Latest Election Poll. Labour seem to be slipping...

[Bold Seagull]

You're spot on. What I don't understand is that he changed his name to George when he was 13. When I was that age I would have called myself Obi Wan or Crockett or Elvis. Something a bit more imaginative than George. He could have gone for Ozzy. No imagination, that man.

Yeah, but at age 13 in 1984 and you're called Gideon, then frankly you really are searching out for something normal, so to be fair I can understand him wanting to keep his initials, but dropping the reference more commonly associated with free bibles in hotel rooms. I just look at G and in his eyes I can see someone who may have been bullied. He therefore may have wanted to avoid further ridicule of calling himself Obi Wan or Elvis. I reckon he toyed with Gandalf, but stuck with George….

 

[Gwylan]

Yeah, but at age 13 in 1984 and you're called Gideon, then frankly you really are searching out for something normal, so to be fair I can understand him wanting to keep his initials, but dropping the reference more commonly associated with free bibles in hotel rooms. I just look at G and in his eyes I can see someone who may have been bullied. He therefore may have wanted to avoid further ridicule of calling himself Obi Wan or Elvis. I reckon he toyed with Gandalf, but stuck with George….

Weren't Culture Club big then? He could have dreamed of being Boy George and justified it with the grandfather story

 

[halbpro]

I don't know why people think UKIP are nicking the Labour vote, they're really not, at least not compared to other parties. Labour are losing 5-10% of their vote to UKIP, whereas it's closer to 20% for the Conservatives. However, the big chunk of the UKIP vote is from people who didn't vote last time, that's where they seem to be making real gains.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If there is another hung parliament the old excuse for not moving to proportional representation, that it nearly always results in a party not getting a majority, is weakened as the first past the post is not producing a majority either. At least under proportional representation though every vote really does count. I have total apathy towards a general election as where I live it's a done deal the Tories will get in.

I tend to agree. What the Scottish Referendum showed, was that if you have a situation where every vote does count, then you will engage an entire spectrum of the population from the very old to the very young. It's never going to happen when over 50% of parliamentary seats are considered safe, equating to around 400 of the 650 seats.

These are the 21st Century equivalent of the 'rotten boroughs', with some seats having been with a single party since Queen Victoria ascended the throne in the 1830's.

For example, in the last election if Labour and Lib Dems both represent left of centre politics, then 52% of the population voted left of centre compared to say 39% (Tory + UKIP) that voted to the right (making the assumption that other minor parties cancel each other out). That 52% of the vote only represented 315 seats compared to the Tories 36% of the vote giving them 306 seats.

Of course, it will be hard to change as those getting voted by the current system have to be the ones to change it. If they've been voted in by the current system, why would they do that!?

 

[Gwylan]

Of course, it will be hard to change as those getting voted by the current system have to be the ones to change it. If they've been voted in by the current system, why would they do that!?

We had a referendum on PR just four years ago, I can't see there being another referendum on the topic for some time (and I can't see either Labour or Tories wanting to change the system)

 

[Westdene Seagull]

We had a referendum on PR just four years ago, I can't see there being another referendum on the topic for some time (and I can't see either Labour or Tories wanting to change the system)

The problem being that it wasn't a referendum on true PR - just a cut down version.

 

[Gwylan]

The problem being that it wasn't a referendum on true PR - just a cut down version.

Well yes, but it was a referendum on PR all the same - I can't see there being another for a while

 

[larus]

Ah, the boundary commission fiasco was what demonstrated to me that Cameron was a poor politician. What happened was this: there was an agreement reached with the Lid Dems that the Tories would support direct elections to the House of Lords and, in return, the LDs would support a review of the parliamentary seats - at the moment, they're hugely beneficial to Labour.

But when it came to the vote on the Lords, the Tories reneged on the deal so, in a tit for tat move, the LDs voted down the boundary changes. That has always seemed bone-headed politics to me: the Tories could be two or three percent ahead at the next election and still lose. Cameron was already getting rattled by UKIP,I've no idea why he wanted to make it even harder to get elected. That's when I thought he's lost the plot

thanks for the update. I knew the current boundaries helped labour, but wasn't aware if that complete f*** up by CMD.

 

[Bold Seagull]

We had a referendum on PR just four years ago, I can't see there being another referendum on the topic for some time (and I can't see either Labour or Tories wanting to change the system)

It was the perfect time to hold it. Bang in the middle of a recession, massive cuts, major worry and insecurity for everyone - there was really no engagement in getting into a meaningful debate about something that seemed well down the list of priorities at the time. With only the Lib Dems getting behind it really, and everyone against them for teaming up with the Tories - the actual subject matter almost become irrelevant. It was a half arsed, half baked, poorly presented and bad tempered referendum that was doomed from the outset. 42% turnout for something so critical. To be honest, I'd almost forgotten it had even happened!

 

[larus]

Sad state of affairs when you come to the conclusion that the only politicians of any genuine conviction in that line-up are UKIP and The Greens.

Tom, I find that I don't seem to agree with a lot of your views, but on this, I totally agree.

Politics is now all sound bites, spin, and deceit. Too many are focussed on lining their own pockets/career and not being honest with the electorate. Failing to implement policies for the good of the country and never admitting the limitations of what government can do.

Thats what the great appeal of Farage is to many people IMO. He comes across as a reasonably honest person in terms of what he's saying.

 

[dazzer6666]

Slight difference. George isn't part of his name, he just chose to be known by it. Gordon Brown just dropped his first name and chose to be known by his middle name. It's something that really clever people like to do

EDIT: You could also say the same for Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson ... and Boris Johnson

Very traditional thing to do in Scotland........something to do with family naming conventions over hundreds of years. I know very many Scots who are known by their second/middle names.

 

[beorhthelm]

I tend to agree. What the Scottish Referendum showed, was that if you have a situation where every vote does count, then you will engage an entire spectrum of the population from the very old to the very young. It's never going to happen when over 50% of parliamentary seats are considered safe, equating to around 400 of the 650 seats.

These are the 21st Century equivalent of the 'rotten boroughs', with some seats having been with a single party since Queen Victoria ascended the throne in the 1830's.

eh? are you saying that because a seat has a large majority on one side of the political spectrum, that its "rotten"? what exaclt would you propose to adress this? ask the people of Liverpool Walton to be "gentrified" so that some tories can come in and balance things out? or the reverse for Chesham to allow a Labour candidate win? (largest majorities each way as i briefly look up).

and if you are looking at oddities in the voting stats, try the 2005 election where Labour returned a majority of 66 on 35% of the national vote, only 3% ahead of the Tories, who got a handful or two over half as many seats (355 to 198).

 

[Bold Seagull]

eh? are you saying that because a seat has a large majority on one side of the political spectrum, that its "rotten"? what exaclt would you propose to adress this? ask the people of Liverpool Walton to be "gentrified" so that some tories can come in and balance things out? or the reverse for Chesham to allow a Labour candidate win? (largest majorities each way as i briefly look up).

and if you are looking at oddities in the voting stats, try the 2005 election where Labour returned a majority of 66 on 35% of the national vote, only 3% ahead of the Tories, who got a handful or two over half as many seats (355 to 198).

I assume you realise I'm referring to the rotten or pocket Boroughs that existed pre- the 1832 Reform Act, and not rotten as in some kind of analogy to fruit?

I completely agree on the 2005 election as well, I just used the most recent as an example. I'm quite clearly criticising both main parties in this (see my other posts) and not being partisan. Perhaps give it a try?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Thats what the great appeal of Farage is to many people IMO. He comes across as a reasonably honest person in terms of what he's saying.

Yeah of course, the Huguenot ancestry, stockbroker's son, commodities trading, ex-Tory…….is as reasonably honest as they come. Totally different from all the other MP's…

 

[beorhthelm]

I assume you realise I'm referring to the rotten or pocket Boroughs that existed pre- the 1832 Reform Act, and not rotten as in some kind of analogy to fruit?

I completely agree on the 2005 election as well, I just used the most recent as an example. I'm quite clearly criticising both main parties in this (see my other posts) and not being partisan. Perhaps give it a try?

you said "equivilent" as if somehow safe seats are similar. you'll re-read my post and see it too is non-partisan view of data, just one election further back.

 

[Cian]

Very traditional thing to do in Scotland........something to do with family naming conventions over hundreds of years. I know very many Scots who are known by their second/middle names.

And Ireland. My first name's on my birth cert but not even on my passport (by convention here all you need is sustained proof of using a specific name for a number of years to get a passport in it). I've always used my middle name as has everyone in my family expect occasionally my grandmother. Likely be the same if I ever have a son, unless I get the feeling that James suits.

 

[Bold Seagull]

you said "equivilent" as if somehow safe seats are similar. you'll re-read my post and see it too is non-partisan view of data, just one election further back.

The 21st Century equivalent of the Rotten Borough as each main party can install it's chosen career politicians in it's safe seats. You have parties funded by donations of businesses or unions that want influence, who can therefore effectively install who they want in government. The local Tory or Labour activist who is a genuine political mind person for the greater good working hard for his constituents doesn't get a look in, because Billy Big Bollocks from Eton needs a cabinet post and can sit in some seat from a town he's never been too. That is what I meant by equivalent, as in the 21st century equivalent of what was happening in the 19th century.

Point taken that your post wasn't particularly partisan.