Even if that's the case it's still the Tories who benefited from the system more than Labour in the last election. Certain factors may disadvantage them but overall they benefit from it.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 6 days, 3 hours, 47 minutes, 41 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
Even if that's the case it's still the Tories who benefited from the system more than Labour in the last election. Certain factors may disadvantage them but overall they benefit from it.
The tories are at a disadvantage under the current system, they always have been, and were at the last election.
Labour are able to get hugely disproportionate amounts of seats against votes recieved, such as was seen under their last stint in power.
The pendulum swings as to who has an advantage or disadvantage depending on how each party manages to use the system to their advantage effectively. In the last election it clearly benefited the Tories, as is demonstrated by the seats to votes.
Then explain @Ubik point about the fact the Tories have a much higher share of seats than share of vote rather than one anecdotal seat example.
As a person with a disability, I wholeheartedly agree. I'm quite privileged in that I have the support of my family, but if I was left to fend for myself like so many others, I shudder at what my life prospects could have been.
To think that just twenty years ago, the rest of the world used to look at Britain as the reference in disability inclusion and ensuring equality of opportunity for all... Twenty years, Christ!
It's because they're still living in 2010, back when Labour was able to win nearly all the seats in Scotland, and when the Lid Dems took plenty of the left vote. That, combined with traditionally very safe Labour seats having much lower turnout than elsewhere in the country, made the Labour vote extremely efficient (less votes needed to win seats). That's also when the Tories started this whole boundary review with the aim of getting some back.
And the hilarity of blaming Labour and the Lib Dems anyway - if the Tories hadn't called the election earlier this year they'd have been able to breeze it through the Commons in 2018.
And the hilarity of blaming Labour and the Lib Dems anyway - if the Tories hadn't called the election earlier this year they'd have been able to breeze it through the Commons in 2018.
https://secondreading.parliament.uk...neral-election-2017-turning-votes-into-seats/
TLDR - It's way better for the Tories than Labour. LD, Greens and UKIP most fecked.
TLDR - It's way better for the Tories than Labour. LD, Greens and UKIP most fecked.
Yeah, Labour typically win urban areas so I'd say their 2015 decline in Glasgow alone (which they've far from fully recovered from) has really changed the game in that respect. The whole Greater Glasgow area probably forms nearly a quarter of Scotland's constituencies and Labour used to be able to stroll to a win in just about all of them. Add in other urban parts of the country and the blow's compounded.
Well, Scotland and Wales have a rather skewed political map for one. In the former, for example, Labour secured 70% of the seats with 48.9% of the vote. This compares to the Conservatives' 20% of seats, after attaining 33.6% of the popular vote. I think we should all be able to acknowledge that there might be a disparity worthy of note there.
Last edited:
So given the size of England it therefore has the largest skew of all giving the Conservatives a very strong advantage overall.
That's just a geographic density of votes, something you're always going to get in FPTP systems.
Take a look at the South East results (which actually has more votes cast than in Wales) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017_(England)#South_East_England
Tories - 55% of the votes, 85% of the seats.
Labour - 29% of the votes, 10% of the seats.
And that was a far better result for Labour than 2015 was!
Do you think we're stupid Nick? We've all got access to the numbers, the Tories are the winners of the electoral system not victims.
I think the referendum allowed any form of PR, which allowed opponents to slag it off with the idea that parties might control lists and people wouldn't know who they were voting for, possibly someone they didn't want. If they were asked about single transferable vote where they retained choice of candidate it was thought the result would have been different. Whether that was right or not, Cameron's wording was not that agreed, so the Libs retaliated by punishing him on a related subject, boundary reform.
In sweetheart deal news...
Richard Branson's Virgin healthcare firm scoops £1bn of NHS contracts
Richard Branson's Virgin healthcare firm scoops £1bn of NHS contracts
https://www.theguardian.com/society...son-virgin-scoops-1bn-pounds-of-nhs-contractsGuardian said:
You seem to be making the case for for further boundary reform if anthing.
Their share of the budget ist still marginal though. If people would like for there to be a limit on Virgin's involvement so as to prevent a relative monopoly of contracts, well that's a different debate.
Yes, they would like that limit to be 0%.
On the contrary, I think your use of these particular numbers shows you're actually more interested in a reform to PR.
Good to have you on board, Nick!
On the contrary, I think your use of these particular numbers shows you're actually more interested in a reform to PR.
Good to have you on board, Nick!
Likewise.
Re: Electoral reform
Up to a point, perhaps. I'd begin with the local system and work from there, for it's in a terrible state. AV for the local authorities and AV+ for Westminster should trials be successful. Referenda ought to become a routine form of procedure as well. although i was on boad with that idea prior to the EU Ref.
Last edited:
The NHS is going to be as big a mess as the privatised railways in the future, different bits with no incentive to work together
Better mark this as NSFW, with Nick in the thread.
That would seem rather unlikely, given that they can often be the same person depending upon the time of day or week. These people all know each other; it's not a case of 'evil private' medic' vs 'good and kind' NHS. Besides which, non-state actors remain a supplentary or otherwise modest piece of the pie in the arena of UK health provision.
Last edited:
Are you for Privatisation?
Total privatisation of the NHS? No.
Equally though, I don't get palpatations when confronted with private involvement ranging between 5-10%. Many people benefit from both froms of service throughout their lives, irrespective of one's voting preference at a given election.
Sometimes the NHS doesn't have all the answers, or there are simple issues of suitability or scheduling. Unfortuantely the dialogue is rarely framed in such terms; rather, it is akin to an organised relgion with the most orthodox and reactionary of adherents.
Last edited:
It's NHS, who's obligation is to cure vs private company who's aim is to meet its service level agreement spending the least amount of cash possible to maximise profit. 'Sorry, it's not in the contract' will become a phrase very familiar to NHS workers
5-10% you say in your next post. The entire system is for sale, the only reason it's not all been sold yet is they haven't got around to it
Alternatively, people are accessing care faster tban might otherwise be the case. Or seeking treatments which the NHS isn't prepared to offer. Would you deny patients this right so they conformed with your strict ideology?
You may believe your sentence, i don't know, but it that doens't make it accurate.
You may believe your sentence, i don't know, but it that doens't make it accurate.
Last edited:
In my life I have fixed angina, prostate, pain, large mouth ulcers, skin complaints, digestive issues and more all as the NHS would not help.
With the exception of Child birth and A & E, I think people would be better going alternative. I would leave the oldies on their drugs yet others should be encouraged to take responsibility for their health. Surgeons and big pharma are obstacles to change IMO.
Growth in waiting lists and the longer waits in A & E would point to service getting worse
How exactly are police numbers supposed to affect wannabe gangbangers stabbing other wannabe gangbangers down dark alleys in the housing estates?
Flood the problem areas with officers and stop and search everyone who looks vaguely knifey, that would work. But somehow I don't think it would go down well.
Flood the problem areas with officers and stop and search everyone who looks vaguely knifey, that would work. But somehow I don't think it would go down well.
Well yeah, it's a difficult task - not made any easier with fewer police.
Describe the look, please?
While there is no denying that the consultation prices can be high, the certainty provided balamces thigns out somewhat. And when it's an out-patient type of situation, attending a local clinic saves you both time and money in a real way.
But the larger budgetary pressures for the NHS are not going away irrespetive of the above, and simple tax increases won't break the cycle in my view. A few ideas we might consider are:
Nominal charges for non-emergency appointments and routine tests.
Giving NHS hospitals the right to compete for some voluntary procedures.
Companies being obligated to provide paid, short-term carers' leave (similar to maternity). If combined with flexible working practices, we might be able to ease the bed blocking problem.
A state-run pharmaceutical outfit: its two primary objectives being reduction in procurement expenditures, and researching rarer conditions.
Are you implyng some link between those iseus and the existence of private healthcare?
isnt there already a young persons railcard though that covers 16-25 (and people over 25 if in full time education)
so an 18-30 card would surely be too similar plus basically if your over 25 and not in full time education Im not sure that rail travel should be subsidized...
They were going to expand it to 30yo. Phil there, a writer for some train mag, has been told that it's not being expanded.
yeah as I say i cant see why you would - should we really be subsidizing recreational train travel for 29 year olds (rail cards not being applicable at commuter time)
anyway id say 16-25 (and older if in full time education) makes more sense than 18-30
The rail service in this country is a rip off. What would make more sense is full privatisation and subsiding people's journeys rather than filling billionaires pockets.
well working in that industry i personally think that would be a disaster - but its still a more thought out idea than providing discounted recreational travel for 29 year olds.