics. What does it mean in a UK GE context? It appears to be being used to mean 'very big'. But what is that, over 100, 200, 300 or what? From the Indy: “ The term ‘supermajority’ is most typically used in reference to US politics. This is because it is a crucial part of the US federal system, where a supermajority refers to a qualified majority of two-thirds.
In the US Congress a supermajority vote is needed for some major legislative actions, such as removing an impeached president from office, declaring a president incapable of serving, or amending the constitution.
It is slightly different for the Senate, where a majority of 60 per cent (meaning 60 of the 100 members) is needed to close a debate or bill without interference from minority members.
However, actually achieving these numbers is exceedingly rare, meaning bargains often need to be made. The last time any party enjoyed a supermajority in Congress was in 1965, when the Democrats under Lyndon B. Johnson had a majority of 68 per cent.
If considering just the technical definition of the term, the concept of a supermajority does not apply to UK parliament.” |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jul 3, 2024 19:50:26 GMT
After some extensive research through the archives, I can reveal that in 1983, neither the Tory Party, nor their leading newspaper supporters (Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph) warned about a super majority in spite of the fact that they won a 188 seat majority over Labour. In fact, they seemed rather pleased about it. Strange, eh? I keep hearing about a 'supermajority'. I thought it was a word with a specific meaning in US politics. What does it mean in a UK GE context? It appears to be being used to mean 'very big'. But what is that, over 100, 200, 300 or what? It has no meaning in a UK GE context a Government with a majority of 200 has no different power than a Government with a majority of 1 |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jul 3, 2024 19:58:24 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,710
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 20:00:14 GMT
“ As many as one in five voters in Great Britain (22 per cent) plan to vote tactically on Thursday, according to YouGov.
This is especially true of Labour’s backers – almost a third of whom (29 per cent) would rather be voting for someone else, but aren’t doing so in order to prevent another party from winning (almost always the Tories).
The pollster found the party’s share of national voting intention to be more inflated by tactical voters than any other.
These people are instrumental to the projected landslide coming Labour’s way. YouGov’s final MRP poll – standing for multilevel regression and post-stratification – handed the party 431 seats in Parliament and a majority of 212.
If all of the party’s tactically minded supporters actually voted for their first preference, this tally falls to 310. The Conservatives’ seats, meanwhile, go up from 102 to 188.
Among those voting Labour for tactical reasons, the largest share (42 per cent) would rather be voting Green, 34 per cent for the Liberal Democrats and five per cent for Reform.” Telegraph Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 3, 2024 20:00:41 GMT
I might be getting carried away here, but I wonder if the abiding memory of election night 2024, and its historical catchphrase, will be...... ..."Were you up for Sunak?" 🤔😜✊ There could be a number of "Portillo moments". Would anyone like to hazard who will fall and what sort of time we could expect each one? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jul 3, 2024 20:02:46 GMT
Just to state the blindingly, but sometimes forgotten, obvious all the MRPs and even the SRP have a core VI behind them.
The YG, for example, put the closest seat in my area at Lab 39/Con 35.
Not only is this Moe range but is based on a 17% Lab lead of 39-22.
A Plausible, 37-25 would flip this seat back to Tories on this model.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 3, 2024 20:12:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 3, 2024 20:13:37 GMT
“ As many as one in five voters in Great Britain (22 per cent) plan to vote tactically on Thursday, according to YouGov.
This is especially true of Labour’s backers – almost a third of whom (29 per cent) would rather be voting for someone else, but aren’t doing so in order to prevent another party from winning (almost always the Tories).
The pollster found the party’s share of national voting intention to be more inflated by tactical voters than any other.
These people are instrumental to the projected landslide coming Labour’s way. YouGov’s final MRP poll – standing for multilevel regression and post-stratification – handed the party 431 seats in Parliament and a majority of 212.
If all of the party’s tactically minded supporters actually voted for their first preference, this tally falls to 310. The Conservatives’ seats, meanwhile, go up from 102 to 188.
Among those voting Labour for tactical reasons, the largest share (42 per cent) would rather be voting Green, 34 per cent for the Liberal Democrats and five per cent for Reform.” Telegraph Surely it's always been that way? I suppose the question should be is this more than usual? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 3, 2024 20:16:07 GMT
Just a thought....Do people really wake up on election day and say, "Oh well, Labour are going to win, so I won't bother voting"? Really, do they? It seems a perfectly reasonable position to take for someone not particularly interested in politics even if they do vote sometimes. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 3, 2024 20:17:24 GMT
That really is a very silly comment. It is like saying that because a football team lost a previous match 6-4, the fact they are winning this one 3-0 is a worse result. It didn’t say it’s a worse result than losing. it’s saying that they are winning despite scoring fewer goals than a team that lost before. Winning being the point of the exercise in both football and politics, hence why it was a silly comment. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 3, 2024 20:17:51 GMT
Before shutting up on the subject of EVs and particulate emissions to concentrate on polling matters, then I'm indebted to a colleague for sending me the RACs word on the matter. {HINT: EVs are much more friendly than conventional cars regarding brake particulates, emit none from the exhausts, and there's not much difference as regards tyres. Overall, they are vastly better than internal combustion engine cars.} Especially worth reading the debunking of tyre wear and particulate from tyre claims - for them to be true, tyres would last a very short period indeed! www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electric-vehicles-produce-more-tyre-and-brake-pollution-than-petrol-and/ Quote: : "So, in conclusion, electric vehicles already vastly reduce particulate matter from brake wear, and claims of tyre wear contributing 1,000 times the particulate matter pollution of petrol and diesel exhausts are greatly overexaggerated. Real EV fleets are already seeing brake lifespans increased fourfold versus the diesel vehicles they have replaced, and tyre wear that is broadly on par with petrol and diesel cars (unless, as like with any vehicle, the drivers get a bit throttle happy!).
One final thought on emissions to end with: the UK is set to close its last remaining coal-fired power plants, but even if EVs were 100% powered by coal, it is much easier to fit particulate filters to a small number of very large, static power plants located away from city centres, than it is to fit effective filters to millions of small, mobile petrol and diesel engines running in urban areas.
The end result is that cities that have embraced EVs have already demonstrably benefitted from reduced pollution and improved air quality, and this trend shall only continue as more EVs switch to drum brakes, new tyres are developed that reduce nanoparticulate pollution even further, and the UK’s grid becomes ever increasingly powered by clean renewable energy." |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,710
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 20:20:49 GMT
It didn’t say it’s a worse result than losing. it’s saying that they are winning despite scoring fewer goals than a team that lost before. Winning being the point of the exercise in both football and politics They didn’t dispute that. They just pointed out how you could win with fewer votes than others who lose. You keep making a different point they didn’t challenge. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,710
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 20:22:20 GMT
“ As many as one in five voters in Great Britain (22 per cent) plan to vote tactically on Thursday, according to YouGov.
This is especially true of Labour’s backers – almost a third of whom (29 per cent) would rather be voting for someone else, but aren’t doing so in order to prevent another party from winning (almost always the Tories).
The pollster found the party’s share of national voting intention to be more inflated by tactical voters than any other.
These people are instrumental to the projected landslide coming Labour’s way. YouGov’s final MRP poll – standing for multilevel regression and post-stratification – handed the party 431 seats in Parliament and a majority of 212.
If all of the party’s tactically minded supporters actually voted for their first preference, this tally falls to 310. The Conservatives’ seats, meanwhile, go up from 102 to 188.
Among those voting Labour for tactical reasons, the largest share (42 per cent) would rather be voting Green, 34 per cent for the Liberal Democrats and five per cent for Reform.” Telegraph Surely it's always been that way? I suppose the question should be is this more than usual? They didn’t provide that info., they were comparing between parties not elections. Might be useful I agree… … |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,387
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 3, 2024 20:23:58 GMT
Norstat, I think this is the lowest Labour lead for a while
Westminster Voting Intention
Con 24% (+1%)
Lab 37% (-2%)
Lib Dem 11% (-1%)
Reform UK 16% (+1%)
Green 6% (NC)
Sample size 3,134
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2024 20:25:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 3, 2024 20:26:01 GMT
I have just read a repot that Galloway has accepted 2 donations from Andrew Tate's brother and Co-accused Tristan. Galloway is now in the top 3 of my wished for Portillo moments. If the final YG MRP is anything close to correct you will get your wish. He's miles behind. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 3, 2024 20:26:20 GMT
Of course he means it, he's been entirely clear on that for ages. It doesn't mean anything of importance, however, as given Starmer's age he will be PM for 10 years max and there is no chance of rejoining the EU in that time frame anyway. That is an issue for the 2030s. I think he is wrong about the lifetime thing though. Assuming he lives to the same age as his father, we will rejoin within his lifetime, and hopefully mine, but under a different PM.
Were the incoming PM to have declared an intention to rejoin "when the time was right" (positions of SNP, SGP, Alliance, Plaid for their polities - or GP of E&W for theirs) or to have a "longer term ambition" to do so (Lib-Dems) or to have ambitions to join the Customs Union and Single Market at some point, then the door would have been left open. Starmer chooses to slam it shut so that even preliminary moves towards reunification cannot start until the mid 2030s.Even if steve was to become PM on Friday, there would be no chance of the UK joining the EU within 10 years. Firstly, its not in any GB wide party's manifesto, so there is no mandate at this election. So assuming a mandate was sought at the next election - say in 2028 - you would then have four years of negotiations with the EU before you had terms that could be put to a referendum - which would likely be after the following GE in 2032 or 2033. Therefore the referendum is held in say 2034. Assuming a yes vote results, final negotiations with the EU follow and then accession after say 2 years, so rejoin in 2036 - 12 years from now. And that is the most optimistic scenario. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 3, 2024 20:26:38 GMT
It didn’t say it’s a worse result than losing. it’s saying that they are winning despite scoring fewer goals than a team that lost before. Winning being the point of the exercise in both football and politics, hence why it was a silly comment.
Sadly, in party election contests, there is no referee to penalise fouls, which is why politics is an infinitely dirtier game. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 3, 2024 20:27:28 GMT
After some extensive research through the archives, I can reveal that in 1983, neither the Tory Party, nor their leading newspaper supporters (Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph) warned about a super majority in spite of the fact that they won a 188 seat majority over Labour. In fact, they seemed rather pleased about it. Strange, eh? I keep hearing about a 'supermajority'. I thought it was a word with a specific meaning in US politics. What does it mean in a UK GE context? It appears to be being used to mean 'very big'. But what is that, over 100, 200, 300 or what? it is entirely meaningless in a Westminster context. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 3, 2024 20:29:11 GMT
Just a thought....Do people really wake up on election day and say, "Oh well, Labour are going to win, so I won't bother voting"? Really, do they? It seems a perfectly reasonable position to take for someone not particularly interested in politics even if they do vote sometimes. FPTP encourages this, especially if you live in a constituency where they weigh the votes rather than count them. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 3, 2024 20:32:29 GMT
Even if steve was to become PM on Friday, there would be no chance of the UK joining the EU within 10 years. Firstly, its not in any GB wide party's manifesto, so there is no mandate at this election. So assuming a mandate was sought at the next election - say in 2028 - you would then have four years of negotiations with the EU before you had terms that could be put to a referendum - which would likely be after the following GE in 2032 or 2033. Therefore the referendum is held in say 2034. Assuming a yes vote results, final negotiations with the EU follow and then accession after say 2 years, so rejoin in 2036 - 12 years from now. And that is the most optimistic scenario.
Don't blame the process. English/British politicians have chosen separatism as their preferred option. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 3, 2024 20:34:17 GMT
Winning being the point of the exercise in both football and politics They didn’t dispute that. They just pointed out how you could win with fewer votes than others who lose. You keep making a different point they didn’t challenge. His point means nothing whatsoever, so why make it? The highest percentage of the vote Labour has ever had was in 1951 with 48.8% and they lost the election! I don't suppose Attlee spent the next four years saying "Well Mr Churchill may be Prime Minister, but I got more votes!" |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 3, 2024 20:35:56 GMT
Saw this question on Twitter - a good what if "Does anyone at all have any idea how the Official Opposition party would be determined if two parties are in a tie for second most seats? I've been asking around but nobody seems to know."
The Speaker may have to make a ruling but, since that can be overruled by the House through an amendment to Standing Orders, he might well wish to avoid being defeated and so seek advice from the Leader of the House as to what the PM would like!They might invent a new rule such as who got the highest number of actual votes, which is a bit less likely to be tied. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 3, 2024 20:38:22 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,710
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 3, 2024 20:38:49 GMT
They didn’t dispute that. They just pointed out how you could win with fewer votes than others who lose. You keep making a different point they didn’t challenge. His point means nothing whatsoever, so why make it? The highest percentage of the vote Labour has ever had was in 1951 with 48.8% and they lost the election! I don't suppose Attlee sent the next four years saying "Well Mr Churchill may be Prime Minister, but I got more votes!" PJ, I didn’t spot they had mentioned Corbyn, if I had I would have clipped it out |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 3, 2024 20:40:51 GMT
Okay, didn't think it would be a problem as 3 other predictions have been made in the last 3 days, one at 9am this morning But in view of the objection will stick with my original prediction Well I think they're all taking the Mick then. That's like having a bet on a result 3 weeks away then changing it the evening before and keeping the same odds. It also makes the whole thing pointless. We could just have said predictions will open at 5pm on Thursday 4th and close at 10pm and have done with it. @mark - can we have a ruling? It was me who set it up. I would say that rather than change a prediction it would be more interesting to make a second prediction so that we can see how views have changed during the campaign, not that it matters - it's only a bit of fun. (oh and to get mark's attention you need to put "@ admin" without the quotes or space, like this Mark.) |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 3, 2024 20:42:09 GMT
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 3, 2024 20:48:17 GMT
Well I think they're all taking the Mick then. That's like having a bet on a result 3 weeks away then changing it the evening before and keeping the same odds. It also makes the whole thing pointless. We could just have said predictions will open at 5pm on Thursday 4th and close at 10pm and have done with it. @mark - can we have a ruling? It was me who set it up. I would say that rather than change a prediction it would be more interesting to make a second prediction so that we can see how views have changed during the campaign, not that it matters - it's only a bit of fun. (oh and to get mark's attention you need to put "@ admin" without the quotes or space, like this Mark .)
Fortunately, this board records changes to comments, so such malpractice will easily be discovered and opprobrium heaped on the sinners! |
|
