Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who should replace TM as leader of the Tories? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should be Conservative leader in 2018/19?
    Theresa May (or Amber Rudd)
    9
    11.84%
    Boris Johnson
    20
    26.32%
    Other (please state)
    47
    61.84%

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I didn't want an EU referendum, but I have a slightly grudging respect for Cameron in fulfilling his party's longstanding pledge. I think you can either view it as a reckless gamble or a brave attempt at resolving a perpetual problem.

    I have no doubt he was emboldened by the Scottish referendum in 2014. Cameron, to his credit, genuinely fought the Scots nationalists by their own rules, did it well, and what he campaigned for won the day. Unfortunately with the EU, there wasn't the same strength of positive underlying feeling, nor the same level of risk to warn against.

    There's some truth in the adage that all political careers end in failure. Cameron, however, was riding high - the first Tory majority won for almost quarter of a century, pretty well respected and secure in his position. He tried to stare the Brexiteers in the face and win, and he lost it all.
    I see it slightly differently; as a cynical attempt to win back voters who looked to be heading over to UKIP in the run up to the 2015 election. So bold in his gamble that he set aside no plans whatsoever as to what he should do if the people vote Leave - because that was never supposed to happen. And then when it did, he jumped the sinking ship like a rat, leaving the party and future of our country in disarray.

    Now, obviously May has attempted to take it on, to her credit, although there is some kind of hilarious irony that she rolled the dice in a snap election and ended up making exactly the same mistake as Cameron - gambling with public opinion for no reason other than to benefit the party, and losing.

    I do respect your angle and it sounds well reasoned but personally I don't put as much faith in them as that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    I see it slightly differently; as a cynical attempt to win back voters who looked to be heading over to UKIP in the run up to the 2015 election. So bold in his gamble that he set aside no plans whatsoever as to what he should do if the people vote Leave - because that was never supposed to happen. And then when it did, he jumped the sinking ship like a rat, leaving the party and future of our country in disarray.

    Now, obviously May has attempted to take it on, to her credit, although there is some kind of hilarious irony that she rolled the dice in a snap election and ended up making exactly the same mistake as Cameron - gambling with public opinion for no reason other than to benefit the party, and losing.

    I do respect your angle and it sounds well reasoned but personally I don't put as much faith in them as that.
    She would have easily won that election if the may not didn’t make it grand appearance and put a referendum out that dared people to vote for it.

    Yes it would have benefitted the party but it also would have benefitted brexit if there was something like a majority of 30 they pretty much could write off any commons challenges on what needs to be done.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    She would have easily won that election if the may not didn’t make it grand appearance and put a referendum out that dared people to vote for it.

    Yes it would have benefitted the party but it also would have benefitted brexit if there was something like a majority of 30 they pretty much could write off any commons challenges on what needs to be done.
    I don't understand the first paragraph at all? Are there typos in it?
    Also I don't see how it is of benefit to anyone to push through legislation without challenges. If anything, a coalition would be of the most benefit - to get a fair and balanced approach. And not with the DUP like we currently have. After all that is how we got through the war.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    I don't understand the first paragraph at all? Are there typos in it?
    Also I don't see how it is of benefit to anyone to push through legislation without challenges. If anything, a coalition would be of the most benefit - to get a fair and balanced approach. And not with the DUP like we currently have. After all that is how we got through the war.
    Lol loads of typos! I’ll fix it in a minute.

    As for pushing through stuff, it’s the same legislation and as for the final deal if there’s no deal and they vote against it there’s still no deal. If it’s not a good deal and they vote against it there’s no deal.

    So it’s really just about changing eu law to uk law the rest of it is in Davies and barniers hands.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    She would have easily won the election if the may bot didn’t make its grand appearance and put a manifesto out that dared people to vote for it as it was so lacking in promises to the electorate, all stick no carrot.

    Yes it would have benefitted the party but it also would have benefitted brexit if there was something like a majority of 30 they pretty much could write off any commons challenges on what needs to be done.
    Fixed
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Jeremy Corbyn
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Fixed
    Haha much better and I do agree with your first paragraph the election could have been won
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Actually as the Tories win more votes up north and Labour down south, the old rules do not apply.

    The fact that the Tories have a better votes to seats ratio shows they do not favour Labour. In 2010 it was broadly even, the ones before that and after that favour the Tories. Hardly seems like a system rigged in favour of Labour when the Tories on average receive less votes per seat.

    You don't really care about the democraticness of it do you? If you did you would be outraged about how FPTP means UKIP can get 18% of the vote and one seat. Or how the Lib Dems consistently got around a fifth of the vote and barley ever more than 10% of the seats.

    In fact if it was really about being democratic you would be arguing for a proportional voting system. Instead you choose to ignore all the undemocratic and unproportional aspects of the voting system yet when it comes to boundaries (which do not favour Labour) you complain about other parties being 'anti democratic'.
    The nature of first past the post means that, bar exceptional circumstances such as 2010, the winner has a higher ratio than second place because both have a dedicated core of 5-10m votes concentrated in a few areas hence why the ratio was so much better for labour than the Tories under Blair.

    Your justification to retain unbalanced constituencies seems totally based on two elections and saying the Tories are the beneficiaries of rebalancing. At what point should the constituencies be rebalanced? clearly a 4000 voter disparity isn't enough, would it be 10,000? Or if we had a return to rotten boroughs would you still oppose it if the Tories were the beneficiaries?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Given how a slight redrawing could shift the election outcome from DUP dominance to Sinn Féin dominance with the same votes cast in the same places, I think there's also a certain amount of luck in where the boundary commissions choose to draw the lines.

    Really MPs shouldn't have to vote to ratify boundaries once the commissions have drawn them up.
    There are actually now reports that with minor tweaks Northern Ireland may not actually be flipped and the DUP are considering supporting the proposals. The best solution though is, as you say, to remove the conflict of interest and remove the MPs from the process. Leave it to the MPs and in 50 years we could still be using 2000 population distributions.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Preferably Rees-Mogg. Even though I don't agree with his views, anyone who knows anything about politics is aware that he's a fantastic parliamentarian, which is honestly what the UK needs right now.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The nature of first past the post means that, bar exceptional circumstances such as 2010, the winner has a higher ratio than second place because both have a dedicated core of 5-10m votes concentrated in a few areas hence why the ratio was so much better for labour than the Tories under Blair.

    Your justification to retain unbalanced constituencies seems totally based on two elections and saying the Tories are the beneficiaries of rebalancing. At what point should the constituencies be rebalanced? clearly a 4000 voter disparity isn't enough, would it be 10,000? Or if we had a return to rotten boroughs would you still oppose it if the Tories were the beneficiaries?
    So in other words, when Labour win, they have a better ratio and when the Tories do, the Tories have a better ratio? Ie the boundaries are not biased in favor of Labour.

    Of course the Tories have sought to ensure that the figures such boundaries are based on are in their favor, by choosing to implement an opt in, rather than an opt out electoral registration system.

    The bottom line is that your concerns are really not based on 'democratic reasons'. If they were you would be supporting replacing fptp with a more proportional voting system, instead of one which allows a party to get 12.6% of the vote and one seat, while another can get 37% of the vote and 331 seats.

    Your yearning for a democratic system, seems to stop a long way short of actually being democratic. Fptp is a flawed voting system and it can't be saved or 'democratised' by rigging the boundaries in favor of the Tories.

    Even if the new boundaries were to favor Labour I would oppose them. Just as I have consistently called for a PR voting system when it would not have favored Labour such as in 2015.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think it should be me
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So in other words, when Labour win, they have a better ratio and when the Tories do, the Tories have a better ratio? Ie the boundaries are not biased in favor of Labour.

    Of course the Tories have sought to ensure that the figures such boundaries are based on are in their favor, by choosing to implement an opt in, rather than an opt out electoral registration system.

    The bottom line is that your concerns are really not based on 'democratic reasons'. If they were you would be supporting replacing fptp with a more proportional voting system, instead of one which allows a party to get 12.6% of the vote and one seat, while another can get 37% of the vote and 331 seats.

    Your yearning for a democratic system, seems to stop a long way short of actually being democratic. Fptp is a flawed voting system and it can't be saved or 'democratised' by rigging the boundaries in favor of the Tories.

    Even if the new boundaries were to favor Labour I would oppose them. Just as I have consistently called for a PR voting system when it would not have favored Labour such as in 2015.
    I've sat down and crunched all the post war numbers
    In the 20 elections the loser has had the better ratios only twice: Labour had the better ratio in 2010 (33370 vs 34980) and the Tories just had the better ratio in 1951 (41928 vs 41988)
    On two occasions it was trivial that the winner by seats had the better ratio because they didn't win the popular vote: Feb 1974 (Labour had 4 more seats but 226564 fewer votes) and 1951 (Tories had 26 more seats but 230534 fewer votes)

    The biggest difference in Labour's favour was 25847 (32340 v 58188) in 1997
    The biggest difference in the Tories' favour was 9676 (37674 v 47350) in 1959
    On four occasions Labour have had a better ratio vs the Tories greater than the 1959 result: 1997 (25847) 2001 (24379) 2005 (17460) and 1945 (13792)
    The narrowest it's been when the Tories had the better ratio is 60 (41928 vs 41988) in 1950
    The narrowest it's been when Labour had the better ratio is 978 (38504 vs 39482) in 1964
    Twice the Tories have had a narrower margin than Labours narrowest: 1950 (60) and 1992 (715)

    Over all 20 elections Labour on average had fewer voters per seat, 38158 vs 4`0207 a difference of 2050 (all figures have been rounded)
    On average the Tories get a 1% greater vote share but 6.3 fewer seats (Labour doesn't win as often but is more likely to win big with their seat lead in 1997, 2001, and 1945 being bigger than the best lead of the Tories)
    On average when Labour has more seats it has 115.56 more seats than the Tories, when the Tories have more seats it is on average 83.55 more.
    Even though the Tories have "won" 11 times to Labour's 9 the sum of the Labour leads is 121 greater (1040 vs 919)

    But then you're the one that started on the vote:seat ratio to try to distract from the fact that Labour has, on average, smaller constituencies.

    Here is perhaps an interesting read that looks at the elections from 1950 to 2015 and the bias within them, breaking it down by the types of bias:

    https://www.statslife.org.uk/politic...neral-election

    Net Bias-in the favour of the Tories until the mid 60s as rural seats were smaller, little bias until the late 80s, massive Labour bias thought blair and even in 2010, moderate Tory bias in 2015
    National and constituency size bias (looking at constituency size and demographic shifts)- consistently favoured Labour (this is the thing boundary reviews are designed to minimise)
    Abstention bias (how turnout varies across the country) significantly favours Labour as their constituencies have higher abstention rates
    Third party bias:
    Third party votes (how many votes third parties get)- historically favour the Tories, fairly significantly, as the Liberals/Lib Dems tend to do well in Tory areas, no effect in 2015
    Third party wins (what happens when a third party wins a seat)- Historically favours Labour as the Liberals/Lib Dems would win otherwise Tory seats for the most party, this shifted massively pro Tory in 2015 due to the collapse of the Lib Dems and rise of the SNP, probably somewhat mitigated now we're back to a 2 party system
    Efficiency bias- Effectively this is how well the campaign is run in that it looks at how many votes are wasted on large majorities or close losses (which are admittedly potentially beneficial in later elections) and has had minimal effect until the 90s at which point Labour started targeting marginals more and the Tories stacked votes in safe seats, when the Tories started targeting marginals this swung in their favour becuase they had fewer wasted votes.

    What we see in the data is that in 2015 the things that it is easy to deal with centrally favours Labour;
    the less easy to deal with dealing with abstention also favours Labour (I think people would get a bit uppety if you did constituencies based on estimates of actual votes cast rather than electors);
    Third parties favoured the Tories enough to offset the above two, but that effect should be massively reduced with the collapse of the SNP
    Efficiency, which is heavily dependent on the campaigns themselves, favoured the Tories (I expect this too is significantly down from 2015
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arneldfad)
    Preferably Rees-Mogg. Even though I don't agree with his views, anyone who knows anything about politics is aware that he's a fantastic parliamentarian, which is honestly what the UK needs right now.
    I don't want an effective monster.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    I see it slightly differently; as a cynical attempt to win back voters who looked to be heading over to UKIP in the run up to the 2015 election.
    The pledge for an in-out referendum pre-dates that by quite some time: it was roughly talked about before, but it was crystalised as the Conservatives' response to the Lisbon Treaty ratification, when people were still smarting about Tony Blair's promise of a referendum on the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty that never came.

    So bold in his gamble that he set aside no plans whatsoever as to what he should do if the people vote Leave - because that was never supposed to happen. And then when it did, he jumped the sinking ship like a rat, leaving the party and future of our country in disarray.
    Fair. But in relation to his departure, I don't think he'd have realistically been able to stay on.

    Now, obviously May has attempted to take it on, to her credit, although there is some kind of hilarious irony that she rolled the dice in a snap election and ended up making exactly the same mistake as Cameron - gambling with public opinion for no reason other than to benefit the party, and losing.
    A fair point. The party's strategists don't seem to have been all that clever of late in predicting where public opinion can shift.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What we see in the data is that in 2015 the things that it is easy to deal with centrally favours Labour;
    the less easy to deal with dealing with abstention also favours Labour (I think people would get a bit uppety if you did constituencies based on estimates of actual votes cast rather than electors);
    Third parties favoured the Tories enough to offset the above two, but that effect should be massively reduced with the collapse of the SNP
    Efficiency, which is heavily dependent on the campaigns themselves, favoured the Tories (I expect this too is significantly down from 2015
    Interesting points.

    Labour have a serious problem coming up if the boundary commission proposals currently put forward for seat boundary revisions go through - May would have had a good majority if they had been in place at the election.
    https://boundarycommissionforengland...k/2018-review/

    The Tories have also been busy trying to rig elections by getting the electoral registration rules changed so that (for example) new voters don't get auto-registered and also by blocking systematic attempts to register voters in deprived areas living in multi-occupancy dwellings by refusing money to councils to do this.

    It looks as if things will be increasingly tipped against Labour in the basic maths of elections going forwards.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Interesting points.

    Labour have a serious problem coming up if the boundary commission proposals currently put forward for seat boundary revisions go through - May would have had a good majority if they had been in place at the election.
    https://boundarycommissionforengland...k/2018-review/

    The Tories have also been busy trying to rig elections by getting the electoral registration rules changed so that (for example) new voters don't get auto-registered and also by blocking systematic attempts to register voters in deprived areas living in multi-occupancy dwellings by refusing money to councils to do this.

    It looks as if things will be increasingly tipped against Labour in the basic maths of elections going forwards.
    Your thinking of the 2015 election pattern. The new boundaries vs 2017 actually give Labour an extra 3 seats vs the Tories albeit we'd have the same Tory-DUP deal as now..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your thinking of the 2015 election pattern. The new boundaries vs 2017 actually give Labour an extra 3 seats vs the Tories albeit we'd have the same Tory-DUP deal as now..
    The media reported an analysis from a couple of psephologists at Plymouth saying that the changes would have given the Tories an overall majority of 16.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3660381.html

    So no, I was thinking of '17.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The media reported an analysis from a couple of psephologists at Plymouth saying that the changes would have given the Tories an overall majority of 16.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3660381.html

    So no, I was thinking of '17.
    Fair enough, i was going by electoral calculus. Some tight seats presumably.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The pledge for an in-out referendum pre-dates that by quite some time: it was roughly talked about before, but it was crystalised as the Conservatives' response to the Lisbon Treaty ratification, when people were still smarting about Tony Blair's promise of a referendum on the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty that never came.



    Fair. But in relation to his departure, I don't think he'd have realistically been able to stay on.



    A fair point. The party's strategists don't seem to have been all that clever of late in predicting where public opinion can shift.
    On the last point- they were completely right to call the election in 2017 and tbf they did get a very ‘good’ result in terms of percentage.

    What was wrong was:

    A- an appalling election strategy
    B- an appalling manifesto
    C- a appalling leader
    D- Tory arrogance over a complete shambles of an opppsition.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.