A quick update on three new voting intention polls in the last day:

Survation for the Daily Mail have topline figures of CON 38%(+1), LAB 37%(-4), LDEM 10%(+4), UKIP 4%(+3). Fieldwork was done wholly on Friday, after the news of Boris Johnson’s seperation from his wife had broken and changes are from their poll earlier this week which had shown a four point Labour lead. The changes are from their poll at the start of the week that showed a four point Labour lead – obviously given the closeness of fieldwork those changes are more likely to be noise than a sudden surge in Lib Dem support within a matter of days! Full details are here.

BMG for the Independent have topline figures of CON 37%(nc), LAB 38%(-1), LDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 7%(+2). Fieldwork was Tuesday to Friday and the (insignificant) changes are from last month. Full tabs are here.

Finally YouGov‘s weekly poll for the Times had headline figures of CON 39%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDDEM 11%(+1), UKIP 5%(nc). Fieldwork was on Monday and Tuesday, and changes are from last week. Full tables are here.

All three polls obviously show Labour and Conservative relatively close. Worth noting is that all three have the Liberal Democrats sneaking up into double figures, something that does seem to be part of a wider trend of the Liberal Democrats very gradually starting to recover support.


327 Responses to “Latest YouGov, BMG and Survation voting intention”

1 3 4 5 6 7
  1. @TW @ VARIOUS – My issue is with the EC not the rubber stampers and foot draggers in EP or even who is currently primus inter pares in the EU Council

    So we know which bits your issue isn’t with then. Any chance of knowing which bits it is with? Which bits are structurally less democratic and why? As a comparison, because that was your original point.

    “EU bad” doesn’t cut it as a justification of the comparative. And wouldn’t raise any argument from me either. But your point was “EU worse”. That’s what I can’t see.

  2. @Trevor Warne – “Did you have anything to say on economic news from today…”

    As it happens, I did…..I would agree with your previous posts about being happy to see a bit less consumer credit and a rebalancing of the economy, so I’ll share your disappointment over today’s news of growth fuelled by retail spending, a substantial decline in car production and some poor results from the July manufacturing sector – a sector which as you know, is already in recession.

    :)

  3. @Alec

    I think you’re being unfair.

    Those results are decent and it just goes to show that although there are a lot of people who think they know better than him about all sorts of things, they are a bit foolish and in actual fact we have the right man as Chancellor.

  4. 2015 GE redone on PR with 5% threshold

    CON 273
    LAB 225
    UKIP 93
    LDEM 59
    SNP etc 0

    Coalition of CON+UKIP = 366 seats
    (subtract the CON-Remain rebels if you want)

    UKIP got 12.6% of the vote but 0 MPs. Maybe lets all pop into a time machine and fix that travesty of democracy!!

    Of course you can have a lot of influence even with no MPs as UKIP proved.

    Genuine liberals types might consider Suffragettes as a great example of influencing change without representation.

    Ne0liberal types might consider the Chequers proposal which is clearly aimed to keep the profits up for multi-nationals with x-border supply chains. Luckily for those not in the 1-10% Chequers it’s dead.

    Brexit is for the many not the few

  5. @ ALEC :-) :-) and another fiver. Awesome!

    I did also see the Indy had a piece mentioning something I said a while back – although being the Indy they got the 2nd bit wrong.

    Under No Deal most of the rise in inventories would be permanent, at least until supply chains adapted, which given the trade deficit would NET favour increased investment in productive manufacturing in UK.

    I’m looking forward to the unemployment data.

    I’m certain you’ll find something -ve to say and that the Guardian will find a few more individuals for whom Brexit to blame for them losing their job.

    @ PETERW – .”Any chance of knowing which bits it is with?”

    The EC, as I said and as you managed to copy over into the reply. Of course we do seen to have gone from Eurocrats to folks like Olly Robbins which was not what I voted Leave for.

  6. Trevor Warne,
    “2015 GE redone on PR with 5% threshold

    CON 273
    LAB 225
    UKIP 93
    LDEM 59
    SNP etc 0

    Coalition of CON+UKIP = 366 seats”

    Ah trevor, the problem is that had this been the system UKIP would already have had MPs and a following. Leave voters would have migrated to them. The tory party most likely would have been a pro remain party, because that is what its MPs are even now.

    I expect this would have reduce the tory total somewhat, but overall I would have expected a majority of MPs on a remain ticket.

  7. @ ALEC – I assume you were referring to this:

    “Manufacturing month-on-month growth in July was negative 0.2%, largely due to negative growth in pharmaceutical products, an industry that is known to be volatile. However, 8 out of 13 manufacturing industries experienced positive growth this month. Rolling three-month manufacturing growth to July was negative for the fifth consecutive rolling period at negative 0.1%.”

    (emphasis added).

    Hhhhmmm can you think of an industry is due to start stockpiling soon? ;)

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpmonthlyestimateuk/july2018#despite-a-large-contribution-from-mining-and-quarrying-production-growth-slowed-to-01-in-july-2018

  8. Trevor Warne,
    “My issue is with the EC not the rubber stampers and foot draggers in EP or even who is currently primus inter pares in the EU Council.”

    Have we established then that you accept the EU parliamentary rubber stampers are at least as democratic as the Uk parliamentary rubber stampers?

    Similarly that the council of ministers – whose equivalent must be the UK cabinet – is at least as democratic as is the British cabinet.

    That would leave the ECJ and the commission. When I last looked into it, I noted that the commission takes orders from the council. The council writes its remit and the member countries nominate all the commissioners. You will have noticed that during negotiations on brexit, barnier always refers back to national governments, in effect asking the member of the council their views, because any of them might veto the outcome if it is not to their liking.

    The commission is the equivalent of the Uk civil service. Except its heads are explicitly chosen by the governments of member nations. An analogy within the Uk might be if the scottish, welsh and Irish governments got to choose some of the heads of department within the Uk civil service, and so could pick people who would favour their national interests.

    Are you saying you would prefer a situation where the commission is not chosen by democratically elected governments of the members?

  9. Blimey – India 2 for 3 with Rahul and Rahane top scorers so far with one run each.

  10. @Trevor Warne – all very entertaining.

    I think the Brexit defence that the increase inventories would be semi permanent and therefore favour net positive investment pretty much takes the biscuit for Brexit related madness.

    Turning an additional physical cost on business and serious drag on cashflow into a positive pretty much sums up your entire approach to Brexit and demonstrates your inability to adequaitely comprehend how business works.

  11. Good evening all from on board the 17:20 Waterloo to Winchester.

    TREV

    2015 GE redone on PR with 5% threshold
    CON 273
    LAB 225
    UKIP 93
    LDEM 59
    SNP etc 0
    …………………….

    Why use a 5% threshold? That would had denied 50% of Scottish voters an elected MP that they voted for and taking the 3rd largest party at Westminster off the political arena.

    You obviously don’t know how PR works and have just gone for a stupid blanket % for FPTP seats. It wouldn’t work in the current Westminster format due to parties like the SNP just standing in Scotland.

    To correct that anomaly you would need a top up list system as well as keeping the FPTP system so parties like UKIP who struggle on FPTP would be fairly topped up via the list or if that is out of the question due to the Commons being unable to accommodate extra bums on seats then there should be no threshold at all below 0.5%.

    All you are doing by using a daft 5% threshold is excluding the main political party in Scotland, the main parties in NI and a main party in Wales from ever winning seats in the British Parliament.

    I’m all for PR but lets cut out your stupid 5% threshold which is equivalent to 60% of Scotland’s electorate.

  12. @Allan Christie – The 5% prevent fringe nutters in theory. An alternative could involve having a separate PR election for Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland and then add them up.

  13. for SAM, ON

    Having numerous 65-mile ambulance journeys for Elgin and Morayshire pregnant ladies thought likely to have difficult labour isn`t ideal, and many others there are now faced with this journey to Aberdeen due to the NHS staffing crisis at the Elgin hospital.

    It certainly won`t help the SAS statistics on response times.

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/elgin/1558081/maternity-campaigners-in-moray-demand-improvements-before-winter-to-avoid-icy-road-journeys/

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/elgin/1533639/mother-describes-horrendous-transfer-to-aberdeen-caused-by-moray-maternity-crisis/

    A county in England with 96,000 residents wouldn`t have to put up with this sort of chronic failure to deliver normal services, which maybe explains why the selfish Brexiteers, led by JRM are now calling for tax cuts, hence even more Tory austerity.

  14. Some good or uplifting news from me, so it`s not always moans.

    Cook getting that century in his last test.

    The young lass from Ulverston getting acclaim for her saxophone playing at the Last Night of the proms.

    A farming couple in Rora who have set up a milking parlour that their 220 dairy cows can enter when they feel like it and get attached automatically to the milking machines. Then they return to the surrounding pastures if they want to graze. The yoghurts being produced from this milk are now even reaching London 700 miles away.

    Common to all three are brains, dedication, and much hard work.

  15. TW.
    We do have a list PR system in use in Britain, in Euro Elections. It is a regional list system with therefore no need for thresholds. The SNP got two MEPs last time as a result. Of course UKIP did very well as well. That is democracy for you, you take the rough with the smooth.

    I think you should give up posting about fictitious results using electoral systems that no-one supports and go back to your detailed examination of the effects of other imaginary scenarios on the potential fortunes of the Tory Party

  16. I’m always interested in discussions about PR.

    It seems to me that MPs should be elected by constituencies and it is healthy to have that link between the voter and their representative. But why every MP?

    We could have, say, 500 MPs elected by constituency-based FPTP, and the remainder via a list system, or some other procedure.

  17. MILLIE

    What you suggest is the system imposed by Blair on the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly: plurality voting for constituencies and plain d’Hondt for top ups.

    The Jenkins Commission recommended an AV+ system, with constituency members elected via AV with top ups via d’Hondt but was rejected.

  18. The Welsh Senedd system gave UKIP a very good return in 2016.

    Although UKIP now want to abolish the Senedd, though I suspect this more about retaining a presence there…..

  19. @ALLAN CHRISTIE
    @TREVOR WARNE

    Isn’t the 5% supposed to keep the riff raff out????

    ;-)

    I would have a much lower threshold or the Additional Member System as it is know via Hansard or more commonly mix member proportional as it known else where is used in London, Wales, Scotland

    I think TREVOR WARNE was trying to put a spin on the PR such that people would favour FPTP but to be honest most of the poeple that favour FPTP do so because it means their side wins and it is a winner takes all system it means we never debate policy since there is no real need.

    @TREVOR WARNE
    what do you think of the ERG proposals for Brexit?

    I am presuming that there is a portion that you agree with and a huge chunk which is basically more oligarchical in nature. I find it fascinating since the choice in the Tory party is between austerity continuing or tax cuts and lower regulation. I note that Trump and the US was used as an example. Which if you argue that and increasing the deficit. it feels like sound money comes from the Democrats and loose money comes from the GOP (which actually is funny since conservatives in the US often sell that but actually often have been cleaning up the mess the GOP have left behind when you look at the statistics)

  20. allan christie

    “Why use a 5% threshold?”

    “You obviously don’t know how PR works and have just gone for a stupid blanket % for FPTP seats.”

    “All you are doing by using a daft 5% threshold is excluding the main political party in Scotland, the main parties in NI and a main party in Wales”

    “I’m all for PR but lets cut out your stupid 5% threshold”

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

    How about 4%??

  21. @BZ

    Forgive my ignorance.

    So, it works quite well then…

  22. I see the final Boundary Commission proposals have now been published confirming Corbyn,Johnson,Watson and Davis are not in an ideal place.

    Clearly a slow burner of a story.

  23. For those voting in Scotland, the proposals for Westminster constituencies, from our Boundary Commission are here

    http://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/2018_Westminster/final_recs/maps/index.asp

    I’m usually not greatly fussed about Westminster constituency boundaries, as much constituency casework is handled by MSPs rather than MPs.

    However, the recent change in practice by the DWP – no longer to take referrals from MSPs, but only from MPs – makes the size of Highland North at almost 13,000 km2 problematic.

    However, that is a consequence of incompetent management by a Whitehall Department, rather than the constituency size itself.

  24. @OLDNAT

    However, the recent change in practice by the DWP – no longer to take referrals from MSPs, but only from MPs – makes the size of Highland North at almost 13,000 km2 problematic.

    Is that even legal to refuse representation from an elected official. What about being represented by member of the house of lords for instance or your local councillor.

    This isn’t taking back control is it?

  25. PR would only work in the UK if it was regionalised.

    The first ‘cut’ being allocation of the seats to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, based on how many people in each region voted.

    Then the seats within each region then allocated on how each party did in that region.

    (I would go even further and regionalise England along the lines of NW, NE, East Mid, West Mid, E Anglia, London, SW, SE and break their vote down as well to get an even more balanced and more representative allocation of seats and encourage more smaller parties etc in England.)

    I actually think this should be how are second Chamber is done and the HoL abolished.

    But 500,based on 2017, spread fairy across how each component country voted works out roughly equates to
    England (420 seats)
    Scotland (40 seats)
    Wales (25 seats)
    NI (15 seats)

    And party-wise using 2% as a cut off and when rounding always doing it in favour of the underdog, (which is generous as in similar models 5% is the norm) that would be:

    ENGLAND (420)
    Con 195
    Lab 176
    LD 36
    UKIP 7
    Green 6

    SCOTLAND (40)
    SNP 14
    Con 12
    Lab 11
    LD 3

    WALES (25)
    Lab 11
    Con 8
    Plaid 3
    LD 2
    UKIP 1

    NI (15)
    DUP 5
    SF 4
    SDLP 2
    UUP 2
    AP 2

    Which would then have produced a 2017 second chamber of:-

    Con 215
    Lab 198
    LD 41
    SNP 14
    UKIP 8
    GRN 6
    DUP 5
    SF 4
    SDLP 2
    UUP 2
    AP 2

    Commons should remain FPTP, constituency-based

  26. @BRILLIANT SMITH

    I see the final Boundary Commission proposals have now been published confirming Corbyn,Johnson,Watson and Davis are not in an ideal place.

    Clearly a slow burner of a story.

    I don’t think any of them will have problems getting a neighbouring seat and BoJo has a healthy level of support even if more Tory Members would chose May over him.

    I think it is an interesting story but hardly one that would make for any level of difficulty plus you don’t have to MP to be a minister or even PM. So I am not sure that it matters whether they get seats or not in the round. I think the issues surrounding the spat between the Anyone But Corbyn and the ‘moderates (Blairites?) is still to run it’s course.

  27. PTRP

    The DWP acting illegally – as well as immorally, vindictively and with scant regard to the needs of their “clients”?

    Surely not! A competent Government Minister would take them to task on all these matters, but they all seem to be rather “Karen Bradley”.

  28. MILLIE

    It’s certainly less awful than the plurality system, and does give the smaller parties some chance. STV as used across the island of Ireland would be fairer, of course.

  29. However, the recent change in practice by the DWP – no longer to take referrals from MSPs, but only from MPs

    Surely this is correct as this is not a devolved issue.

  30. @ANDY

    But what would the second chamber do? At present the second chamber in the UK is just a revising chamber one would have thought that making a second chamber more democratic would lead that to be executive chamber rather than a revising chamber. Would there not be an argument of democratic deficit if the common based on constituencies could push through legislation as they do now with a revising chamber being more representative

  31. Good evening all from a muggy Winchester.

    “PLANK
    @Allan Christie – The 5% prevent fringe nutters in theory. An alternative could involve having a separate PR election for Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland and then add them up”
    ___________

    Sorry I don’t accept this. The current FPTP system is more likely to produce a “fringe nutter” as he/she would only need to stand for election in 1 seat rather than trying to win a regional or national percentage under PR.

    If a party is legal and has the right to stand then why have a threshold in the first place?

    I do think the current FPTP system is problematic because it can produce an outright victory for a party on as little as 35% of the popular vote (2005) and clearly isn’t a mandate from the UK electorate and brings legitimacy into question.

  32. @OLDNAT

    My bad I thought we had a functioning democracy here…..Am I the only one on this site that find this f#@ked up or am I being a sensitive sn0wflake ?

  33. Davwel

    “A county in England with 96,000 residents wouldn`t have to put up with this sort of chronic failure to deliver normal services”

    Your assertions are always interesting, but the lack of supporting evidence is usually sadly lacking.

    I’m a bit vague on the relationship in England between counties, administrative areas, and whatever local functions they have in their NHS.

    However, presumably you have? In which case, which geographic area of England (with roughly similar population and population per km2) did you have in mind for comparison? Have you checked as to how their local provision works?

    Incidentally, why England? Why not Wales or NI, if you want to make a UK comparison?

  34. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    I do think the current FPTP system is problematic because it can produce an outright victory for a party on as little as 35% of the popular vote (2005) and clearly isn’t a mandate from the UK electorate and brings legitimacy into question.

    Is not the problem that no one really cares about the democratic deficit issue. I think that the LDEM blew it with the AV but I think that what tends to happens is that when this sort of thing happens no one says it is bad we just accept it.

    We get what we deserve, although I noticed in one poll an uptick in people wanting PR

  35. PTRP

    “I thought we had a functioning democracy here”

    As far as reserved powers are concerned, the relevant term is “here”. There may be such in your “here”, but not in my “here”!

  36. ANDREW111

    Survation have very big differences between sample and target in many of the demographics (much bigger than YouGov).

    All polls tend to need some weighting, indeed I tend to be a bit suspicious of those that don’t, like NCP’s last one[1]. Even a lot of weighting doesn’t invalidate a poll, but it does raise two concerns. One is that the more something is weighted the more the margins of error are increased. What we normally refer to as ‘margin of error’, based on sample size[2], is basically a minimum based on a truly random sample and anything that changes that randomness will increase it. So weighting should make the results more likely to be nearer the truth, but at the expense of increasing uncertainty about the exact value of what you are looking at.

    The second concern regards how representative the basic sample is. If it is not a good match in regards to the things you are weighting for, it’s possible that things that aren’t being monitored are also askew. It’s the question of unknown unknowns affecting the known unknowns you are trying to measure. This was a worry with the Deltapoll NI figures with some big adjustments needed, but that was done by LucidTalk and they’ve been pretty accurate in their NI polling for elections, so maybe you have to accept that in some places you are going to end up with unrepresentative panels or responses and rely on weighting to adjust (though I have other problems with that poll).

    That said the two Survation polls weren’t particularly beyond the usual in the weighting they needed. The first was clearly just an odd sample with the very low Lib Dem (for Survation) and the combination of a Labour lead and a EURef tie. But rogue polls should be expected every so often.

    The more recent one is more plausible, though I was a bit surprised by the direction of weighting required. Normally Survation manage to have more Leavers in their original sample and most pollsters have too many people in their older age cohorts (except maybe the oldest) not too few. But agan weighting should correct this.

    Survation currently seems to be trying to set up their own panel again (they tried when they started up but then suspended it) and it’s possible if they start (or have started) using this regularly for VI polls that there can be ‘house effects’ introduced, especially if the panel is relatively small. It’s something to keep an eye on.

    [1] Not because they are ‘fixed’ necessarily, but because the ways to get such a ‘good’ sample may imply that a lot of the randomness has been taken out of the process.

    [2] Even this is more complicated than that because the population size and the percentage you are estimating also influence this. Usually the figure quoted is that from a very large population (though over a certain level population size doesn’t make much difference) estimating a figure with a true value of 50%. Decreasing either tend to make MoE a bit smaller, but so many factors tend to increase it for other reasons that it’s conventional to use the 50% one.

  37. Davwel

    I have had to do a little digging as I don’t think I had the full information from your post. I am still uncertain whether I have the full picture.

    I take it that Gray’s Hospital is currently a midwifery- led obstetric service. There is a need to recruit a suitably qualified consultant. i don’t know how long there has been a vacancy or what is the problem in recruiting, if there is one. Perhaps you can tell me?

    For women with pregnancy complications it has been decided for safety reasons to send the women affected to either Inverness or Aberdeen. Inverness’s Raigmore Hospital has consultant obstetric services. Inverness is 39 miles from Elgin and Aberdeen is 66 miles away. Most women prefer to go to Inverness. Raigmore Hospital expects to have less than 20 cases in the year. and the transfer numbers will be monitored. I don’t know how many Aberdeen expects.Do you?

    One woman has had a bad experience which is unfortunate. You suggest the situation in Elgin will be bad for SAS statistics on waiting times. It might have been on the last thread that I mentioned that the SAS was moving away from waiting times as a performance indicator to lives saved.

    Would England do better? I have only done a quick search and it is two years old. It suggests rather more serious problems.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/21/dozens-of-maternity-units-should-be-closed-down-says-doctors-chief

    “Up to one in five hospital maternity units where consultants supervise births needs to close in order to ensure mothers in labour receive better care, the leader of Britain’s obstetricians and gynaecologists has said.

    Between 10% and 20% of obstetric units across England should go because serious shortages of maternity doctors means dangerously stretched staff spend too little time with mothers-to-be, whose care may then suffer, Dr David Richmond told the Guardian in an interview.”

  38. PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    @ALLAN CHRISTIE
    @TREVOR WARNE

    Isn’t the 5% supposed to keep the riff raff out????
    ………..
    ;-)

    “I would have a much lower threshold or the Additional Member System as it is know via Hansard or more commonly mix member proportional as it known else where is used in London, Wales, Scotland”
    ___________

    I’m with you on this especially the Scottish system but it would need additional members and the Commons is already too small to sit even the existing crop of MPS.

    Labour and the Tories will never accept PR because it would put an end to the current two party system the UK electorate has been stuck with ever since Pearl Slaghoople fell pregnant with Wilma Flintstone.

  39. The arguments against a second referendum appear to be a) its undemocratic b) it’s only desired by remainers who want to overturn the people’s will c) its divisive d) we won’t be able to agree the question e) even if we do manage to agree the question we won’t be able to have the vote in time.

    These seem poor arguments to me Are there other or better ones?

  40. Rawlings/ Thrasher projection applying new boundaries at 600 to 2017 results. (via Faisal Islam)

    CON 308 (-10) compared to actual result)
    LAB 232 (-30)
    LD 7 (-5)
    SNP 33 (-2)
    PC 2 (-2)
    GREEN 1 (0)
    DUP 10 SF 7

  41. Charles – a narrow remain vote won’t settle anything not least as the EU will wonder if we might have another a couple of years after and decide to leave after all.

  42. @oldnat and @ptrp

    It also appears to be the case that UK Government ministers are refusing to meet SNP MPs to discuss constituency matters such as labour shortages in the soft fruit sector while agreeing to meet Tory MPs.

  43. @alec

    It’s striking but not surprising that Brexiters think that increasing the need for working capital to maintain current production levels is an investment in business efficiency.

  44. Hireton

    I noted that selective publicity for Tory MPs being offered by the Tory Government.

    Such would be perfectly OK, if those Ministers were acting only in their role as Tory MPs, but breaching the Ministerial Code to do that in their Ministerial role would suggest not only a disdain for the proprieties, but a real fear about the likelihood of those SCon MPs being re-elected.

  45. PTRP (re PR for Lords)
    “Would there not be an argument of democratic deficit if the common based on constituencies could push through legislation as they do now with a revising chamber being more representative”

    Agreed, and perhaps it would lead to pressure for PR for the Commons as well.
    ————————————-
    Allan Christie
    “Labour and the Tories will never accept PR because it would put an end to the current two party system”

    I agree (unless both of them split, which seems on the cards). But I’ve often wondered how other countries have managed to get PR (without it being imposed like on UK smaller countries)? Do we have FPTP because PR hadn’t been invented when we had democracy, whereas the countries with PR got democracy later, when better systems were available? If not, why would any big party in a FPTP system allow PR to happen? In other words do they have PR because they’ve always had PR?

  46. @Millie, @Andy and @PTRP – re PR and second chambers:

    I’ve always fancied something I think they used to do in th USSR. I’m generally in favour of a more proportional system for the HoC, but relatively relaxed about exactly how so – all systems have good and back points. The key thing is to ensure there are sufficient checks and balances in the system.

    In that regard, I like the idea of a reforming upper chamber. Clearly, an appointed HoL isn’t democratic, but it does have the twin advantage that because it isn’t democratic it could never usurp the HoC, and also (theoretically at least) it contains a range of experts from various fields and is a less partisan and politicised chamber.

    Trying therefore to combine the best feaures of the HoL with democratic principles, my plan would have the principles that all Lords/Ladies have to be elected, ensure that the HoL could never claim to have a stronger democrtaic mandate than the HoC, and ensure also that it represents a wide range of expert views and be less dominated by political parties.

    To do this, I would have half the members elected by a straightforward list system on strict PR, based on regions. This means that all parties are represented but no one can dominate, and also preserves the ability of parties to confer patronage on it’s friends and supporters. [There’s nothing wrong with a bit of political patronage, so long as it doesn’t dominate, and in this case the patronage is where candidates are placed on the list – the voters ultimately confer the seats].

    The other half of members are elected, but on a restricted franchise. Civic and religious organisations, charities, industry groups, unions, local authority groups, professional bodies, sports associations etc would be selected and offered a seat or seats in the HoL. They would have to elect people to take up these seats, which would ensure that expertise across a broad range of areas is retained within the HoL.

    Everyone in the HoL would therefore be democratically mandated, but the house as a whole could not claim to have a mandate equivalent to the HoC. Expertise remains, as do political parties, but politics can’t dominate.

  47. Differing interpretations regarding what the EU is saying tonight. The Mail and Telegraph seem to be suggesting that the EU has blinked and is about to offer a better deal, other outlets are more interested in the fact that they maintaining their principles but are trying to push the process along. Everyone seems to think that they are trying to help May.

    I suspect that it’s a bit of helping May, and while it’s possible that the EU might be about to throw out their rulebook and principles and cave in on key demands, I don’t think this is likely. Instead, I rather think that this entire play is designed to ensure people feel that there is a deal out there which can be sorted out very quickly, and that therefore the idea of walking away with no deal is particularly daft.

    Agreement on the Irish backstop is still being touted by the EU as the one that unlocks the process, and they now seem happy to have a vague and woolly political statement on the future relationship. Neither of these things are what the UK wants, but by making a deal sound so close and easy to conclude, I think they are just upping the pressure on the hard leavers and daring them to turn their backs on a deal.

    This is very much along the lines of helping May, but not, I suspect, in the way that the Mail and DT seem to think. I strongly suspect that it’s another variant of the ‘you’ve got no choice so take it or leave it’ line, but dressed up to sound bit more positive.

  48. @Jim Jam – That is a better argument. But if a narrow remain vote won’t settle things why assume that a narrow leave vote actually has done so? There’s almost certainly not a majority for any actual version of Brexit – and there certainly isn’t for the chequers one. Hence the current paralysis.

  49. ROSIEANDDAISIE
    allan christie

    “How about 4%??”
    ___________

    Sorry I think that’s still too high but will compromise at 0.9%.
    ………..

    PASSTHEROCKPLEASE
    @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “Is not the problem that no one really cares about the democratic deficit issue. I think that the LDEM blew it with the AV but I think that what tends to happens is that when this sort of thing happens no one says it is bad we just accept it”

    “We get what we deserve, although I noticed in one poll an uptick in people wanting PR”
    _____________

    You might be right but that’s probably down to the two main parties having little appetite to change the current system and the current FPTP system is ingrained into the voters mindset who know nothing other than the current system.

    The AV thing was to shut Clegg up and keep him in the same bed as Cameron. That referendum was delivered badly and was never going to enthusiastically set the political heather on fire.

    AV is about as radical as Boris Johnson saying he supports Brexit.

  50. PETE B

    Allan Christie
    “Labour and the Tories will never accept PR because it would put an end to the current two party system”
    ………
    “I agree (unless both of them split, which seems on the cards). But I’ve often wondered how other countries have managed to get PR (without it being imposed like on UK smaller countries)? Do we have FPTP because PR hadn’t been invented when we had democracy, whereas the countries with PR got democracy later, when better systems were available? If not, why would any big party in a FPTP system allow PR to happen? In other words do they have PR because they’ve always had PR?”
    ___________

    I’m not sure Pete but at least a dozen Western European countries use PR and are among some of the oldest democracies in the World.

    Don’t get me wrong, PR can be just as unfair as FPTP when you set ridiculously high thresholds such as in Turkey.

    ” However, PR systems with a high electoral threshold, or other features that reduce proportionality, are not necessarily much fairer: in the Turkish general election, 2002, using an open list system with a 10% threshold, 46% of votes were wasted”

    No system is perfect but the system the Scottish Parliament uses has to be the fairest even though the SNP in 2011 manged to bust a system designed not to give any one party a majority by winning a majority but the other parties still roughly won a fair allocation of seats representing their percentage of the votes.

1 3 4 5 6 7