ComRes has released a new poll on the AV referendum commissioned by the NO2AV campaign. Topline figures, weighted by likelihood to vote in the referendum and excluding don’t knows have the NO campaign ahead by 60% to 40%, the biggest lead the NO campaign have recorded so far.

I always urge some caution in polls commissioned by the campaigns themselves – but in this particular case the tables appear wholly and entirely above board. It is a standard survey asking how likely people are to vote, and then asking them the bare, unadorned referendum question. Note that the regular ComRes polls on AV for the Independent on Sunday are carried out online, so this is the first recent ComRes telephone survey on AV.

There is also a new poll by a company called ICD Research in the New Statesman, which shows NO ahead by 14 points: NO 53%, YES 39%, undecided 9% (repercentaged to exclude don’t knows it would be a 16 point lead for NO).

I’m not aware of any previously published political polling by ICD, but it appears to have been an online poll, weighted by age, gender and region but not politically. Both the ICD and ComRes polls were conducted over last weekend, so both slightly predate the YouGov/Sun poll conducted early this week.


413 Responses to “Two new polls show NO campaign well ahead”

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
  1. @FrankG:

    Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

    Section 9

    (2) After rule 45 in that Schedule there is inserted—

    “How votes are to be counted

    45A

    (1) This rule sets out how votes are to be counted, in one or more stages of counting, in order to give effect to the preferences marked by voters on their ballot papers and so to determine which candidate is elected.

    (2) Votes shall be allocated to candidates in accordance with voters’ first preferences and, if one candidate has more votes than the other candidates put together, that candidate is elected.

    (3) If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate’s votes shall be dealt with as follows—

    (a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining candidates shall be reallocated to that remaining candidate or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;

    (b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.

    (4) If after that stage of counting one candidate has more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, that candidate is elected.

    (5) If not, the process mentioned in paragraph (3) above shall be repeated as many times as necessary until one candidate has more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, and so is elected.

  2. ‘I like my flag – one of these days I’ll get round to replacing the flagpole that broke in last winter’s storm!

    I dislike the Union Flag for the obvious reason that it is the symbol of a Union that I want to end.

    Since both are political symbols, that’s hardly surprising. However, I have no great love for one or hate for the other.

    On TV at the moment are shots of the celebrations in Bucklebury with Union Flags flying and some woman singing Land of Hope and Glory – how God made UK/England mighty, and will make it mightier yet. Aye right!

    Imperial pretensions in this day and age are rather sad.

    As to the monarchy, I’m an “instinctive republican” but not particularly fussed about it. In an independent Scotland we won’t have the “Queen in Parliament” nonsense, so she and her successors are quite OK to wander up here now and again and perform Scandinavian style royal duties from time to time.’

    Strange that the SNP leadership supports a policy of military imperalism then according to retiring MSP Chris Harvie.

  3. Should have read ‘Military unionism’.

  4. @ Neil A

    “Why lose so much history and symbolism to gain so little in return?”

    Because I don’t like what it symbolises.

  5. A Brown

    Chris Harvie is entitled to his opinion. I’m entitled to mine.

    Alex Salmond has to lead a nation that includes both of us – and many other opinions as well.

  6. @FrankG and RogerH – go easy on each other. We had the lawyers involved a couple of nights ago and I don’t think we want to disturb them again on a bank holiday.

  7. Kenny Farquharson (deputy editor Scotland on Sunday) has tweeted that:

    “SoS will publish its final exclusive YouGov poll of the campaign on Sunday. #sp11”

  8. FRANKG
    (However I think many would not agree with you that AV is a form of STV.)

    Could you please explain how AV/IRV is in any respect different to the application of STV to a single vacancies, as is done for Scottish Council by-elections and throughout the island of Ireland for most by-elections except to Westminster?

    You can see a one-page PDF of this month’s by-election for Highland Council’s Ward No. 3 – Wick here, where you can see that in each of what were actually four consecutive run-off elections, every ballot paper was accounted for and each was counted precisely once in each election.

    It is also worth noting that less than 5% of the total votes cast failed to express preferences deeply enough to make it into the final round. If it really is “too complex”, as Cameron & Reid claimed in their No2AV double-act then the educational standards in England must be truly abysmal.

  9. “You can see a one-page PDF of this month’s by-election for Highland Council’s Ward No. 3 – Wick here…”

    I see the Tory candidate was pushed into last place by a Laurel Bush. (Surely there’s a joke in there somewhere.)

  10. Neil A,

    “It’s almost as if to one class of Briton, the Royal family are “totally different to us” and therefore entitled to their exceptional status. To the educated, wealthy middle-class what they see is people who are basically the same as they are, but who are elevated above them.”

    That’s slightly reminiscent about what Robert Nozick said about academics and capitalism: we’ve been raised all our lives to believe that we are better and more deserving of praise than anyone else, only to be thrust into a social system where we are not the most materially wealthy or politically influential people. Why wouldn’t academics generally dislike such a system? It’s manifestly unfair, because we’re not on top.

    I have to admit that my sentiments tend to be anti-royalist and anti-capitalist, even though I’m a royalist classical liberal at an intellectual level. Nozick’s philosophy is a useful excuse for this discrepancy.

  11. @Neil A

    “I find most of the really snarky cynicism comes from the bourgeois. It’s almost as if to one class of Briton, the Royal family are “totally different to us” and therefore entitled to their exceptional status. To the educated, wealthy middle-class what they see is people who are basically the same as they are, but who are elevated above them.”

    I believe you are absolutely correct about this. Well said.

    The monarchy is politically and economically innocuous: the only motivation for being cynical about the royal wedding is envy. Which always says more about the person than its object.

  12. I saw Professor Starkey on the television a couple of nights ago cite two reason why we still have a monarchy:

    (a) because we in Britain are too lazy to do anything about it; and
    (b) becuase the Royal family embody the culture of celebrity which seems a perfect fit for modern parliamentary democracies.

    No, I don’t agree with the professor on many things. Nor on this. But I did find his comments interesting.

  13. rogerh

    Many, many jokes were posted on the Tory defeat by Laurel Bush.

    Everything from Republican links to pastiches of Monty Python’s “Bring me a shrubbery”.

  14. @Sergio
    “The monarchy is politically and economically innocuous: the only motivation for being cynical about the royal wedding is envy. Which always says more about the person than its object.”

    I disagree. Envy at what? If you are republican, you don’t agree with a head of state structure involving a royal family. That’s a political opinion. Not a personal one.

    Also, I disagree that the royal family is innocuous. Class still plays an imporatnt role in society, and at the epicentre of the class system is the royal family, which as well as containing the Head of State still has a large say in the upper chamber of the legislature.

    Which is not to say that I don’t think a royal figure can hold high office, or even be head of state. They should just stand for election like everyone else. My idea initially would be for the next in line to the throne to face a referendum upon the position becoming vacant. If he loses, we should have an election and take it from there.

  15. RAF

    That would be an interesting election.

    Is it to be a single constituency of all the countries who have Lizzie as Head of state, or do you envisge England/UK continuing to impose a male Protestant that they alone chose to be their Head of State too?

  16. RAF

    If you read my comment again you will see that I referred to cynicism about the royal wedding, not the monarchy itself.

    There are plenty of legitimate arguments in favour of a republic: however anyone with two eyes and a brain could see that today’s event was incredibly good for the UK, and only someone with personal hang-ups would (and do) refuse to acknowledge that.

  17. Sergio

    There’s not a lot of evidence that “today’s event was incredibly good for the UK” in Scotland.

    However, we’ll see on Saturday night when the SoS/YouGov details emerge.

  18. @OldNat

    The referendum would just involve the question of whether the next in line to the throne should continue to hold office as the Head of State.

    Seperate votes will take place in the UK and all Commenwealth countries currently having the Queen as Head of State. In the states where the royal loses the vote they will no longer serve as Head of State as of right and will face election to that position from other domestic candidates (if they chose to stand at all). In the states where the royal wins, they can continue as Head of State until they die.

    If you haven’t guessed, I haven’t quite thought this through, but as the matter is unliklely to arise in my lifetime, there is room for further study!

  19. OldNat

    I should probably have said “the UK (excluding those who do not wish to remain therein)”.

    I wish the Scottish nationalists every success.

  20. OLD Nat- any rumours re Sunday

    Political betting still strong for SNP

    Canvassing still strong on the ground in East Lothian for SNP

  21. RAF

    :-)

    I think Scotland could accelerate the situation (no matter how long that takes it’ll be quicker than Westminster actually doing anything!)

    Scotland could pass a new Act of Succession that the Scottish throne passes to the eldest chld of the current monarch – regardless of religion.

  22. @Sergio

    “If you read my comment again you will see that I referred to cynicism about the royal wedding, not the monarchy itself.

    There are plenty of legitimate arguments in favour of a republic: however anyone with two eyes and a brain could see that today’s event was incredibly good for the UK, and only someone with personal hang-ups would (and do) refuse to acknowledge that”

    Oh, I am never cynical about weddings. And it may well be beneficial to the UK economically. But I am uncomfortable with the sense of hero worship and celebrity that accompanies these things. I am heartened by the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will chose to like on Anglesey which suggests that they also don’t like the idea of being celebrities.

  23. ROGERH
    I see the Tory candidate was pushed into last place by a Laurel Bush. (Surely there’s a joke in there somewhere.)

    I’m sure there is, but probably not one in good taste.

    What, perhaps, might worry some of the “tribalists” here is that only 1/3rd of the tories failed to express a second preference, and that the L-Ds and SNP each got 15%, whilst Labour got only 3%. It shows that blues are just as capable of adopting an “anyone but Labour” policy as reds are of adopting “anyone but tory”.

  24. Nationalist

    I’m presuming that polling ended on Thursday (Can’t believe that YouGov would be daft enough to poll today).

    Anthony will know, but we’re not allowed to torture him. :-(

    Expect Twitter rumours on Saturday from SoS staff that there will be “astounding” or “fascinating” results to persuade us to buy SoS.

    Actual numbers probably not available till around 12.30am on Sunday.

  25. RAF

    I don’t take issue with any of your last post.

    Personally I detest celebrity culture and I’m indifferent towards the royal family. But I sense that, after all the misery of the past few years in the UK, today was something we desperately needed to lift the gloom – and it did. How long it will last, who knows?

  26. “Scotland could pass a new Act of Succession that the Scottish throne passes to the eldest chld of the current monarch – regardless of religion.”

    I don’t think that would change much on the religious front as (ti the best of my knowledge) all current UK royals and their children are CoE/Anglican. The gender change would be interesting.

  27. I say enough carping and let the media have their day.

    They’ve had to report real news like the Japanese tsunami and nuclear catastrophe and all manner of bloodsoaked wars and uprisings. It’s been trying for them as in their hearts most of the TV news networks and newspapers want cheap mindless celeb copy to gush over for months. Real news takes thought, expenses and bravery to report. This fluff writes itself.

    So let the media have their big day because they aren’t going to be hacking any celebs phones for a while and after Kate and Wills said they expect to be left alone for the next two years the well has run dry.

  28. @Barbazenzero

    “blues are just as capable of adopting an “anyone but Labour” policy as reds are of adopting “anyone but tory””

    Of course – Labour are our mortal enemy. And when I say “our”, I mean, the UK.

  29. “What, perhaps, might worry some of the “tribalists” here is that only 1/3rd of the tories failed to express a second preference, and that the L-Ds and SNP each got 15%, whilst Labour got only 3%. It shows that blues are just as capable of adopting an “anyone but Labour” policy as reds are of adopting “anyone but tory”.”

    Whatever ones views on AV, having that amount and type of information available after a General Election would be fascinating.

  30. RAF

    They could hardly be anything else than CoE considering Lizzie is head of the English Church! The point is that the existing constitutional settlement is discriminatory in that the monarch must be a Protestant.

    The SNP (and others) have called for a change to end the bigotry, but Westminster constantly whines that “it would be too difficult, as we would have to ask all the other countries”. Of course, the useless prats don’t actually bother to ask the other countries!

  31. @OldNat

    I’m not best qualified to talk on this subject, but England’s constutitional settlement is complicated by the fact that the Church and State never actually separated (I’m not sure of the position in Scotland). Hence we have Anglican bishops in the House of Lords and the monarch as head of the Church.

    On the UK issue, as you point out there are several Commonwealth countries who would also have to amend their laws accordingly, many of which (most?)are predominantly Anglican. I’m sure the relevant people have taken soundings as to whether a chance would be accetable to all of those countries and the answer has been No.

  32. Re. Starkey’s points, I’d add a third: that no one would be able to agree on the best replacement. Also, to say we’re too lazy to abolish the monarchy rather underestimates the sheer complexity that would be involved in extracting it both constitutionally and from everyday life. It would tie up Parliament for a decade,

    It’s no coincidence that it takes a revolution or some other national upheaval to switch from monarchy to republic. Recently only Nepal seems to have managed a clean break (but the method used might prove controversial).

    (FWIW I’m a monarchist, although for more of a continental-style monarchy. I’m not a great fan of the Windsor family or the culture of deference and I’d happily abolish the aristocracy tomorrow.)

  33. SERGIO
    Of course – Labour are our mortal enemy. And when I say “our”, I mean, the UK.

    We’ll have to agree to differ there. I’d say it was tory unionists who were the “mortal enemy” of the UK, as demonstrated by their preferred solution which lead to the partition of Ireland and the initial break-up of the UK in order to prevent home rule. Labour were home rulers then but nowadays they’re as unionist as the blues.

    But it does demonstrate that tories are just as capable of ranking candidates in order of preference as anyone else.

    Please remember ROGER MEXICO’s:
    And everyone also misses the real point about AV (and for that matter STV). You can put the person you most hate, loath and despise at number 10 or whatever. Then you work your way up, numbering down, through the repulsive; the unpleasant; the mildly nauseous; the merely incompetent; the unknowns; the known unknowns; the OK in a really bad year; the people you could just about send out for chips; the sort of literate; the sort of numerate; the occasionally coherent. Then, if there’s anyone better than all that left, you give them number 1.

  34. “And everyone also misses the real point about AV (and for that matter STV). You can put the person you most hate, loath and despise at number 10 or whatever…”

    I missed that but I assume it was posted in support of a ‘yes’ vote.

  35. @ Sergio

    The wedding will cost at around 4-5 billion to the country… This is because of the extra day of holiday (it’s a different question that the UK is very mean with holidays) after the deductions of extra spending and visitors. I would rather have a regular annual holiday for some reason rather than a one-off one because two young people decided (?) to get married.

    I’m not envious by the way. Marriage by convenience always saddens me.

  36. RAF

    England is the only part of the UK to have an Established Church.

    As far as I know, no Commonwealthy country which has the Queen as Head of State has an Established Church (though I’m open to correction on that).

    The Church/State connection is uniquely English and if you can produce any evidence that Westminster has ever bothered to ask the other Commonwealth countries, i’d be interested to see it.

    That England is archaic is obvious. That it is unable to progress beyond the 19th century is no reason why its bigotry shoukld be imposed on the rest of HMs dominions.

  37. @RogerH

    Thank you for your very thorough explanation of the AV vote counting procedure. I fully accept that one of the vote counting options for AV (by eliminating more than one candidate at a time) has been discounted by these procedures to which you have drawn my attention. I was not aware the ‘vote counting’ system had been specified. My information was from last year and your procedures have since been introduced. I unreservedly withdraw that part of my statements.

    I think I have found Nick Clegg’s statement on AV. He called it ‘quote a miserable compromise unquote. I am happy to completely concur with that assessment..

    I have read the report you recommended. It admits it is based preimarily on the arguments as portrayed on both sides and seeks to clarify some of them. It actually uses the data from the report I wanted you to read, albeit some of the conclusions it draws from the data are at slight variance to the original data report. It also heavily draws on the Australian AV experience, which is a little unsound given the pre-election pact on a significant proportion of the seats of the coalition parties there.

    A few quotes may help clarify other items:

    1. Quote ‘AV is not a proportional system’ unquote. Quote ‘STV is a proportional system’ unquote. This seems at variance to your insistance that AV is a form of STV.

    2. It states quote ‘there are other reasons for thinking AV should reduce turnout.” unquote.

    3. It states quote ‘AV always boosts LDs’ unquote.

    4. It states quote ‘By boosting the LDs, however. AV does increase the likelihood of hung parliaments a little. unquote.

    5. It states that quote ‘AV tends to exaggerate landslides’ unquote. It then accepts that this occurs with a Lab landslides but not with a Con landslides.

    6. It accepts that AV has a tendancy to reduce the multiplicity of parties into a two-bloc party system. It accepts that for a centrist party such as the LDs there is a likelihood that the party will splinter under this ‘two-bloc’ system.

    7. It accepts that AV will increase the fringe party votes but decrease the likelihood of them actually getting seats.

    8. It accepts that small parties will have a increased bargaining power over larger parties – in short to ‘buy’ small parties’s alternative votes support prior to an election, the larger party will have to amend its policies.

    Thank you for pointing the way to this document, it indeed has helped clarify in my mind exactly what AV is really likely to achieve.

  38. Two points on the economics of the royals:

    Firstly I’m not convinced that events such as the latest wedding are particularly good money-spinners for the UK. I’m sure a few Chinese plastic tat factories have been on overtime and beer sales will be up (but they would be on a bank holiday weekend with good weather anyway), but I can’t see a massive boost in tourism – certainly there seems to be a lot of discounted hotel rooms around. Of course the coverage may boost things in the long run, but it’s difficult to quantify that sort of thing.

    In truth most of these sort of events tend to actually depress tourism. Domestic visitors tend to stay with friends, make it a day-trip or (in this case) camp out on the streets. Not many foreign tourists come specifically and those who would otherwise be visiting don’t because of fear of high prices. People who would come on business cancel, because of things being shut down and the difficulty of moving around. This applies just as much to non-royal events – expect next year’s Olympics to be a tourism disaster and everyone to be surprised about it.

    Secondly the UK makes a profit out of the royals. This is because the profits from the Crown Estates go into the general accounts and would outweigh the costs. The Queen owns much of these personally and would still do so if the monarchy was abolished. And it’s no good saying ‘those belong to the people’, because the Greeks tried that with ex-King Constantine and the EU told them to pay up. Mind you if the ‘people’ are going to start back what is rightfully theirs I can think of a few other places where you can start.

  39. RAF

    Re the Kirk, see The Kirk and the State:
    The Queen is not the supreme governor of the Church of Scotland, as she is in the Church of England. The sovereign has the right to attend the General Assembly, but not to take part in its deliberations. The Oath of Accession includes a promise to “maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government”.

    The Queen maintains warm relations with the Church of Scotland, where she worships when in Scotland, and from which the chaplains of the Royal Household in Scotland are appointed.

    The Church of Scotland (the Kirk) is not State-controlled, and neither the Scottish nor the Westminster Parliaments are involved in Kirk appointments.

  40. @ RogerH

    According to the BBC the two last Labour prime ministers were not invited, because it’s a private affair…”

    It does seem an odd claim. If it’s not a state occasion why are all foreign ambassadors invited and why is the state paying for the military escorts, etc.? I don’t particularly object to this sort of ceremony for the second in line to the throne but when some court flunky screws up in this way it should be both admitted and corrected.’

    You are obviously unaware that former prime ministers (Lab or Con) were not invited because they had served in that capacity. However ‘Knights of the Garter’ were invited. Both Thatcher and Major attended in that capacity. Blair and Brown are not ‘Knight’s of the Garter’ and so had no right to expect to be called. That some should see this as a political issue is regrettable. That the BBC should get it’s facts wrong is regretable, but not too surprising. That you should attempt to use it to make some partisan point is …… . That you should words such as “when some court flunky screws up in this way it should be both admitted and corrected.”

    Since you seem in your own words to have ‘screwed it up’ I hope you have the courage to carry out your own advice.

  41. Roger Mexico

    As you will know, Man exerted its rights over the Crown Estate in your territory.

    in Scotland, the vast majority of the Crown Estate is not the personal property of the monarch. It belongs to “the Crown” – a legal entity that equates to “the public”.

    The Crown Estate manages the seabed on behalf of “the Crown”. This is not due to any concept of feudal ownership, but to the status of unclaimed territory in Scots Law.

    The Scottish Parliament can (and I trust will) enact legislation to allocate the management of such territory to a public trust, rathewr than allow the revenues to continued to accrue to the Westminster Exchequer.

  42. @OldNat
    “The Church/State connection is uniquely English and if you can produce any evidence that Westminster has ever bothered to ask the other Commonwealth countries, i’d be interested to see it.”

    Only recent Press gossip that the UK Coalition Government were considering amending the constitution to enable the first born of the heir to the throne irrespective of gender to be next in line.

    “That England is archaic is obvious. That it is unable to progress beyond the 19th century is no reason why its bigotry shoukld be imposed on the rest of HMs dominions”

    You’re speaking to a republican. I wouldn’t have any religious or gender restrictions on the UK Head of State.

    However, unless we have evidence of whether other countries have been asked, and whether or not they have accepted or rejected any proposed change, this is all speculation.

  43. @Barbazenzeo
    Re the Kirk, see The Kirk and the State

    Thanks.

  44. RAF

    Indeed any idea that the rest of the Commonwealth has been consulted is speculation.

    Without evidence that it has, it seems safest to assume that it has not taken place.

    So we return to England’s confusion of Church and State as being the only problem. I found it interesting that English/UK Labour used exactly the same excuse as English/UK Tories to avoid addressing their bigotry.

    Hypocrites, the lot of them!

  45. @Frank G / RogerH

    Here’s the guest list (and the various categories they fall under). Curiosly, not a single mainstream UK Muslim representative (I have never heard of Imam Mohammad Raza).

    http://www.redswhitesandblacks.com/blog/entry/1760081/london-royal-wedding-guest-list-released-by-her-majesty-the-queen-1900-invitations-to-church-service

  46. “Blair and Brown are not ‘Knight’s of the Garter’ and so had no right to expect to be called.”

    That was indeed Clarence House’s spin on the affair. But it was no more convincing than the BBC’s since the Foreign Office stepped in to remove the Syrian Ambassador whom protocol dictated should be there from this ‘family affair’.

    Or was that last minute sop to an outrage press also not a glaring example of them screwing it up ?

  47. RAF
    Only recent Press gossip that the UK Coalition Government were considering amending the constitution to enable the first born of the heir to the throne irrespective of gender to be next in line.

    Cameron was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme last week and said, more or less, that he would have to consult with the other commonwealth countries who have the same monarch before he could draft anything firm. I suspect that was devised by is Sir Humphrey as a means of keeping it on the back burner for as long as possible.

    Any changes to the current succession law would break the treaty of union and potentially render the Union with England Act 1707 void. The act is more concerned with religion than gender equality, of course, but can you imagine a UK government bringing in legislation to allow succession of first-born females, but continuing to avow “that all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the Dominions thereunto“?

    PS: I’m a republican too, but I don’t see that as being anywhere approaching as important as other constitutional issues, although renting out the various royal bedchambers as a super-hotel could be a nice little foreign currency earner without having to stop the pageantry displayed outside which attracts foreign proles.

  48. @ Valenciano

    Frankg: “Heaven forbid! Having seen how long it took for the Irish election to sort out their list type system – nearly 6 days.”
    ====================
    Ireland doesn’t have a list type system. It uses STV and all results except one constituency were known the day after counting began. Ireland is notoriously slow with the counting anyway and I don’t think it would be any better with FPTP.

    Unfortunately I can remember having to wait until day six for the last result. I had done a sort of forecast of the results and also wanted to do a comparison between the eventual STV result and what would have been an FPTP result. Hence my interest.

    Voting was held on 25th Feb and stopped at 2200hrs.

    I can remember the following four constituencies:

    Galway East was finally called after 9 counts at 2242hrs on 27th Feb.

    Wexford was finally called after 13 counts on 1st Mar.

    Laois/Offally was called after 13 counts on 1st Mar.

    Galway West was finally called after 13 counts called on 2nd Mar.

    25th, 26th, 27th, 28th 1st, 2nd. It took six days.

    The total number of votes cast was only 2.22 million. There were 43 constituencies electing at total of 166 members. There were 6 main parties and numerous Independants.

    In the UK most seats have Lab, Con, LD, UKIP, BNP, Green and some SNP/PC in addition as major parties. In addition there are numerous fringe parties and independants. A conservative (small c) estimate in a 4 member constituency is 30+ candidates. The votes in GE2010 were 20 times those in the Irish GE. Even a reduced HofC of 600 seat means nearly 150 ‘4 member’ constituencies. I think the capacity for this large number of counts (probably 25+), which does not include recount votes etc, make it unlikely that we would get any early indication of our multiplicity of parties and possible coalitions etc. for several days.

    That is why I said and still think ‘Heaven Forbid’.

    Sorry to be late with this reply, but I have been busy reading fascinating papers on AV.

  49. “although renting out the various royal bedchambers as a super-hotel could be a nice little foreign currency earner without having to stop the pageantry displayed outside which attracts foreign proles.”

    They’ll be renting out the Royals next for £50,000 a time, eh Fergie ? :-D

    I say again, let the media have their day because this fluff will be replaced soon enough by the next celeb scandal or cock up from the Royals. Queen Camilla should be fun for a start. ;-)

    I certainly don’t begrudge anyone having a party and enjoying this circus any more than I begrudge children having fun with Santa Claus and all the dressing up and Christmas ceremony that entails. I enjoyed having a laugh at it all today too.
    Though I would worry if the child didn’t eventually grow out believing in Santa of it much as you would worry about adults taking royal wedding trivia particularly seriously.

    I also pity the poor infantalised newsreaders today.
    To hear them gush and witter on like prepubescent schoolgirls about kisses on the balcony, wedding dresses and love affairs with the monarchy is admittedly amusing, but ultimately demeans them and serious journalism.

  50. @ Barbazenzero

    ‘Could you please explain how AV/IRV is in any respect different to the application of STV to a single vacancies, as is done for Scottish Council by-elections’

    Thanks for the query.

    I think you may have answered your own question. The keys are in the words ‘single vacancies’ and ‘by-elections’.

    As for my contention that AV is not the same as STV, because one is proportional and the other is not. That’s not my quote, they are quotes of the very paper that RogerH bluntly and possibly rudely said I should read. So I did and yes, it did explain a lot, as my subsequent post indicated.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9