Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
For comparison the lowest number of MPs the Conservative Party have ever had before was 156 - under Arthur Balfour in the 1906 general election, so if they do get 150 or fewer, that will be their worst result for MPs ever since the Conservative Party was founded in 1834. The worst result in modern times was 165 under John Major, when Blair won his landslide in 1997. They secured 166 MPs under William Hague in 2001, and 189 under Winston Churchill in 1945. As far as I can make out, those are the only elections since 1834 that have ever produced less than 200 Conservative MPs.
EDIT: As pointed out by @317 forever, also 198 MPs in 2005.
I don't think your calculation or conclusion is correct. According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/295551/average-household-size-in-the-uk/, the average household size in 2022 (2.36) was no different from in 2005 - just before immigration started rising. In the same period, the population grew from about 60M to 67M - so additional pressure on housing availability would have been almost entirely due to population increase - which of course is mostly due to immigration. I don't know what year you have got the 2.91 people per household statistic from - but even in 1996 it was only 2.42 people per house, so I assume your figure must be from many years before that, and therefore long before high immigration levels became a significant contributor to housing demand.
For comparison the lowest number of MPs the Conservative Party have ever had before was 156 - under Arthur Balfour in the 1906 general election, so if they do get 150 or fewer, that will be their worst result for MPs ever since the Conservative Party was founded in 1834. The worst result in modern times was 165 under John Major, when Blair won his landslide in 1997. They secured 166 MPs under William Hague in 2001, and 189 under Winston Churchill in 1945. As far as I can make out, those are the only elections since 1834 that have ever produced less than 200 Conservative MPs.
OK, so from that we can infer that between the 1970s and 2005-ish, mean household size fell significantly. That was a time when net migration was negligible as a proportion of UK population, so the drivers would have been a very slowly increasing population, a desire for smaller households, and housebuilding that apparently was able to keep up with that. Since 2005-ish mean household size has remained the same, despite what appears to be a continuing strong desire by people for smaller households, and house prices have rocketed. Meanwhile, the rate of housebuilding has remained stable since the early 1980s (https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/).
The only plausible causal factor that changed between those periods (roughly 1980-2005 and 2005-today) was that net immigration rose sharply from around 2005 onwards, causing a much higher rate of population increase. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that it is in fact, population increase due to high net immigration (and not falling household sizes) that is that main cause of the current housing crisis and the unaffordable house prices.
For comparison the lowest number of MPs the Conservative Party have ever had before was 156 - under Arthur Balfour in the 1906 general election, so if they do get 150 or fewer, that will be their worst result for MPs ever since the Conservative Party was founded in 1834. The worst result in modern times was 165 under John Major, when Blair won his landslide in 1997. They secured 166 MPs under William Hague in 2001, and 189 under Winston Churchill in 1945. As far as I can make out, those are the only elections since 1834 that have ever produced less than 200 Conservative MPs.
EDIT: As pointed out by @317 forever, also 198 MPs in 2005.
I do think this will be the election when First Past The Post will come back to bite the Tories, as I suspect their percentage vote will not be all that low - higher than 18%, in any case.
Absolutely. What's in it for 'Brussels' to accept the troublesome UK back. Are the Great British Mail-following public ready to give up their pint and pound and 'imperial' measures and welcome back Jonny Foreigner?
No, no, no!
Indeed. Many normal (i.e. non-EU) countries go to considerable lengths to keep tabs on who is coming and going. Unfortunately the UK is not among them, but it really is no big deal when you visit them.
As far as day trips go, I'm not sure how big the cross-Channel day trip market (in either direction) is these days. I gave up a good few years ago when I was waiting on the quayside in Calais to drive on to the ferry at about midnight, only to witness the docks being "steamed" by about 200 migrants, who tried to force their way on board a ship. It was not a pleasant experience and not one I will take the chance of seeing repeated. However, I imagine anybody willing to risk that will hardly baulk at the though of having their fingerprints taken every three years.
I do think this will be the election when First Past The Post will come back to bite the Tories, as I suspect their percentage vote will not be all that low - higher than 18%, in any case.
Yes there appears to be a tipping point in vote share around the 20-25% mark, that is essentially the difference between being one of the two largest parties and being a minor party. The tipping point value of course varies depending on how many votes they are and where they land, particularly regarding tactical voting (i.e. the more tactical voting against a major party like the Tories, the higher the % tipping point is).
He's 61, so he'll be 65 or maybe 66 at the next election. Even if he served out the full second term he'd be between 69 and 71. That's not exactly old for a PM
I've been canvassing for Labour in two swing seats over the last month.
Not a single person has raised the UK / EU setup as an issue (either for or against) when given the opportunity to do so. That suggests to me it's not a vote winner this time.
I've been canvassing for Labour in two swing seats over the last month.
Not a single person has raised the UK / EU setup as an issue (either for or against) when given the opportunity to do so. That suggests to me it's not a vote winner this time.
Not a single person has raised the UK / EU setup as an issue (either for or against) when given the opportunity to do so. That suggests to me it's not a vote winner this time.
Most people that I know who wanted to remain (admittedly, not that many) appear to have got over it. They have accepted that the UK has left, it is very unlikely to rejoin any time soon and, most importantly, they find no significant disadvantages have been visited on them.
The aspect that seems to trouble most people on here seems to be travelling arrangements. I travel to Europe four or perhaps five times each year. I have had no significant problems in any of my trips since 2020 (which have involved eight or nine countries). The biggest problem I have when travelling abroad is getting back into the UK and that's because my £80 super-duper e-Passport does not work at the e-Gates.
Travelling to Europe is no different to travelling anywhere else. You simply have to look up the requirements and comply with them. The requirements for travelling to Europe have changed, that's all.
I do think this will be the election when First Past The Post will come back to bite the Tories, as I suspect their percentage vote will not be all that low - higher than 18%, in any case.
This intrigues me as well (it's one of those nights ).
Why do people believe that when they have voted for an MP who did not win the seat in their constituency, that his or her party should somehow be entitled to a share of seats in the HoC based on their losing votes? Voters in the UK elect individuals to represent them at Westminster. We often hear comments on here about their MP being a "good constituency MP". How will those qualities be maintained when the selection of MPs will rely on things like "party lists", compiled based on negotiations in smoky back rooms? This seems to me to be another manifestation of losers being unable to bear the fact that they have lost.
It's no surprise to readers, I'm sure, that I am a Tory supporter. But I accept that there will be a Labour government this time next month. It has to happen from time to time so as to educate those who have not experienced it, what it's like to live under a Labour government. This current Tory shower is an absolute shambles, deserve their backsides kicked well and truly, so let's bring on the Labour experience asap, get it over and done with and move on. But I'm not expecting the Tory rump - however large or small it is - to have any say in Mr Starmer's decisions. Why should (say) LibDem supporters expect Mr Davey to be in on the act?
On the vote splitting, in the end.... live by first past the post, die by first past the post.
Conservatives always thought FPTP was simply a weapon they could use to triumph over the left wing. Now they will suffer this fate themselves.
Indeed they imposed it on mayoral elections and probably have ensured they not win another mayoral post any time soon.
That's the question! The EU had to put up with years of Britain wish to be special about everything and then the years of messy Brexit negotiations. Why on earth should they now want to spend more years in further awkward negotiations quite likely to ldead to nothing as Britain's politicians sway to the latest newspaper moguls' opinions? Unfortunately those of us of my sort of age who remain utterly convinced Europeans are most likely to die still as ousiders.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why do people believe that when they have voted for an MP who did not win the seat in their constituency, that his or her party should somehow be entitled to a share of seats in the HoC based on their losing votes?
I get what you're saying, but this is also quite like the Brexiteers that say we just needed to believe more (or indeed Reform once saying they needed more believers). It IS going to be incredibly hard to make significant improvements in five years given where we are, and with the fact that Kier seems unwilling to rock the boat by saying Brexit was a disaster and needs looking at.
We also know that these days it isn't about thinking of ways to fix things, as every decision needs to be deemed popular by the non-experts (us) to fly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
He's 61, so he'll be 65 or maybe 66 at the next election. Even if he served out the full second term he'd be between 69 and 71. That's not exactly old for a PM
Why do people believe that when they have voted for an MP who did not win the seat in their constituency, that his or her party should somehow be entitled to a share of seats in the HoC based on their losing votes?
Because in practice most people are voting for a party, not an individual. With that in mind it's fair and reasonable that the makeup of the commons should broadly reflect the national vote share.
Technically correct, but I strongly believe that for the vast majority of voters the decision on where to cast their vote is driven primarily by party rather than candidate (if you're aware of research which suggests otherwise, please share a link), for the simple reason that the party of government has a far greater influence on most people's lives than who their constituency MP happens to be.
We often hear comments on here about their MP being a "good constituency MP". How will those qualities be maintained when the selection of MPs will rely on things like "party lists"
One option is some form of Mixed Member PR as used in the Bundestag and the Scottish parliament amongst other. In the case of Scotland there are 73 constituency MSPs plus 56 party list MSPs, translated to the 650 Westminster seats in similar proportions that could be 370 constituency MPs and 280 party list MPs.
Similarly questionable selection of candidates happens now, with examples in recent weeks of the national Conservative party parachuting in candidates with no prior connecting to the area into safe seats with constituency parties having next to no say in the matter.
Voters in the UK elect individuals to represent them at Westminster. We often hear comments on here about their MP being a "good constituency MP". How will those qualities be maintained when the selection of MPs will rely on things like "party lists", compiled based on negotiations in smoky back rooms?
I strongly believe that for the vast majority of voters the decision on where to cast their vote is driven primarily by party rather than candidate (if you're aware of research which suggests otherwise, please share a link), for the simple reason that the party of government has a far greater influence on most people's lives than who their constituency MP happens to be.
Party does matter: the candidates for the main parties stand on the basis of support for their party manifesto. When it comes to legislation, there is a constitutional convention that the unelected House of Lords does not overturn the governing party's manifesto commitments.
One option is some form of Mixed Member PR as used in the Bundestag and the Scottish parliament amongst other. In the case of Scotland there are 73 constituency MSPs plus 56 party list MSPs, translated to the 650 Westminster seats in similar proportions that could be 370 constituency MPs and 280 party list MPs.
The House of Commons has 650 MPs, which is very large for a legislative assembly (the US House of Representatives has 435). Following the recent boundary changes each constituency has an electorate of about 75-80k.I estimate that reducing the number of constituencies to 370 would result in constituencies of about 130-135k voters. Given the workload that constituency MPs currently have, dealing with 75-80k voters, I can't see MPs voting for that! They have already thrown out reduction in the number of constituencies to 600.
Recent instances of MPs being unseated, after committing various "misdemeanours", has also demonstrated that each MP representing their constituents gives a very direct line of accountability to the electorate that is lost when members are chosen from party lists.
Most people that I know who wanted to remain (admittedly, not that many) appear to have got over it. They have accepted that the UK has left, it is very unlikely to rejoin any time soon and, most importantly, they find no significant disadvantages have been visited on them.
I have voted in two referendums in the last ten years. One, on Scottish Independence, went the way I wanted, the other, on EU membership, did not. I obviously accepted the result of the first so therefore accepted the second too, and cannot say that Brexit has had any adverse effect on me.
Most people that I know who wanted to remain (admittedly, not that many) appear to have got over it. They have accepted that the UK has left, it is very unlikely to rejoin any time soon and, most importantly, they find no significant disadvantages have been visited on them.
As owners of a property in an EU country - to which we had originally planned to retire - I can categorically state that Brexit has had an extremely adverse effect on my wife and me. Not only are we limited to ninety days' stay in any period of 180 days but, if we wish to visit any other Schengen zone countries, we have to reduce the amount of time spent in our chosen country accordingly. Thousands of other UK citizens are in the same situation.
Most people that I know who wanted to remain (admittedly, not that many) appear to have got over it. They have accepted that the UK has left, it is very unlikely to rejoin any time soon and, most importantly, they find no significant disadvantages have been visited on them.
Everything I can think of that could be affected by our leaving the EU has been negative to me, sometimes significantly so, such as the inability to buy from abroad as I used to (because the sellers won't sell to the UK any more), and in sending items abroad (I have family living in the EU). The administrative trivia of travel aren't an issue, they're just a slight pain, but I very much regret where we are and certainly haven't "got over it". That said, I don't want to rejoin the EU, I'm fed up with change for change's sake, which motivated our leaving in the first place, and I want to make the best of where we are today and stop pretending that by changing things our lives will improve. I've accepted that we've left, for sure, and I know that it's rightly no longer a significant electoral issue, not least because Labour is morphing into the replacement Conservative party anyway whilst the Conservatives are heading into right-wing laa-laa land.
The House of Commons has 650 MPs, which is very large for a legislative assembly (the US House of Representatives has 435). Following the recent boundary changes each constituency has an electorate of about 75-80k.I estimate that reducing the number of constituencies to 370 would result in constituencies of about 130-135k voters. Given the workload that constituency MPs currently have, dealing with 75-80k voters, I can't see MPs voting for that! They have already thrown out reduction in the number of constituencies to 600.
Recent instances of MPs being unseated, after committing various "misdemeanours", has also demonstrated that each MP representing their constituents gives a very direct line of accountability to the electorate that is lost when members are chosen from party lists.
The party list MPs could be the used for the ministers, with the constituency MPs as the back benchers. At the moment, if your constituency MP is a minister, then they have to vote with the government, or they lose their job. A minister gets help to handle the local constituency work. The same thing could happen to handle the workload from bigger constituencies.
And, of course, we are planning to do the same at our borders with the ETA scheme.
It already applies to some Gulf states as a pilot before it gets rolled-out generally.
It is essentially like the EU's ETIAS (the UK £10 fee covers 2 years).
The Government’s number one priority is keeping the UK safe. To strengthen the security of our border and improve travel, the UK has launched an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme - an ETA is a digital permission to travel to the UK.
homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk
Your photo is taken every time you use an e-passport gate arriving in the UK, or go through security outbound from the UK.
Fingerprints only in the US so far for me, but will be taken for Schengen once EU/EES starts later this year.
Most people that I know who wanted to remain (admittedly, not that many) appear to have got over it. They have accepted that the UK has left, it is very unlikely to rejoin any time soon and, most importantly, they find no significant disadvantages have been visited on them.
But some of us, on the other hand, have no desire to accept things we profoundly disagree with and which severely restrict our life choices, and therefore continue to bang on about it.
On the other hand I accept that Starmer has his hands tied because target voter groups see a return to the "good old days" of 2019 and before as a bad thing, and therefore he is unable to make any positive steps towards rejoining. So I am not inclined to be over-condemnatory towards Labour on this issue.
And of course Farage didn't follow your advice! Like him or loathe him (and for me, it's the latter) you could at least say that he didn't mindlessly accept things he disagreed with. That is one of his rare virtues, arguably. I'd like to see more "remainers" adopt an inverse Farage attitude, if I am honest. What the remain camp needs for the coming 10-15 years or so is a charismatic anti-Farage figure who will bang on about it until people finally listen.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As owners of a property in an EU country - to which we had originally planned to retire - I can categorically state that Brexit has had an extremely adverse effect on my wife and me. Not only are we limited to ninety days' stay in any period of 180 days but, if we wish to visit any other Schengen zone countries, we have to reduce the amount of time spent in our chosen country accordingly. Thousands of other UK citizens are in the same situation.
Which I suspect was not the case in 1972 or before. I suspect then, you could have totalled up a more-than-90-day visit to continental Europe without falling foul of any laws, by moving from country to country.
Even if the limit was 30 days for each country then, you could in theory have a 4-month trip by visiting four different countries.
The situation now in terms of travel to continental Europe is thus likely the most restrictive it's ever been since post-WWII austerity. While 1972 was before my time in terms of overseas travel, I suspect there wasn't any of this nonsense with fingerprints. I suspect it was show your passport, get it stamped, and go.
That to me is the difference between remainers/rejoiners and Brexiters. Remainers are usually able to offer real, concrete reasons why Brexit restricts their life choices. while many Brexiters are generally much less able to offer any concrete ways in which Brexit will make their life better, pointing instead to fears of events that probably won't happen in any case or are vastly exaggerated, usually related to immigration. Given the UK's international reputation and financial situation isn't particularly good at the moment, and is much worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago, I suspect that would place a marked brake on EU-UK immigration if we did open the border to EU citizens again. People would probably prefer to go elsewhere, and quite frankly, who can blame them.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Everything I can think of that could be affected by our leaving the EU has been negative to me, sometimes significantly so, such as the inability to buy from abroad as I used to (because the sellers won't sell to the UK any more), and in sending items abroad (I have family living in the EU). The administrative trivia of travel aren't an issue, they're just a slight pain, but I very much regret where we are and certainly haven't "got over it". That said, I don't want to rejoin the EU, I'm fed up with change for change's sake, which motivated our leaving in the first place, and I want to make the best of where we are today and stop pretending that by changing things our lives will improve.
But for some of us whose life choices have been restricted by Brexit (and that includes me personally, for reasons I'd prefer to keep private) our lives will improve in a concrete way. For those who rely on trade, as you say, their lives will improve in a concrete way. So my own view is enquire about rejoining when it's politically acceptable (say 10 years, when the pro-Brexit generation is less of the electorate and the Tories are a sane party again) but in the meantime, implement a progressive programme of mending relations, including SM/CU in the second parliament (2030-35).
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
).
homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk
