Not sure what UKIP's particular issue with psotal voting in this contest, but I agree entirely it should be limited to those genuinely unable to make it to a polling station. Being bone idle is not an excuse.
Why? Voting should be made as convenient as possible. Difficulties getting to a polling booth of a working day do not equal 'bone idle'. What an odd, grumpy post from you.
Because postal voting (as well as proxy voting, which doesn't get nearly enough attention), is complete ripe for abuse. The secret ballot is not so secret any more under social or family pressures.
Mr. Scout, polling stations are open until 10pm and open (I think) at 8am. The vast majority of people have the time to visit. If there's a genuine reason they cannot (member of the armed forces posted overseas, for example) then they should get a postal vote. If they just can't be bothered they should not have a postal vote handed out willy-nilly.
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
I also want no to win. I love Scotland. But the no campaign is an embarrassment and this latest gaffe surely will strengthen the hand of the yes campaign. A vote for independence must be respected - yes there will be a negotiation on terms but the Best Alternative to No Agreement position is not that we ignore a yes vote.
LibDem's worst result since the War (beating Manchester Central 2012)
That fact ought to shift prices on some of the individual constituency markets (eg. Inverness). But will it?
Agree, Bermondsey and Cardiff C are the two with greatest demographic similarities to this seat. Inverness is complicated by the question of who is best based to challenge the LD.
That may be becoming irrelevant. Danny Alexander may be heading for 3rd or even 4th place unless Willie Rennie can halt the tidal flow of electoral behaviour.
The message for punters is lay LD rather than back Lab or SNP.
Based on this result I think Danny Alexander loses Inverness. Still staying out as the Highland and Island seats were a complete fortress for the Lib Dems but he is odds on there and that for me is a terrible bet.
And based on the Conservative gain from Labour last night the Tories are heading for a landslide.
OT. Not sure if it was mentioned yesterday with all the By-election excitement and flood problems, but the Italian PM stepped down after losing the support of his party. He will formally tender his resignation today.
Sitting in the garden of a large villa in Mirpur, a British citizen who has been a taxi driver in Halifax in Yorkshire for more than 20 years, talks of a practice which has become widespread here.
For obvious reasons the man, in his fifties, does not want us to publish his name. He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
What has been done in the UK to combat such open voting abuse? Sod all. I wonder why.
Mr. Scout, polling stations are open until 10pm and open (I think) at 8am. The vast majority of people have the time to visit. If there's a genuine reason they cannot (member of the armed forces posted overseas, for example) then they should get a postal vote. If they just can't be bothered they should not have a postal vote handed out willy-nilly.
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
I think voting should be encouraged and made easier. But this can be done in ways that do not compromise the secret ballot. I think we should have two day voting on Friday to Saturday, so that everyone has one work day and one weekend day to vote. Then there's no excuse unless you're disabled or have some other specific issue.
As Ed drives into Downing Street in 15 months time. AveryLP will provide indisputable proof that the result represents a triumph for BabyEaters. DH will insist brother Dave would have done better
Not sure what UKIP's particular issue with psotal voting in this contest, but I agree entirely it should be limited to those genuinely unable to make it to a polling station. Being bone idle is not an excuse.
Why? Voting should be made as convenient as possible. Difficulties getting to a polling booth of a working day do not equal 'bone idle'. What an odd, grumpy post from you.
The polls are open for FIFTEEN hours. I do not believe the vast majority have any difficulty in reaching a polling station. People seemed to manage perfectly fine in the 1980s, 1950s, 1920s and earlier. They don't vote because they either don't think it matters or can't be bothered. I don't think the system should indulge people like that who clearly have such a limited interest they can't be trusted to make an informed decision anyway.
Postal votes should only be available to:
- The physically incapable of voting in person due to illness or infirmity (to be countersigned by a doctor) - Those away from their home area on polling day (applications to be applied for each election day, with details) - Those who live more than, say, 3 miles from their polling station (for very rural areas).
Mr. Scout, polling stations are open until 10pm and open (I think) at 8am. The vast majority of people have the time to visit. If there's a genuine reason they cannot (member of the armed forces posted overseas, for example) then they should get a postal vote. If they just can't be bothered they should not have a postal vote handed out willy-nilly.
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
Do you any evidence that postal voting is any more legitimate than any other form of voting? How does a single mum who works all day then has to look after two children and a baby get to a polling booth? You might not, but lots of people lead ferociously busy lives.
Mr. Scout, polling stations are open until 10pm and open (I think) at 8am. The vast majority of people have the time to visit. If there's a genuine reason they cannot (member of the armed forces posted overseas, for example) then they should get a postal vote. If they just can't be bothered they should not have a postal vote handed out willy-nilly.
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
I think voting should be encouraged and made easier. But this can be done in ways that do not compromise the secret ballot. I think we should have two day voting on Friday to Saturday, so that everyone has one work day and one weekend day to vote. Then there's no excuse unless you're disabled or have some other specific issue.
Or that you work all weekend, as hundreds of thousands of service workers do.
I also want no to win. I love Scotland. But the no campaign is an embarrassment and this latest gaffe surely will strengthen the hand of the yes campaign. A vote for independence must be respected - yes there will be a negotiation on terms but the Best Alternative to No Agreement position is not that we ignore a yes vote.
Labour run the No campaign. Alisdair Darling isn't a Conservative. In the wacky world of PB the Nats spend their time debating the issues with english conservatives rather than scottish Labourites. If you're embarassed by Labour's campaign the address for scottish labour was posted up yesterday.
Mr. Scout, polling stations are open until 10pm and open (I think) at 8am. The vast majority of people have the time to visit. If there's a genuine reason they cannot (member of the armed forces posted overseas, for example) then they should get a postal vote. If they just can't be bothered they should not have a postal vote handed out willy-nilly.
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
Absolute wiffle sticks !!
Exercising your franchise is a right not a privilege to be curtailed by bureaucratic impediments.
So postal votes, supermarket voting and all manner of other secure voting should be encouraged.
In Mirpur, tribal elders are deciding the votes for dozens (who identify as "one community" of Mirpuris, despite being British citizens, as they should not "lose their culture"). In Tower Hamlets, people were finding more registered voters than residents at addresses. In Bethnal Green huge numbers suddenly joined the voting register. While not illegal, Commonwealth citizens can vote in the UK with no reciprocal rights. More people are coming to the UK via English language colleges that are just shadow organisations to get round immigration. They get citizenship based on tests where the examiner reads out the answers and after they use financial documents that are those of other people. There is an entire industry between here and the subcontinent to fraudulently bring people over here, in exchange for votes for politicians that look the other way. And if anyone does bring anything up, you get impugned as a racist, as I have been repeatedly on this board.
Mr. Scout, I imagine she could push the baby in a pram when the children are at school. She could even go voting with a friend to help look after the three children, if she preferred (or have the friend babysit them for a little while). The idea a woman with three children is incapable of leaving the house for quarter of an hour is a bit medieval.
The Conservatives have scored a historic win in the Kingstanding by-election, with local campaigner Gary Sambrook gaining a seat.
Mr Sambrook faced an uphill struggle to gain his seat in a traditionally Labour area, but managed to take a win with 1,571 votes, compared with 1,433 for Labour’s Lorraine Owen – a majority of 138.
Reluctantly I return to an issue that festered overnight and which hopefully may now be put to rest.
@Mick_Pork indicated that the "putrid stench of hypocrisy" hung over the continuing absence of "tim". I then replied :
"tim" left of his own volition and OGH has made it clear to the point of tedium that "tim" is not banned and free to return should he wish to do so."
A further exchange then occurred.
However the essentials of this sorry story is as I indicated. "tim" left because his publically known personae was given a further airing and the scrutiny that he demanded of others he himself wasn't prepared to undergo on a public forum.
"tim" is not banned. He is able to return at will and despite my regular spats with "tim" I hope he does return. PB is at its best when we are broad church but the matter is in "tim's" hands.
Last night we saw the return of both "Ave it" and "SeanT" and other lost souls have returned to the fold recently but one issue is clear - PB will flourish with or without "tim"
This disappearance of Plato and tim (especially the former) and their tedious sparring and mindless re tweeting has been one of the most positive developments on this site for years.
Despite postal votes. Decent result for Labour and UKIP, poor for the Tories, extremely poor for the Lib Dems, but nothing really for any party to get too excited about.
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·42m Big news for Tories overnight was this council by election CON GAIN Kingstanding in Birmingham CON 1571 LAB 1433 UKIP 266 LD 43 NF 33
Not sure what UKIP's particular issue with psotal voting in this contest, but I agree entirely it should be limited to those genuinely unable to make it to a polling station. Being bone idle is not an excuse.
Why? Voting should be made as convenient as possible. Difficulties getting to a polling booth of a working day do not equal 'bone idle'. What an odd, grumpy post from you.
The polls are open for FIFTEEN hours. I do not believe the vast majority have any difficulty in reaching a polling station. People seemed to manage perfectly fine in the 1980s, 1950s, 1920s and earlier. They don't vote because they either don't think it matters or can't be bothered. I don't think the system should indulge people like that who clearly have such a limited interest they can't be trusted to make an informed decision anyway.
Postal votes should only be available to:
- The physically incapable of voting in person due to illness or infirmity (to be countersigned by a doctor) - Those away from their home area on polling day (applications to be applied for each election day, with details) - Those who live more than, say, 3 miles from their polling station (for very rural areas).
More wiffle sticks from the normally sensible Herders.
Some Toy supporters on here realise it is a good result for Labour and bad for their party and others......well, they have their yellow boxes.Always the same.
Does anyone know what the eventual result of this was?
At Glenrothes in 2008, the neighbouring seat to Gordon Brown’s at Kirkcaldy, there was a fourfold increase in postal ballots and Labour’s opponents demanded to see the marked official register which showed whether individuals had voted or not. Unbelievably, the Sheriff ’s Clerk’s Office in Kirkcaldy had to explain, after five months, that the register had ‘gone missing’.
The turnout fell dramatically – from 51% to 28%. I also note the electorate grew from 80,000 to 85,000 in just 4 years! (Boundary changes anyone?)
If you look at the % movement in absolute vote numbers per party – but then adjust for the overall percentage fall in voter numbers, the following emerges: Lab +14.9% Con -25.4% LD -45.9% UKIP +247.3%
Good but no cigar for Labour in their heartlands. Disappointing for Dave and needs to appeal more oop north. LD meltdown. UKIP absolutely smoking.
Sitting in the garden of a large villa in Mirpur, a British citizen who has been a taxi driver in Halifax in Yorkshire for more than 20 years, talks of a practice which has become widespread here.
For obvious reasons the man, in his fifties, does not want us to publish his name. He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
What has been done in the UK to combat such open voting abuse? Sod all. I wonder why.
It's all right Socrates, the powers that be are going to make people who actually vote in person carry ID. Move along now; no problems to see here....
The one thing I wanted to see was another LibDem lost deposit. It just hammers home what reallynhas been a consistent trend through pretty much every election of the last four year : the LibDems are as popular as a dose of the pox. In explicitly lying to his core voters, Clegg has utterly destroyed his voter base and with it over the last 4 rounds of local elections he's destroyed his councillor base. This has led to lost deposit after lost deposit in Westminster elections and we can look forward to another demolition of their councillors and MEPs in May.
What does this mean for 2015? A large loss of seats yes, but where it gets interesting is in the Tory/LibDem marginals. In the rest of the country a LibDem vote has become seen as indistinguishable with a Tory vote. In seats where the two coalition parties have been the only ones in play I think we could see all kinds of interesting results where anti- government voters are either going to stay at home in despair or Labour or UKIP are going to come from nowhere and win.
As for Clegg, you have to wonder if it has been worth it.....
Amazing. You actually think this? (No offence.) Clegg didn't "explicitly li[e] to his voters".
He ended up in government.
Once that happened everything was up in the air. The overwhelming majority of LD members approved entrance into the coalition. Are you saying they thought they could lay their manifesto on the table and the Cons would have accepted it LS&B? Crazy talk. But that's what your post suggests you thought should have happened.
Now, of course, the polls also suggest that that is what their erstwhile supporters think should have happened but it is fantasy.
In a coalition compromises have to be made. There are as many disaffected Tory (MPs) as there are disaffected LD voters. Both Cam & Clegg can be criticised hugely but each is fighting with one hand tied behind their back which would be fine were they not hanging by the other to a rope over a snakepit (yes, tortured analogies at this time of the morning).
The LDs (and I'm amazed that this still needs to be repeated) are the minority partner in a Cons coalition. That means they have been able to introduce some (but not all) of their own policies and have been able to be a civilising influence on some (but not all) Tory policies.
Sitting in the garden of a large villa in Mirpur, a British citizen who has been a taxi driver in Halifax in Yorkshire for more than 20 years, talks of a practice which has become widespread here.
For obvious reasons the man, in his fifties, does not want us to publish his name. He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
What has been done in the UK to combat such open voting abuse? Sod all. I wonder why.
It's all right Socrates, the powers that be are going to make people who actually vote in person carry ID. Move along now; no problems to see here....
Sorry, my fault. Apparently my perceptions of Asians are out of touch with reality, as I was told yesterday...
Mr. W, postal voting isn't secure. That's the point.
Then make it secure .... that's a more important point.
Effectively restricting the franchise is straight from the GOP playbook and most certainly outwith the tradition of British elections.
We might just as well say ban odd men in peculiar costumes brandishing their wooden weapons to strange chanting in the streets .... but then again I've nothing against Hari Krishna followers .... or even Morris Men !!
Mr. W, postal voting isn't secure. That's the point.
Then make it secure .... that's a more important point.
The very post he made was about making it secure, by allowing people who need it to do it, and requiring others to come in person, where security can be validated. How else do you stop abusive husbands voting for their wives?
The problem with the GOP playbook is that it's unfair one sided restrictions: e.g. allowing gun licences but not student ID as identification. There's nothing wrong with effective regulations to prevent abuse, as long as people can reasonably vote in other ways.
My preference, as stated below, is to give two days of voting to make up for it. But postal voting should be restricted to those who need it, and proxy voting should be outlawed.
Sorry, but in what respect is it a 'disgrace'? Are you saying the result is illegitimate? Do you have a single shred of evidence for this? Or are you making very serious allegations based on a hunch? For such a normally decent and reasonable guy you are coming across as a deeply ungracious loser today.
Just made Mrs J eggs benedict royale for a Valentine's breakfast (following the cream cakes from Roger's favourite shop last night), so am only just catching up with things.
1) Lol at the 'conversation' last night between Mr Tyndall and Hugh. I think High needs to read up a little more on the topic, and pick less capable opponents. ;-)
2) I normally congratulate newly-elected MPs of whatever stripe. But Mr Kane's acceptance speech was so hideously awful that I find it hard to do so. His electorate would be better served by someone who is disconnected from Labour's hive-mind and who is capable of independent thought.
Sorry, but in what respect is it a 'disgrace'? Are you saying the result is illegitimate? Do you have a single shred of evidence for this? Or are you making very serious allegations based on a hunch? For such a normally decent and reasonable guy you are coming across as a deeply ungracious loser today.
Mr. W, it isn't restricting the franchise. Nobody's prevented from reaching a polling station. If they're physically unable to do so then a postal vote should be available.
Mr. Scout, my post [with 'It's a disgrace' in it] referred to the practice of multiple proxy votes being used by a small number of people, and the numbers of 'voters' in a home outnumbering the residents who actually live there.
There have been well-documented instances of postal voting being abused in this way. The phrase 'would disgrace a banana republic' springs to mind.
Sorry, but in what respect is it a 'disgrace'? Are you saying the result is illegitimate? Do you have a single shred of evidence for this? Or are you making very serious allegations based on a hunch? For such a normally decent and reasonable guy you are coming across as a deeply ungracious loser today.
Touched a nerve, I see.
Yes - I don't like cowardice and bad losers. They are not the scouting way.
* English Labourites seem unhappy with the "no" campaign at exactly the point Balls works in tandem with GO - not difficult to see why they are whining. The No campaign yesterday used a measured speech and detailed analysis - you have to be a pretty one eyed class warrior to have a problem with that.
* Peter Brookes in the Times is brilliant today - love the shoe detail on Eck.
Just made Mrs J eggs benedict royale for a Valentine's breakfast (following the cream cakes from Roger's favourite shop last night), so am only just catching up with things.
1) Lol at the 'conversation' last night between Mr Tyndall and Hugh. I think High needs to read up a little more on the topic, and pick less capable opponents. ;-)
2) I normally congratulate newly-elected MPs of whatever stripe. But Mr Kane's acceptance speech was so hideously awful that I find it hard to do so. His electorate would be better served by someone who is disconnected from Labour's hive-mind and who is capable of independent thought.
My calendar must by faulty. It's clearly St Bad Losers day today.
Mr. W, it isn't restricting the franchise. Nobody's prevented from reaching a polling station. If they're physically unable to do so then a postal vote should be available.
Mr. Scout, my post [with 'It's a disgrace' in it] referred to the practice of multiple proxy votes being used by a small number of people, and the numbers of 'voters' in a home outnumbering the residents who actually live there.
There have been well-documented instances of postal voting being abused in this way. The phrase 'would disgrace a banana republic' springs to mind.
Odd, because that's the first time you have mentioned that to me.
There is also a moral / democratic issue with the timing of postal votes. Parties do need time to make their respective cases and voters should make their judgments based on the relative merits of the arguments being put forward. Farage is right that if we send out postal votes early (for practical / Royal Mail effectiveness reasons) then we see exactly what just happened - the thing was over before it started. There was no point in any party campaigning or seeking to persuade voters as the result was already in the ballot box.
Mr. Scout, you're a splendid fellow but I haven't mentioned everything worthy of mention to you during your time on the site. I may have omitted many important facts and views, such as when I tipped Jenson Button to win the 2009 title at 70/1.
Indeed, Mr. Patrick. Suppose also that vital evidence of a lack of character (racist remarks, for example) are made by a candidate the day before the poll. If they've got enough postal votes, they'll win anyway.
Edited extra bit: the line between honour and dishonour is not drawn according to who agrees and disagrees with you.
There is also a moral / democratic issue with the timing of postal votes. Parties do need time to make their respective cases and voters should make their judgments based on the relative merits of the arguments being put forward. Farage is right that if we send out postal votes early (for practical / Royal Mail effectiveness reasons) then we see exactly what just happened - the thing was over before it started. There was no point in any party campaigning of seeking to persuade voters as the result was already in the ballot box.
This is a good point I hadn't properly considered. How far in advance are postal votes sent out?
The turnout fell dramatically – from 51% to 28%. I also note the electorate grew from 80,000 to 85,000 in just 4 years! (Boundary changes anyone?)
If you look at the % movement in absolute vote numbers per party – but then adjust for the overall percentage fall in voter numbers, the following emerges: Lab +14.9% Con -25.4% LD -45.9% UKIP +247.3%
Good but no cigar for Labour in their heartlands. Disappointing for Dave and needs to appeal more oop north. LD meltdown. UKIP absolutely smoking.
This might help explain why Dave is struggling in northern England:
Amazing. You actually think this? (No offence.) Clegg didn't "explicitly li[e] to his voters".
He ended up in government.
Once that happened everything was up in the air. The overwhelming majority of LD members approved entrance into the coalition. Are you saying they thought they could lay their manifesto on the table and the Cons would have accepted it LS&B? Crazy talk. But that's what your post suggests you thought should have happened.
Now, of course, the polls also suggest that that is what their erstwhile supporters think should have happened but it is fantasy.
In a coalition compromises have to be made. There are as many disaffected Tory (MPs) as there are disaffected LD voters. Both Cam & Clegg can be criticised hugely but each is fighting with one hand tied behind their back which would be fine were they not hanging by the other to a rope over a snakepit (yes, tortured analogies at this time of the morning).
The LDs (and I'm amazed that this still needs to be repeated) are the minority partner in a Cons coalition. That means they have been able to introduce some (but not all) of their own policies and have been able to be a civilising influence on some (but not all) Tory policies.
What's not to like?
Obviously compromises have to be made by the minority party in a coalition (and I'm not talking about the Tory front bench here...) but, as has been rehearsed loads of times, the LDs went out of their way to bend over on policies that were either not in the Tory manifesto (NHS reorganisation), or to abandon at least one thing (tuition fees) that looked like a totemic policy which should have been core to their coalition negotiations.
The question that a junior coalition partner should be asking themselves is surely "would a majority of my voters have abandoned me if they had known I would give way on these issues?". If Clegg had been honest on the policies he was prepared to dump (tuition fees, NHS, mansion tax, anything vaguely smacking of civil liberties, protection for the poorest in society who don't earn more than the income tax personal allowance) and the ones he thought were "core" (basically an AV referendum, Lords reform, increased personal allowance, watered down pupil premium and unquestioning acceptance of the neo-lib consensus on austerity), the vast majority of his 2010 voters who are now returning to Lab would either have stayed at home or stuck with Labour. By way of contrast, I'd guess that his Con/LD waverers would have been pretty happy.
Of course, if Clegg had been honest about his priorities and intentions, it probably means we'd still have Gordon as PM, so many might consider that Clegg's dishonesty was all for the greater good - but the electoral price of this "noble" betrayal is going to be massive for the LDs.
I am seriously think the best Liberal strategy now is to cut and run - pull the plug on the Coalition, sack Clegg and Danny and put a social democrat in charge. They have nothing left to lose.
The turnout fell dramatically – from 51% to 28%. I also note the electorate grew from 80,000 to 85,000 in just 4 years! (Boundary changes anyone?)
If you look at the % movement in absolute vote numbers per party – but then adjust for the overall percentage fall in voter numbers, the following emerges: Lab +14.9% Con -25.4% LD -45.9% UKIP +247.3%
Good but no cigar for Labour in their heartlands. Disappointing for Dave and needs to appeal more oop north. LD meltdown. UKIP absolutely smoking.
This might help explain why Dave is struggling in northern England:
* English Labourites seem unhappy with the "no" campaign at exactly the point Balls works in tandem with GO - not difficult to see why they are whining. The No campaign yesterday used a measured speech and detailed analysis - you have to be a pretty one eyed class warrior to have a problem with that.
* Peter Brookes in the Times is brilliant today - love the shoe detail on Eck.
As polling day approaches in September English Labourites are going to be squealing like stuck pigs as the full horror of the BT pact with the devils hits home.
* English Labourites seem unhappy with the "no" campaign at exactly the point Balls works in tandem with GO - not difficult to see why they are whining. The No campaign yesterday used a measured speech and detailed analysis - you have to be a pretty one eyed class warrior to have a problem with that.
* Peter Brookes in the Times is brilliant today - love the shoe detail on Eck.
As polling day approaches in September English Labourites are going to be squealing like stuck pigs as the full horror of the BT pact with the devils hits home.
@StuartDickson - I hope you are wrong but I fear you may be right
I know this will annoy my fellow travelers in UKIP but for me the big loser last night was Nigel Farage. This is not because of the result - which was excellent and a great credit to the party workers and the candidate - but because of the way Farage behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the result.
There are legitimate concerns I believe about postal voting but that is on a general level and I have seen no evidence at all that it materially affected last night's result. Farage should have accepted a very good second place and not started moaning about the way the campaign was run or implying some lack of legitimacy in the result. It made him - and by association the party - look petty and a sore loser.
I feel much the same way about Farage as I do about Sam Allardyce, manager of my beloved Hammers. When the team losers Allardyce will thrash around looking for any excuse (the ref, the linesman, the pitch, the other team making rude noises or wearing loud shirts) other than the fact they got beaten fair and square. I hate it and I think it brings shame on the team as a whole.
Farage is in danger of becoming the Sam Allardyce of politics (in my eyes at least).
Mr. Scout, whilst it was believed certain organs were responsible for certain feelings (stomach for a fight, for example), that doesn't explain the shape.
Mr. Socrates, debatable, but not the answer I'm after.
I will say it's somewhat obscure. The answer's more BC than AD.
* English Labourites seem unhappy with the "no" campaign at exactly the point Balls works in tandem with GO - not difficult to see why they are whining. The No campaign yesterday used a measured speech and detailed analysis - you have to be a pretty one eyed class warrior to have a problem with that.
* Peter Brookes in the Times is brilliant today - love the shoe detail on Eck.
As polling day approaches in September English Labourites are going to be squealing like stuck pigs as the full horror of the BT pact with the devils hits home.
You can't really blame Balls for joining in with a free hit at the SNP's currency pinata.
You must be disappointed that when Carney teed up the currency debate the SNP didn't prepare for what was coming ? Even us PB Tories could see that freight train.
I know this will annoy my fellow travelers in UKIP but for me the big loser last night was Nigel Farage. This is not because of the result - which was excellent and a great credit to the party workers and the candidate - but because of the way Farage behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the result.
There are legitimate concerns I believe about postal voting but that is on a general level and I have seen no evidence at all that it materially affected last night's result. Farage should have accepted a very good second place and not started moaning about the way the campaign was run or implying some lack of legitimacy in the result. It made him - and by association the party - look petty and a sore loser.
I feel much the same way about Farage as I do about Sam Allardyce, manager of my beloved Hammers. When the team losers Allardyce will thrash around looking for any excuse (the ref, the linesman, the pitch, the other team making rude noises or wearing loud shirts) other than the fact they got beaten fair and square. I hate it and I think it brings shame on the team as a whole.
Farage is in danger of becoming the Sam Allardyce of politics (in my eyes at least).
If this is the Sky group interview with Lucy Powell MP I thought Mr Farage came off well and made a fair point. The postal votes being distributed three days after the election is called is not a good thing.
Morning all - Whilst on the surface this result looks less good than some were thinking for UKIP prior to the Ashcroft poll - it occurs to me that in the bigger picture it is actually a positive for them. The reason being that it clearly shows that whilst they are able to have a base of support everywhere, their vote and potential vote is more variable around the country than we might have originally thought - and that is a positive as far as potential GE 2015 wins.
(ie if they had a flat 15% in every constituency then they will win 0 seats - but if they were at 15% in every constituency you would expect them to poll 20%-25% in a by-election pretty much regardless of the seat - which suggests that in a seat such as this the GE base vote is probably more like 7%-10% - which suggest that there are some seats where it will be at least 25%-30% or more, and which they thus have more chance of winning when it comes to the GE.) Or am I reading too much into it?
Vince Cable taking over as a Rudd style caretaker is the best hope of BOTH coalition parties.
At some stage this year someone will awaken from their slumber.
I'm reminded of Jack Lemmon who finds himself on a melting iceberg in the Great Race and is told by Tony Curtis not to panic. "I'm not panicking," he says, "but when the sea water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to tell somebody."
I know this will annoy my fellow travelers in UKIP but for me the big loser last night was Nigel Farage. This is not because of the result - which was excellent and a great credit to the party workers and the candidate - but because of the way Farage behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the result.
There are legitimate concerns I believe about postal voting but that is on a general level and I have seen no evidence at all that it materially affected last night's result. Farage should have accepted a very good second place and not started moaning about the way the campaign was run or implying some lack of legitimacy in the result. It made him - and by association the party - look petty and a sore loser.
I feel much the same way about Farage as I do about Sam Allardyce, manager of my beloved Hammers. When the team losers Allardyce will thrash around looking for any excuse (the ref, the linesman, the pitch, the other team making rude noises or wearing loud shirts) other than the fact they got beaten fair and square. I hate it and I think it brings shame on the team as a whole.
Farage is in danger of becoming the Sam Allardyce of politics (in my eyes at least).
Another man of honour who gets his Fair Play badge. Well said that man.
re the Scottish vote I think its quite rude of the SNP and Salmond to arrogantly presume the rest of the UK will want a currency union with another country if the yes vote wins. The SNP will have won their right to self governance if the yes vote wins but that will also mean the rest of the UK will win that right also. I would of thought nationalists of all people could appreciate that. It was the Treasury and Osborne and Balls' duty (not threat) to basically say the UK post Scotland will consider the UK only and will not have a currency union with a foreign country
I also want no to win. I love Scotland. But the no campaign is an embarrassment and this latest gaffe surely will strengthen the hand of the yes campaign. A vote for independence must be respected - yes there will be a negotiation on terms but the Best Alternative to No Agreement position is not that we ignore a yes vote.
What is embarrassing about saying that the timetable envisaged by the SNP to move from a Yes vote to full independence may not be realistic? It is a matter of fact that in law Scotland cannot become an independent country until a deal is agreed and given what has to be agreed, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is going to take a bit of time - especially as there will be a UK general election in May 2015. It is also a metter of fact that until there is an agreement, the status quo will prevail - ie, Scotland will remain a part of the UK. That is not saying that Scotland will not become independent if there is a Yes vote - of course it will - it is saying that the SNP does not get to dictate the terms or the timeframe. Obviously, if the Scottish negotiators agreed to everything the rUK negotiators wanted the process would be done and dusted in no time. How likely do you think that is?
If everything that is said by the No side is a disastrous mistake because it might offend Scots; if no English unionist politician can open his/her mouth without driving people into the Yes camp; if it is impossible to say anything that does not coincide with SNP thinking without it being bullying, an insult or a lie, then clearly there is no Union worth having and we would all be better off going our different ways. Do you really believe that Scots see the world in that way? I don't. I really hope that I am not wrong. But perhaps I am.
It went extinct some millennia ago and was formerly to be found around Carthage/Numidia. The seed was apparently 'heart'-shaped, and the plant was used (according to Philip Matyszak's Classical Compendium) for avoiding pregnancy. In addition, animals fed on it were said to be especially delicious.
Sadly, over-grazing and desertification (northern Africa's land has become significantly less useful for crops over the centuries, it seems) drove the plant to extinction.
I know this will annoy my fellow travelers in UKIP but for me the big loser last night was Nigel Farage. This is not because of the result - which was excellent and a great credit to the party workers and the candidate - but because of the way Farage behaved in the lead up to and aftermath of the result.
There are legitimate concerns I believe about postal voting but that is on a general level and I have seen no evidence at all that it materially affected last night's result. Farage should have accepted a very good second place and not started moaning about the way the campaign was run or implying some lack of legitimacy in the result. It made him - and by association the party - look petty and a sore loser.
Not only that, making it sound like there's something dirty about postal votes is a horrible strategy if you're serious about getting your vote out to actually win seats, where you need to let your activists focus on marginal voters on the day by getting your supporters to vote early with... postal votes.
Where he has a legitimate complaint here is that the parliamentary convention where the incumbent party gets to game the timing of the by-election is a nasty, job-preserving, upstart-squishing stitch-up. I wish some awkward-squad reformer like Carswell would start making some trouble here by doing unconventional things with the parliamentary procedures.
I also want no to win. I love Scotland. But the no campaign is an embarrassment and this latest gaffe surely will strengthen the hand of the yes campaign. A vote for independence must be respected - yes there will be a negotiation on terms but the Best Alternative to No Agreement position is not that we ignore a yes vote.
If everything that is said by the No side is a disastrous mistake because it might offend Scots; if no English unionist politician can open his/her mouth without driving people into the Yes camp; if it is impossible to say anything that does not coincide with SNP thinking without it being bullying, an insult or a lie, then clearly there is no Union worth having and we would all be better off going our different ways. Do you really believe that Scots see the world in that way? I don't. I really hope that I am not wrong. But perhaps I am.
Well said SO. Perhaps Rochdale could explain what "gaffe" was made yesterday.
Judging by the coverage it was a particularly sore day for the "Yes" campaign - and Nicola being hauled off Stv's Scotland Tonight after her performance on the DP would suggest a whiff of panic.
Just made Mrs J eggs benedict royale for a Valentine's breakfast (following the cream cakes from Roger's favourite shop last night), so am only just catching up with things.
1) Lol at the 'conversation' last night between Mr Tyndall and Hugh. I think High needs to read up a little more on the topic, and pick less capable opponents. ;-)
2) I normally congratulate newly-elected MPs of whatever stripe. But Mr Kane's acceptance speech was so hideously awful that I find it hard to do so. His electorate would be better served by someone who is disconnected from Labour's hive-mind and who is capable of independent thought.
My calendar must by faulty. It's clearly St Bad Losers day today.
Not really; for one thing I'm not a Conservative. But there you go.
Let's take just one part, as reported by the BBC and Labourlist:
"It is a result that demonstrates the people know the NHS is not safe in David Cameron's hands and we have had enough of this utterly out-of-touch government."
Leaving aside the obvious points about Labour's chronic mishandling of the NHS, and the scandals at Stafford, Furness and elsewhere, combined with the woeful standards of NHS Wales, I fail to see how the result demonstrates any such thing.
It was an absolutely dire speech, the only upside being the heartfelt comments about his predecessors. Wythenshawe deserves better than yet another yes-man.
Here's a bet for you: how many times do you think Kane will vote against this party's whip?
Just made Mrs J eggs benedict royale for a Valentine's breakfast (following the cream cakes from Roger's favourite shop last night), so am only just catching up with things.
1) Lol at the 'conversation' last night between Mr Tyndall and Hugh. I think High needs to read up a little more on the topic, and pick less capable opponents. ;-)
2) I normally congratulate newly-elected MPs of whatever stripe. But Mr Kane's acceptance speech was so hideously awful that I find it hard to do so. His electorate would be better served by someone who is disconnected from Labour's hive-mind and who is capable of independent thought.
My calendar must by faulty. It's clearly St Bad Losers day today.
Not really; for one thing I'm not a Conservative. But there you go.
Let's take just one part, as reported by the BBC and Labourlist:
"It is a result that demonstrates the people know the NHS is not safe in David Cameron's hands and we have had enough of this utterly out-of-touch government."
Leaving aside the obvious points about Labour's chronic mishandling of the NHS, and the scandals at Stafford, Furness and elsewhere, combined with the woeful standards of NHS Wales, I fail to see how the result demonstrates any such thing.
It was an absolutely dire speech, the only upside being the heartfelt comments about his predecessors. Wythenshawe deserves better than yet another yes-man.
Here's a bet for you: how many times do you think Kane will vote against this party's whip?
I inwardly groaned when I read the winning candidate mentioned 'one nation labour' . Another robotic yes man indeed!
Obviously compromises have to be made by the minority party in a coalition (and I'm not talking about the Tory front bench here...) but, as has been rehearsed loads of times, the LDs went out of their way to bend over on policies that were either not in the Tory manifesto (NHS reorganisation), or to abandon at least one thing (tuition fees) that looked like a totemic policy which should have been core to their coalition negotiations.
The question that a junior coalition partner should be asking themselves is surely "would a majority of my voters have abandoned me if they had known I would give way on these issues?". If Clegg had been honest on the policies he was prepared to dump (tuition fees, NHS, mansion tax, anything vaguely smacking of civil liberties, protection for the poorest in society who don't earn more than the income tax personal allowance) and the ones he thought were "core" (basically an AV referendum, Lords reform, increased personal allowance, watered down pupil premium and unquestioning acceptance of the neo-lib consensus on austerity), the vast majority of his 2010 voters who are now returning to Lab would either have stayed at home or stuck with Labour. By way of contrast, I'd guess that his Con/LD waverers would have been pretty happy.
Of course, if Clegg had been honest about his priorities and intentions, it probably means we'd still have Gordon as PM, so many might consider that Clegg's dishonesty was all for the greater good - but the electoral price of this "noble" betrayal is going to be massive for the LDs.
In truth, I don't believe Clegg realised where he was until he had the Cons (admirably quick off the mark) addressing his four key pledges, point by point, shortly after the 2010 results were in. It must have seemed too good to be true and perhaps it is a mark of his naivety that he acceded so readily but as we all know, going with the majority party was no more than he had promised, prior to the elections.
You are right about the tuition fees but here's a thought - perhaps he was convinced of the need to introduce them and that his line in the manifesto ("make education affordable no matter the family income") was more posturing than a reflection of the mechanism of how tuition fees, and their repayment, work.
So while taking your points about not being clear on what he wanted, (IMO) incorrectly substituting one totemic policy (AV) for another (tuition fees), and being in general naive, I think, given the unchartered territory and the fear that the Cons could have said "fine, eff off we will go confidence and supply there's your chance blown of being in govt for the next 50 years", he should be cut some slack.
Vince Cable taking over as a Rudd style caretaker is the best hope of BOTH coalition parties.
At some stage this year someone will awaken from their slumber.
I'm reminded of Jack Lemmon who finds himself on a melting iceberg in the Great Race and is told by Tony Curtis not to panic. "I'm not panicking," he says, "but when the sea water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to tell somebody."
One of my all time favourite films. Jack Lemmon and Peter falk doing the homage to Laurel and Hardy is just sublime.
Of course it also has the best pie fight ever at the end.
If I was to be cheeky, I would dispute Mike's comment that there are no prizes for coming second. There are - you get your deposit back.
Well I suppose that technically you could come second whilst still getting below 5%, but it would be an pretty unusual set of circumstances. (Manchester Central 2012 came pretty close of course)
I am seriously think the best Liberal strategy now is to cut and run - pull the plug on the Coalition, sack Clegg and Danny and put a social democrat in charge. They have nothing left to lose. </blockquote
He won't do it of course. So it would need a coup led by Farron or Cable. Both would pull out of the coalition and try to pretend that despite all they voted for that actually they aren't supportive of the Tories.
I just can't see it. Like Labour and the Tories before them the lib Dems were bought by the establishment to do their bidding.
@topping Clegg lied. We have it in writing that as he posed with the fees pledge that he had no intention of implementing the policy. Of course he couldn't impose LD policies against the Tories will. But what really fracks off their former voters is that they vote positively in favour of something they campaigned against. They can abstain or even vote against the government. As Tory MPs do repeatedly en masse.
Mr. Slackbladder, indeed. That's perhaps the single biggest reason why I don't think the parties are bluffing, as Salmond claimed on Newsnight, about saying no to a currency union. Having outlined why it would be terrible for the UK, Osborne et al. could not perform a volte-face without looking like liars selling the UK down the river to help out a foreign country that has just voted to leave us.
I hope No will win, but if Yes does then Osborne's reputation as being a bit horrid may well help him. Not only would the Conservatives benefit as the least Scottish of the major parties, Osborne's willingness to be the 'bad guy' (and be seen to the be the bad guy) would probably be a plus when it comes to negotiating with the Scots.
The General Election's timing could be pretty awful, though. Imagine a Labour Government (perhaps contingent upon Scottish MPs for the majority). Could we really have Scots both sides of the negotiating table? It would be absolutely indefensible.
Mr. W, postal voting isn't secure. That's the point.
Then make it secure .... that's a more important point.
The very post he made was about making it secure, by allowing people who need it to do it, and requiring others to come in person, where security can be validated. How else do you stop abusive husbands voting for their wives?
The problem with the GOP playbook is that it's unfair one sided restrictions: e.g. allowing gun licences but not student ID as identification. There's nothing wrong with effective regulations to prevent abuse, as long as people can reasonably vote in other ways.
My preference, as stated below, is to give two days of voting to make up for it. But postal voting should be restricted to those who need it, and proxy voting should be outlawed.
Requiring identification at the polling station addresses the wrong problem which is not personation but coercion, and here technology undermines the secret ballot. Vote the way I say, and photo the completed ballot paper on your phone, or I'll break your legs and/or not pay the bribe (delete as appropriate).
The one thing I wanted to see was another LibDem lost deposit. It just hammers home what reallynhas been a consistent trend through pretty much every election of the last four year : the LibDems are as popular as a dose of the pox. In explicitly lying to his core voters, Clegg has utterly destroyed his voter base and with it over the last 4 rounds of local elections he's destroyed his councillor base. This has led to lost deposit after lost deposit in Westminster elections and we can look forward to another demolition of their councillors and MEPs in May.
What does this mean for 2015? A large loss of seats yes, but where it gets interesting is in the Tory/LibDem marginals. In the rest of the country a LibDem vote has become seen as indistinguishable with a Tory vote. In seats where the two coalition parties have been the only ones in play I think we could see all kinds of interesting results where anti- government voters are either going to stay at home in despair or Labour or UKIP are going to come from nowhere and win.
As for Clegg, you have to wonder if it has been worth it.....
The LDs councillor base has been reduced by a third, not destroyed. They still have ~2,500 councillors.
I am seriously think the best Liberal strategy now is to cut and run - pull the plug on the Coalition, sack Clegg and Danny and put a social democrat in charge. They have nothing left to lose.
Apart from their Ministerial salaries and cars? Despite much of the wishful thinking on the left, the coalition will survive if not until, then very close to the 2015 GE. As with Mark Twain, announcements of its death have been much exaggerated.
On topic, good night for Lab, poor and horrendous night for Con and Lib Dem respectively, and pretty good night for UKIP - tho as Mr Tyndall points out, not a great campaign for Farrage. Yes, there are issues in general with postal voting, and with the timing of calling bye elections - but nothing I have seen specifically to do with this seat.
I'm not sure that any of the parties can really be pleased with this result. Of course it's a solid win for Labour as expected, and by all accounts they ran a good campaign with a good candidate. However, the very low turnout implies that Mike Kane was over-egging it when he said that "the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East have sent a very clear message they want a government to stand up for us all - a one-nation Labour government.". The message is more that they can't really be bothered.
UKIP's performance was, in itself, very good, but they somewhat blew it by messing up the expectations game, making a good performance look poor. It would be interesting to know where their voters came from - did they make much progress amongst former Labour voters?
The Conservative performance was poor, but not a big surprise.
As for the the LibDems, I imagine they didn't try terribly hard. Again it would be interesting to know where their vote went.
#wythenshawe The real story from the by-election, if any, is the collapse in the Lib Dem vote from over 10k to 1176, just 4.9%, lost deposit
Triumph for Clegg!
The Lib Dems received 6.8 million votes at the 2010 general election, but at most 1.5 million# of these were in seats that they won.
If the Lib Dems end up losing 80% of their vote in seats that they don't currently hold, that would equate to about four and a quarter million lost votes, leaving them with a bit more than one-third of their 2010 vote nationwide, or roughly 8.5%. And they would not have lost a single vote in a seat which they currently hold.
I don't think the disparity between seats the Lib Dems currently hold and all the rest will be quite that extreme at GE2015, but it is worth emphasising how many votes the Lib Dems can lose without losing a single seat - and the pattern from the by-elections is that they will do better in seats they hold than in seats they have no chance in.
# 1.5 million = 57 seats * 27,000 votes per seat; 27,000 is the number of Lib Dem votes in Sheffield Hallam; the average per seat won is probably lower.
I also want no to win. I love Scotland. But the no campaign is an embarrassment and this latest gaffe surely will strengthen the hand of the yes campaign. A vote for independence must be respected - yes there will be a negotiation on terms but the Best Alternative to No Agreement position is not that we ignore a yes vote.
What is embarrassing about saying that the timetable envisaged by the SNP to move from a Yes vote to full independence may not be realistic? It is a matter of fact that in law Scotland cannot become an independent country until a deal is agreed and given what has to be agreed, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is going to take a bit of time - especially as there will be a UK general election in May 2015. It is also a metter of fact that until there is an agreement, the status quo will prevail - ie, Scotland will remain a part of the UK. That is not saying that Scotland will not become independent if there is a Yes vote - of course it will - it is saying that the SNP does not get to dictate the terms or the timeframe. Obviously, if the Scottish negotiators agreed to everything the rUK negotiators wanted the process would be done and dusted in no time. How likely do you think that is?
If everything that is said by the No side is a disastrous mistake because it might offend Scots; if no English unionist politician can open his/her mouth without driving people into the Yes camp; if it is impossible to say anything that does not coincide with SNP thinking without it being bullying, an insult or a lie, then clearly there is no Union worth having and we would all be better off going our different ways. Do you really believe that Scots see the world in that way? I don't. I really hope that I am not wrong. But perhaps I am.
Well said SO. The referendum debate up to yesterday had consisted of puerile bombast from blowhard Eck and mealy mouthed apologetics from the No side. Finally with Osborne an adult and serious man spoke.
Could we really have Scots both sides of the negotiating table? It would be absolutely indefensible.
You seem neurotically (and ethnically) obsessed with the thought of Scots on 'your' side of a negotiating table. Free tip: if you want someone who'll jump through hoops, suffer any indignity, sacrifice their last principle and throw their granny in front of train on behalf of the British State, choose a SLAB pol. Only last week we had a Scottish Labour MP state in the HoC that even if independence could be guaranteed to significantly improve the lot of his constituents, he would still be against it.
Also in the event of a YES vote, the attitude of Westminster parties to those talks will be a huge election issue.
I wonder who is best placed to win the "tough but fair" vote?
And of course, parties will be able to put things like "no currency union" in their manifestos - or not - and then enter negotiations on the basis of that mandate.
I'm not sure that any of the parties can really be pleased with this result. Of course it's a solid win for Labour as expected, and by all accounts they ran a good campaign with a good candidate. However, the very low turnout implies that Mike Kane was over-egging it when he said that "the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East have sent a very clear message they want a government to stand up for us all - a one-nation Labour government.". The message is more that they can't really be bothered.
UKIP's performance was, in itself, very good, but they somewhat blew it by messing up the expectations game, making a good performance look poor. It would be interesting to know where their voters came from - did they make much progress amongst former Labour voters?
The Conservative performance was poor, but not a big surprise.
As for the the LibDems, I imagine they didn't try terribly hard. Again it would be interesting to know where their vote went.
So Labour got a "solid win" after a "good campaign" with a "good candidate". In the meantime, no sign of life from the "poor" Tories or Lib Dems and UKIP "messing it up".
Labour should be pleased. Not sure what more they could have done in February. If anything low turnout provided UKIP with a golden opportunity.
This is a good result for Labour. It would be churlish to demand higher swings in their favour in a seat where the result is a foregone conclusion. They have basically got a pre-Brown vote but pre-Brown they won elections fairly handily.
I think it is also a good result for UKIP. They are really sweeping the pool in the NOTA and have massively increased their vote without any obvious substructure to build on.
It is a disappointing result for the tories who have clearly been hurt once again by UKIP. It is UKIP's success in this kind of "no hope" seat, however, that persuades me that the advantages that Labour had in terms of the efficiency of their vote in 2010 will be greatly diminished in 2015. I do not think that the tories will need anything like a 7% lead to be the largest party.
It is another very poor result for the Lib Dems but it is consistent with the theory that they will do better where they are strong and much, much worse where they are not so it is not the end of the world for them yet.
All in all a pretty dull by election to be honest.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10557364/Election-watchdog-demands-action-amid-fears-of-Asian-voter-fraud.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8655697.stm
The system is far less safe than voting in person and has been abused. It should be curtailed. Turnout matters less than a legitimate result.
Neither scenario will happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-tories-ditch-pledge-to-let-voters-sack-their-mp-9127146.html
http://euobserver.com/political/123145
Sitting in the garden of a large villa in Mirpur, a British citizen who has been a taxi driver in Halifax in Yorkshire for more than 20 years, talks of a practice which has become widespread here.
For obvious reasons the man, in his fifties, does not want us to publish his name. He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
What has been done in the UK to combat such open voting abuse? Sod all. I wonder why.
Postal votes should only be available to:
- The physically incapable of voting in person due to illness or infirmity (to be countersigned by a doctor)
- Those away from their home area on polling day (applications to be applied for each election day, with details)
- Those who live more than, say, 3 miles from their polling station (for very rural areas).
Exercising your franchise is a right not a privilege to be curtailed by bureaucratic impediments.
So postal votes, supermarket voting and all manner of other secure voting should be encouraged.
Mr Sambrook faced an uphill struggle to gain his seat in a traditionally Labour area, but managed to take a win with 1,571 votes, compared with 1,433 for Labour’s Lorraine Owen – a majority of 138.
Read more: http://www.suttoncoldfieldobserver.co.uk/Kingstanding-election-results-2014-Gary-Sambrook/story-20623532-detail/story.html#ixzz2tHhwThMo
Big news for Tories overnight was this council by election
CON GAIN Kingstanding in Birmingham
CON 1571
LAB 1433
UKIP 266
LD 43
NF 33
Voting is a right not an obstacle course.
At Glenrothes in 2008, the neighbouring seat to Gordon Brown’s at Kirkcaldy, there was a fourfold increase in postal ballots and Labour’s opponents demanded to see the marked official register which showed whether individuals had voted or not.
Unbelievably, the Sheriff ’s Clerk’s Office in Kirkcaldy had to explain, after five months, that the register had ‘gone missing’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
If you look at the % movement in absolute vote numbers per party – but then adjust for the overall percentage fall in voter numbers, the following emerges:
Lab +14.9%
Con -25.4%
LD -45.9%
UKIP +247.3%
Good but no cigar for Labour in their heartlands.
Disappointing for Dave and needs to appeal more oop north.
LD meltdown.
UKIP absolutely smoking.
He ended up in government.
Once that happened everything was up in the air. The overwhelming majority of LD members approved entrance into the coalition. Are you saying they thought they could lay their manifesto on the table and the Cons would have accepted it LS&B? Crazy talk. But that's what your post suggests you thought should have happened.
Now, of course, the polls also suggest that that is what their erstwhile supporters think should have happened but it is fantasy.
In a coalition compromises have to be made. There are as many disaffected Tory (MPs) as there are disaffected LD voters. Both Cam & Clegg can be criticised hugely but each is fighting with one hand tied behind their back which would be fine were they not hanging by the other to a rope over a snakepit (yes, tortured analogies at this time of the morning).
The LDs (and I'm amazed that this still needs to be repeated) are the minority partner in a Cons coalition. That means they have been able to introduce some (but not all) of their own policies and have been able to be a civilising influence on some (but not all) Tory policies.
What's not to like?
Effectively restricting the franchise is straight from the GOP playbook and most certainly outwith the tradition of British elections.
We might just as well say ban odd men in peculiar costumes brandishing their wooden weapons to strange chanting in the streets .... but then again I've nothing against Hari Krishna followers .... or even Morris Men !!
The problem with the GOP playbook is that it's unfair one sided restrictions: e.g. allowing gun licences but not student ID as identification. There's nothing wrong with effective regulations to prevent abuse, as long as people can reasonably vote in other ways.
My preference, as stated below, is to give two days of voting to make up for it. But postal voting should be restricted to those who need it, and proxy voting should be outlawed.
For such a normally decent and reasonable guy you are coming across as a deeply ungracious loser today.
1) Lol at the 'conversation' last night between Mr Tyndall and Hugh. I think High needs to read up a little more on the topic, and pick less capable opponents. ;-)
2) I normally congratulate newly-elected MPs of whatever stripe. But Mr Kane's acceptance speech was so hideously awful that I find it hard to do so. His electorate would be better served by someone who is disconnected from Labour's hive-mind and who is capable of independent thought.
Mr. Scout, my post [with 'It's a disgrace' in it] referred to the practice of multiple proxy votes being used by a small number of people, and the numbers of 'voters' in a home outnumbering the residents who actually live there.
There have been well-documented instances of postal voting being abused in this way. The phrase 'would disgrace a banana republic' springs to mind.
* Peter Brookes in the Times is brilliant today - love the shoe detail on Eck.
http://i59.tinypic.com/161amav.jpg
Why does the stereotypical love heart symbol have the shape it does?
[If nobody gets it right I'll put the answer up at 10am].
* well someone had to do that one
There is also a moral / democratic issue with the timing of postal votes. Parties do need time to make their respective cases and voters should make their judgments based on the relative merits of the arguments being put forward. Farage is right that if we send out postal votes early (for practical / Royal Mail effectiveness reasons) then we see exactly what just happened - the thing was over before it started. There was no point in any party campaigning or seeking to persuade voters as the result was already in the ballot box.
A man of honour.
Edited extra bit: the line between honour and dishonour is not drawn according to who agrees and disagrees with you.
A man of honour.
Very clever cartoon, but what does he do if the Gnats win on Sept19? Flowers on UK's grave or flowers on Eck's?
http://sempresicilia.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/heart-vintageanatomy-graphicsfairy007red.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/race-for-jobs-being-won-by-london-and-scotland-9126686.html
That money is not a problem when tackling southern English problems thing is going to haunt them for decades.
The question that a junior coalition partner should be asking themselves is surely "would a majority of my voters have abandoned me if they had known I would give way on these issues?". If Clegg had been honest on the policies he was prepared to dump (tuition fees, NHS, mansion tax, anything vaguely smacking of civil liberties, protection for the poorest in society who don't earn more than the income tax personal allowance) and the ones he thought were "core" (basically an AV referendum, Lords reform, increased personal allowance, watered down pupil premium and unquestioning acceptance of the neo-lib consensus on austerity), the vast majority of his 2010 voters who are now returning to Lab would either have stayed at home or stuck with Labour. By way of contrast, I'd guess that his Con/LD waverers would have been pretty happy.
Of course, if Clegg had been honest about his priorities and intentions, it probably means we'd still have Gordon as PM, so many might consider that Clegg's dishonesty was all for the greater good - but the electoral price of this "noble" betrayal is going to be massive for the LDs.
There are legitimate concerns I believe about postal voting but that is on a general level and I have seen no evidence at all that it materially affected last night's result. Farage should have accepted a very good second place and not started moaning about the way the campaign was run or implying some lack of legitimacy in the result. It made him - and by association the party - look petty and a sore loser.
I feel much the same way about Farage as I do about Sam Allardyce, manager of my beloved Hammers. When the team losers Allardyce will thrash around looking for any excuse (the ref, the linesman, the pitch, the other team making rude noises or wearing loud shirts) other than the fact they got beaten fair and square. I hate it and I think it brings shame on the team as a whole.
Farage is in danger of becoming the Sam Allardyce of politics (in my eyes at least).
Mr. Socrates, debatable, but not the answer I'm after.
I will say it's somewhat obscure. The answer's more BC than AD.
You must be disappointed that when Carney teed up the currency debate the SNP didn't prepare for what was coming ? Even us PB Tories could see that freight train.
(ie if they had a flat 15% in every constituency then they will win 0 seats - but if they were at 15% in every constituency you would expect them to poll 20%-25% in a by-election pretty much regardless of the seat - which suggests that in a seat such as this the GE base vote is probably more like 7%-10% - which suggest that there are some seats where it will be at least 25%-30% or more, and which they thus have more chance of winning when it comes to the GE.) Or am I reading too much into it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium#Connection_with_the_heart_symbol
I'm reminded of Jack Lemmon who finds himself on a melting iceberg in the Great Race and is told by Tony Curtis not to panic. "I'm not panicking," he says, "but when the sea water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to tell somebody."
I think its quite rude of the SNP and Salmond to arrogantly presume the rest of the UK will want a currency union with another country if the yes vote wins. The SNP will have won their right to self governance if the yes vote wins but that will also mean the rest of the UK will win that right also. I would of thought nationalists of all people could appreciate that.
It was the Treasury and Osborne and Balls' duty (not threat) to basically say the UK post Scotland will consider the UK only and will not have a currency union with a foreign country
If everything that is said by the No side is a disastrous mistake because it might offend Scots; if no English unionist politician can open his/her mouth without driving people into the Yes camp; if it is impossible to say anything that does not coincide with SNP thinking without it being bullying, an insult or a lie, then clearly there is no Union worth having and we would all be better off going our different ways. Do you really believe that Scots see the world in that way? I don't. I really hope that I am not wrong. But perhaps I am.
It went extinct some millennia ago and was formerly to be found around Carthage/Numidia. The seed was apparently 'heart'-shaped, and the plant was used (according to Philip Matyszak's Classical Compendium) for avoiding pregnancy. In addition, animals fed on it were said to be especially delicious.
Sadly, over-grazing and desertification (northern Africa's land has become significantly less useful for crops over the centuries, it seems) drove the plant to extinction.
Where he has a legitimate complaint here is that the parliamentary convention where the incumbent party gets to game the timing of the by-election is a nasty, job-preserving, upstart-squishing stitch-up. I wish some awkward-squad reformer like Carswell would start making some trouble here by doing unconventional things with the parliamentary procedures.
Judging by the coverage it was a particularly sore day for the "Yes" campaign - and Nicola being hauled off Stv's Scotland Tonight after her performance on the DP would suggest a whiff of panic.
Let's take just one part, as reported by the BBC and Labourlist: Leaving aside the obvious points about Labour's chronic mishandling of the NHS, and the scandals at Stafford, Furness and elsewhere, combined with the woeful standards of NHS Wales, I fail to see how the result demonstrates any such thing.
It was an absolutely dire speech, the only upside being the heartfelt comments about his predecessors. Wythenshawe deserves better than yet another yes-man.
Here's a bet for you: how many times do you think Kane will vote against this party's whip?
It was an absolutely dire speech, the only upside being the heartfelt comments about his predecessors. Wythenshawe deserves better than yet another yes-man.
Here's a bet for you: how many times do you think Kane will vote against this party's whip?
I inwardly groaned when I read the winning candidate mentioned 'one nation labour' . Another robotic yes man indeed!
You are right about the tuition fees but here's a thought - perhaps he was convinced of the need to introduce them and that his line in the manifesto ("make education affordable no matter the family income") was more posturing than a reflection of the mechanism of how tuition fees, and their repayment, work.
So while taking your points about not being clear on what he wanted, (IMO) incorrectly substituting one totemic policy (AV) for another (tuition fees), and being in general naive, I think, given the unchartered territory and the fear that the Cons could have said "fine, eff off we will go confidence and supply there's your chance blown of being in govt for the next 50 years", he should be cut some slack.
http://order-order.com/2014/02/14/another-libdem-donor-nicked/
Of course it also has the best pie fight ever at the end.
Also in the event of a YES vote, the attitude of Westminster parties to those talks will be a huge election issue.
I hope No will win, but if Yes does then Osborne's reputation as being a bit horrid may well help him. Not only would the Conservatives benefit as the least Scottish of the major parties, Osborne's willingness to be the 'bad guy' (and be seen to the be the bad guy) would probably be a plus when it comes to negotiating with the Scots.
The General Election's timing could be pretty awful, though. Imagine a Labour Government (perhaps contingent upon Scottish MPs for the majority). Could we really have Scots both sides of the negotiating table? It would be absolutely indefensible.
Anyway, let's hope No wins.
On topic, good night for Lab, poor and horrendous night for Con and Lib Dem respectively, and pretty good night for UKIP - tho as Mr Tyndall points out, not a great campaign for Farrage. Yes, there are issues in general with postal voting, and with the timing of calling bye elections - but nothing I have seen specifically to do with this seat.
UKIP's performance was, in itself, very good, but they somewhat blew it by messing up the expectations game, making a good performance look poor. It would be interesting to know where their voters came from - did they make much progress amongst former Labour voters?
The Conservative performance was poor, but not a big surprise.
As for the the LibDems, I imagine they didn't try terribly hard. Again it would be interesting to know where their vote went.
If the Lib Dems end up losing 80% of their vote in seats that they don't currently hold, that would equate to about four and a quarter million lost votes, leaving them with a bit more than one-third of their 2010 vote nationwide, or roughly 8.5%. And they would not have lost a single vote in a seat which they currently hold.
I don't think the disparity between seats the Lib Dems currently hold and all the rest will be quite that extreme at GE2015, but it is worth emphasising how many votes the Lib Dems can lose without losing a single seat - and the pattern from the by-elections is that they will do better in seats they hold than in seats they have no chance in.
# 1.5 million = 57 seats * 27,000 votes per seat; 27,000 is the number of Lib Dem votes in Sheffield Hallam; the average per seat won is probably lower.
Free tip: if you want someone who'll jump through hoops, suffer any indignity, sacrifice their last principle and throw their granny in front of train on behalf of the British State, choose a SLAB pol. Only last week we had a Scottish Labour MP state in the HoC that even if independence could be guaranteed to significantly improve the lot of his constituents, he would still be against it.
And of course, parties will be able to put things like "no currency union" in their manifestos - or not - and then enter negotiations on the basis of that mandate.
Labour should be pleased. Not sure what more they could have done in February. If anything low turnout provided UKIP with a golden opportunity.
You could call it sleepwalking into disaster.
I think it is also a good result for UKIP. They are really sweeping the pool in the NOTA and have massively increased their vote without any obvious substructure to build on.
It is a disappointing result for the tories who have clearly been hurt once again by UKIP. It is UKIP's success in this kind of "no hope" seat, however, that persuades me that the advantages that Labour had in terms of the efficiency of their vote in 2010 will be greatly diminished in 2015. I do not think that the tories will need anything like a 7% lead to be the largest party.
It is another very poor result for the Lib Dems but it is consistent with the theory that they will do better where they are strong and much, much worse where they are not so it is not the end of the world for them yet.
All in all a pretty dull by election to be honest.