• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

Oh I don't know UW: later I am going to start researching my family tree: I am hoping for french or spanish ancestry ideally: but anywhere nice and warm and civilised will do. And a generous package for repatriation will be just what I need....

I was wondering that myself, unfortunately we seem to be pretty much Celts through and through - none of those foreign Norman and Saxon genes in my family tree!
 
No viking even? Not a scrap of huguenot? Surely if you go far enough back there must be some german or jewish or danish or irish or middle eastern or.....

If all else fails, you are english: claim a bit of St George since I gather he was Italian on his father's side :)
 
No viking even? Not a scrap of huguenot? Surely if you go far enough back there must be some german or jewish or danish or irish or middle eastern or.....

If all else fails, you are english: claim a bit of St George since I gather he was Italian on his father's side :)

Who really knows their pedigree but in my family by the time you go back to my grandparents' generation (maternal and paternal) you end up in North Wales in the same village and even sharing the same surname. I know one Uncle has gone back to I think he said the late 17th century with one line of ancestors and they were still there in the same village, with the same surnames!
 
Don't be so defeatist!! You will have to blacken the character of one of your female line, in that case. It may be the only way!
 
Don't be so defeatist!! You will have to blacken the character of one of your female line, in that case. It may be the only way!

I'm sure I once heard my gran tell the tale of an ancestor who was found washed up on Anglesey holding onto a palm tree, I think she said he was from here.
 
Will Call Me Dave's decision to have these debates consign the Tories to years in the wilderness?

If there is a Lib/Lab coalition with voting reform, then you're going to get a much greater presence of lib MPs - now assuming they stay futher to the left than right, that will mean you're going to get consistently a bigger block of left rather than right in the commons. The tories are really going to struggle in such a scenario to get majorites.....

(of course, if scotland devolve that would change things drastically against labour....)
 
Scotland is devolved already. It didn't make much difference to the Westminster result.

Rolfe.
 
It's a bit scary, but I have no clue as to the answer to this poll. I regard all the options with equal horror.

Rolfe.
 
Here's a handy vote checker:
file-2.jpg
 
Will Call Me Dave's decision to have these debates consign the Tories to years in the wilderness?

It's my conviction that the Tories are now fighting for their political life, And I agree with your reasoning. I think Clegg's comments about not propping up Brown earlier today (sunday) were ill advised. (I'm not saying he was wrong to hold the view, but at this stage I feel he was wrong to express it, I think a lot of his bounce is from the people who want "left" and a hung parliament, what he said today might cause some worry there.)

Although I feel the chances of a conservative/LibDem coalition are remote i feel any hint of any likelihood would damage the LidDem chances.

My only worry is that the ever more desperate Tories and Tory press will really be dishing the dirt this next week. I can't see Murdock Just rolling over and seeing his UK power base fall apart. Oh the pleasure of seeing that..........fingers crossed
 
Yes. It's because of our First-Past-The-Post system.

Imagine that there are only three seats in the country. One Lib Dem candidate wins 90% of the vote in one constituency, while in the other two constituencies gain only 5% of the vote. However, in those two constituences the Tory candidates only win with 20% of the vote.

It's clear that over the three constituencies more people have voted Lib Dem than Tory, but given the system, the Tories will still win two seats with the Lib Dems winning only one, because of the FPTP system.
 
Yes. It's because of our First-Past-The-Post system.

Imagine that there are only three seats in the country. One Lib Dem candidate wins 90% of the vote in one constituency, while in the other two constituencies gain only 5% of the vote. However, in those two constituences the Tory candidates only win with 20% of the vote.

It's clear that over the three constituencies more people have voted Lib Dem than Tory, but given the system, the Tories will still win two seats with the Lib Dems winning only one, because of the FPTP system.

Is it because of gerrymandering?

It seems unlikely that the result should be so different in different seats unless the borders were drawn in ways that favor certain parties.
 
It doesn't need to be deliberate. Inner-city constituencies with a high level of deprivation will vote differently from leafy, prosperous suburbs, and again from rural areas. In England, both Labour and Tories tend to pile up big majorities in constituencies that are already safe for them, and most of the wrangling goes on in a relatively small number of seats. In contrast, LibDem support is relatively even across the country, and they struggle to beat Labour in the safe Labour seats, and to beat the Conservatives in the safe Conservative seats.

There is also the matter of targeting. If a party sees a particular constituency as a potential win, it will push a lot of resources ito that constituency. This tends to have an effect, so that even if the constituency is superficially similar to one which hasn't been targeted, it will vote differently. (When you're working an area, you come to a screeching halt at the constituency boundary. If nobody is doing the same on the other side, this will make a difference.)

Ironically, the situation in Scotland is the exact opposite from in England. There, the LibDems have perhaps 10 or 12 seats they might win on a good day. All their efforts are expended in these constituencies. As a result, they have always over-polled in these seats and make little or no showing elsewhere. Historically, the LibDems in Scotland have always won more seats than their overall share of the vote would warrant.

In Scotland it is the SNP who have been the party losing out because of even support. It has taken many many more votes to elect an SNP MP than a Labour MP, always. I once discussed this at an SNP meeting, in particular how the LibDems tended to emerge with more seats in Scotland than the SNP, despite a significantly lower vote. The reply was that in Scotland, while the LibDems may be almost impossible to dislodge from their traditional strongholds, they'll never break out of them. In order to make any sort of national breakthrough it is necessary to have a significant presence pretty much everywhere, and if the downside of that is coming a decent second in a huge number of seats and winning few, that's the name of the game, just keep plugging on.

Rolfe.
 
what Rolfe said.

I was going to say exactly the same thing, but less eloquently :)
 
You know, there has got to be some special prize for brain-dead, for going out delivering election leaflets on a broken foot.

Saturday was a beautiful day. I got a phone call saying, what are you doing in the afternoon? What about Broughton and Skirling? These being very attractive villages in a very attractive landscape.

And it was lovely. The sun was shining, the hills were picturesque, the gardens were blooming into spring and people were out weeding and pruning and clearing leaves. They were even, in some cases, out shouting "Yes, yes, yes! It's got to happen!" at my departing back, which was quite gratifying.

I just wish I hadn't had to do it all at the medium-paced hobble.

Rolfe.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom