Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
.. and if this starts to be mediated by political parties and their agents at the next election ? Would be interesting if the kippers asked people in Clacton if they could swap votes with floating voters in Heywood and Middleton.
Paul Nuttall on Matt Fordes political party podcast (www.mattforde.com) admitted Ukip messed up by having so many people in Clacton and do few in Heywood and Middleton
Well worth a listen as are some of the others
Going to one of his stand ups / political interviews in Victoria would be a great way for London/SE PBers to meet up
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
The right to decide how the vote is cast is being sold. The value received is the right to decide how a vote is cast elsewhere, presumably perceived as more productively.
If it is true that Mike had a bet on Cable, is he not trying to rig that bet?
What nonsense. We had a ref only 4yrs ago and it got a huge thumbs down. You may not like it or any other law. but that's what we collectively live by.
I'm amazed at the studenty anarchy on here by some who clearly have brains and wouldn't park in a disabled space - but will subvert the wishes of a whole constituency for their own ends.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
The system is no longer fit for purpose.
If Mike wants to vote on the basis of an agreement with someone else, or a coin toss, or who fulfills some subjective criteria, that is his right. Calm down.
As are many of our laws, its still regarded as proper practise to campaign to change them through the democratic process rather than ignore them though
Quite interested in Mike's vote swap thing. I sort of very slightly disapprove, but actually it's in line with a PR sort of philosophy, and I sort of thing PR is right although I don't want the governments that it'd produce.
How fortunate you are not in favour of the death penalty, but not the sort of government that would have to be elected to produce it
Indigo your first quote is something I never said. I particularly object because it's a phrase I hate. (Could you please make the appropriate edit)
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
Both Conservative and Lib Dem backbench MPs have criticised the government. On a few issues the government has accepted that each party can hold different views. So what?
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If blem?
votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
Quite. I don't much like the sound of it myself, but it's not against the rules apparently, and at the end of the day it is a personal decision about how to cast one's own vote, and if that happens to be by making a personal arrangement with someone else in a gentleman's agreement, it's not great (in my opinion) but it's not actually reprehensible either.
The people being had over are those who live in Mikes constituency... It's rat like behaviour but so is most political manoeuvring... Self interest and dupliticity varnished with faux outrage and thirst for moral high ground
This vote-swapping thing is incredibly silly. I suppose if you absolutely trust the person you are doing it with it's fine, but there's no incentive to be honest. Why doesn't Mike just vote for the candidate he wants to win in Bedford? There's no way anyone would ever know.
If it is true that Mike had a bet on Cable, is he not trying to rig that bet?
If so he could be in a heap of trouble.
It could be even worse than that.
Imagine if in the run-up to the GE he actually travelled to Twickenham and started knocking on the doors of constituents wearing a yellow Lib Dem rosette and actually tried to persuade them to vote for Vince Cable.
And all to win a bet.
If that isnt illegal then it very well should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As are many of our laws, its still regarded as proper practise to campaign to change them through the democratic process rather than ignore them though
Quite interested in Mike's vote swap thing. I sort of very slightly disapprove, but actually it's in line with a PR sort of philosophy, and I sort of thing PR is right although I don't want the governments that it'd produce.
How fortunate you are not in favour of the death penalty, but not the sort of government that would have to be elected to produce it
Indigo your first quote is something I never said. I particularly object because it's a phrase I hate. (Could you please make the appropriate edit)
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
The right to decide how the vote is cast is being sold. The value received is the right to decide how a vote is cast elsewhere, presumably perceived as more productively.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
Next thing you will say tactical voting is illegal and then not voting Tory is illegal.
I notice nearly 60% of Green party candidates have an "other" background...I guess it might be a bit niche to break down the sections to include a specific one eco-warrior.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
Part of the point of politics is to have your views heard and for them to be influential. The LDs have achieved that. Part of their confusion was that despite years of wanting to be in coalition they'd not really ever planned for it. And part of their complaining was due to them being a small part of the government. If they're not a little bit proud of their achievements in government then I worry for them.
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
It's not up to him where he decides to vote though.
He's voting in Bedford. At worst OGH is being disingenuous by claiming he's voting for Vince. He's not, if he votes Labour then he voted Labour not Lib-Dem however much obfuscation occurs.
The fact that someone in Twickenham voted for Vince does not mean that OGH is voting for Vince.
This vote-swapping thing is incredibly silly. I suppose if you absolutely trust the person you are doing it with it's fine, but there's no incentive to be honest. Why doesn't Mike just vote for the candidate he wants to win in Bedford? There's no way anyone would ever know.
My understanding is that each will send the other a photo of the completed ballot paper.
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
It's not up to him where he decides to vote though.
He's voting in Bedford. At worst OGH is being disingenuous by claiming he's voting for Vince. He's not, if he votes Labour then he voted Labour not Lib-Dem however much obfuscation occurs.
The fact that someone in Twickenham voted for Vince does not mean that OGH is voting for Vince.
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
I wouldn't be happy about it, or the reverse happening, but if it isn't illegal then I cannot object to it on moral grounds alone. Other peoples' morals differ after all.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
The problem is that you're operating purely on faith, faith that the other party operates as promised. If OGH votes Labour and the other party also votes Labour rather than for Vince (hypothetically) then OGH can't know that happened. Again its a secret ballot.
I'd object to any app or otherwise that violates the ballot being secret, but in reality even with photos its easy to fake voting however you like.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll tell you the arrangements which are disgraceful...
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody. ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc... iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life. iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one! v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly. vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties. vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
Disturbed by the self-righteous nonsense being spouted by some here about how OGH wants to vote. As a fan of FPTP unlike many here can I simply say we have a secret ballot and (voting fraud/intimidation aside) however you decide to vote is up to you. It is up to OGH and OGH alone how he decides to vote.
It's not up to him where he decides to vote though.
He's voting in Bedford. At worst OGH is being disingenuous by claiming he's voting for Vince. He's not, if he votes Labour then he voted Labour not Lib-Dem however much obfuscation occurs.
The fact that someone in Twickenham voted for Vince does not mean that OGH is voting for Vince.
Why are you getting worked up ?
I'm not, not sure where you got that idea? #confused
Why on earth is SLAB using Martin Freeman, an obviously English actor, to front their new PPB in Scotland? Him swearing/blaspheming in the PPB will go down like a lead balloon in large parts of rural Scotland.
I don't think that Labour are worried about the few rural seats that they hold. It is more the 30+ Central belt seats which are almost all under threat that they will be focusing on. With the SNP's move to the left under Sturgeon and their greater focus on the the central belt aswell it could give the Tories and the Libdems a chance around the fringes of Scotland to gain/hold 1 or 2 seats. (Although the effect of the SNP's shift may well only make a difference in 2016 and beyond)
This vote-swapping thing is incredibly silly. I suppose if you absolutely trust the person you are doing it with it's fine, but there's no incentive to be honest. Why doesn't Mike just vote for the candidate he wants to win in Bedford? There's no way anyone would ever know.
My understanding is that each will send the other a photo of the completed ballot paper.
What happens if the people at the polling station don't allow you to? From last year...
Staff have been urged to put up "no photography" signs in polling stations.
What nonsense. We had a ref only 4yrs ago and it got a huge thumbs down. You may not like it or any other law. but that's what we collectively live by.
I'm amazed at the studenty anarchy on here by some who clearly have brains and wouldn't park in a disabled space - but will subvert the wishes of a whole constituency for their own ends.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
The system is no longer fit for purpose.
Voting against AV is not the same as voting against any and all electoral reform.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
If that were to happen, Labour would do it back. Frankly, I am not that bothered who my MP is. It's the government that worries me. I'd much rather have a Tory MP and a non-Tory majority in the Commons than a Labour MP and a Tory majority.
This vote-swapping thing is incredibly silly. I suppose if you absolutely trust the person you are doing it with it's fine, but there's no incentive to be honest. Why doesn't Mike just vote for the candidate he wants to win in Bedford? There's no way anyone would ever know.
My understanding is that each will send the other a photo of the completed ballot paper.
What happens if the people at the polling station don't allow you to?
Staff have been urged to put up "no photography" signs in polling stations.
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
In my experience it usually heard in low end business efficiency, wannabe manager type conferences, goes along with "80/20 rule", "think outside the box", "core competency, "take it to the next level". "give 110%", "boil the ocean" and similar flatulence
Why on earth is SLAB using Martin Freeman, an obviously English actor, to front their new PPB in Scotland? Him swearing/blaspheming in the PPB will go down like a lead balloon in large parts of rural Scotland.
Let them get on with it in fact the more times they out the gun to their head the better.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
The Conservative Party used to organise that overseas voters placed their vote in Tory marginals. An overseas voter only had to declare that they had some tenuous relationship with the constituency to be able to vote there, - like my mother used to shop there. I don't know whether this is still allowed.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll tell you the arrangements which are disgraceful...
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody. ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc... iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life. iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one! v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly. vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties. vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
All this might be true, but the people have yet to vote for an alternative. Democracy is a bummer sometimes
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
In my experience it usually heard in low end business efficiency, wannabe manager type conferences, goes along with "80/20 rule", "think outside the box", "core competency, "take it to the next level". "give 110%", "boil the ocean" and similar flatulence
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
The Conservative Party used to organise that overseas voters placed their vote in Tory marginals. An overseas voter only had to declare that they had some tenuous relationship with the constituency to be able to vote there, - like my mother used to shop there. I don't know whether this is still allowed.
I am voting from overseas. I used to live in the marginal Swindon South, now I am proxy voting in the rock steady Tory Hereford & South Herefordshire, not sure that went to plan
If the mini-trend to the Tories is backed up by further polling, can't help but feel it is partly due to Mr Salmond. Was chatting to some colleagues today and there was definitely some concern about a Miliband government being under the thumb of the SNP
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll tell you the arrangements which are disgraceful...
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody. ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc... iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life. iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one! v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly. vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties. vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
i) Just because you vote doesn't mean you win. Voting for a loser is still a counted vote, it just lost. ii) The national election is a collective of local ones, national total is meaningless. iii) Nonsense - see Scotland. Winning doesn't mean seats for life, it just means they won. iv) Wrong, you can join the party and seek to affect the v) You can cast your vote however you wish. No system other than pure self-reliant anarchy guarantees you get what you want. vi) No they're not, they're backed the parties representing what that want all the time and not just in 40 days. Just because the Blues won't win Liverpool Walton doesn't mean Labour ignores the wishes of people in Walton. vii) No, its decided by your neighbours and the tens of thousands of voters in your constituency.
Nothing disgraceful, just bad misinterpretations and/or false assumptions.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll tell you the arrangements which are disgraceful...
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody. ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc... iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life. iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one! v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly. vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties. vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
All this might be true, but the people have yet to vote for an alternative. Democracy is a bummer sometimes
Democracy is not just majority rule but protection of minorities. Minorities are not fairly represented in our so-called democracy. I consider it right and just to subvert the system.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I'll tell you the arrangements which are disgraceful...
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody. ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc... iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life. iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one! v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly. vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties. vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
The Conservative Party used to organise that overseas voters placed their vote in Tory marginals. An overseas voter only had to declare that they had some tenuous relationship with the constituency to be able to vote there, - like my mother used to shop there. I don't know whether this is still allowed.
I am voting from overseas. I used to live in the marginal Swindon South, now I am proxy voting in the rock steady Tory Hereford & South Herefordshire, not sure that went to plan
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Its not wasting your vote Mr S though. That's the democratic process and this country voted not to change it when we had the chance. You do big-up the local constituency MP idea, which I kinda agree with, but then you go and throw away your whole argument by voting in a place you don't even live. You've got a bet out on Cable too IIRC? Quite a few here not impressed by looks of it.
Thing is too, you set an example as an important political figure. If loads followed suit it would be anarchy and very undemocratic. The way to change the voting system isn't via this dodgy backdoor.
Hard to tell if you are being serious or spoofing the type of poster that gets wound up by OGH's vote swapping pact. Well done if it's the latter.
No that's me being polite to the site owner. If I put it less politely id be thrown off the forum most probs. Do I like the idea of voting somewhere you don't live to boost their chances? No siree.
No Mike is swapping a vote with someone who lives where he doesn't live!
Its just plain wrong , only a bad un would consider it. You need to have no principles to consider such a thing , only Lib Dems could stoop so low.
Why on earth is SLAB using Martin Freeman, an obviously English actor, to front their new PPB in Scotland? Him swearing/blaspheming in the PPB will go down like a lead balloon in large parts of rural Scotland.
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee. So far the Labour party therefore has got away with promising to the benefit claimants and public sector workers that they will gain from the extra Govt spending on them.
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
In my experience it usually heard in low end business efficiency, wannabe manager type conferences, goes along with "80/20 rule", "think outside the box", "core competency, "take it to the next level". "give 110%", "boil the ocean" and similar flatulence
Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
Do you think that the list is trying to be 'all manner of consideration' or do you think it's trying to leave windows open?
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Two people will vote in the constituencies in which they live having decided how best to deploy their votes. as is their right in our democracy.
So you would be happy for the Conservative Party to start organising it in marginals where they are just behind Labour ?
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
The Conservative Party used to organise that overseas voters placed their vote in Tory marginals. An overseas voter only had to declare that they had some tenuous relationship with the constituency to be able to vote there, - like my mother used to shop there. I don't know whether this is still allowed.
That is quite different, an example of the British Constitution at its robust and pragmatic best. Obviously.
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
I heard today and in previous days Clegg stating that people should not vote for the party of the right or the party of the left but instead vote for the party of the centre. Meanwhile we have all the past statements from Vince, Tim and Charlie that the Lib Dems are a party of the left and that their heart beats on the left. This is coalition inside the LDs just cannot hold for ever.
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
In my experience it usually heard in low end business efficiency, wannabe manager type conferences, goes along with "80/20 rule", "think outside the box", "core competency, "take it to the next level". "give 110%", "boil the ocean" and similar flatulence
Synergistic dynamism. Wonderful! It must be in their DNA.
I confess I have not actually seen or heard the phrase 'synergistic dynamism' before, so do not know if it has ever been used somewhere, but I am predicting it will be used at some point.
Rubbish. We have a system you don't like and are subverting it beyond your own constituency. I think its totally wrong. And very surprised that you are participating in it.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
The system is no longer fit for purpose.
I think that Vanilla is quite good. What is your problem caller...?
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Simple: Free market economics works.
This government has worked.
Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy.
I do forget that, to be honest. Possibly because the rhetoric against their current programme is essentially the same, so if it was as bad as you say back then, the impact of the argument is dulled by the same one being used now by those totally opposed to any austerity.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
Part of the point of politics is to have your views heard and for them to be influential. The LDs have achieved that. Part of their confusion was that despite years of wanting to be in coalition they'd not really ever planned for it. And part of their complaining was due to them being a small part of the government. If they're not a little bit proud of their achievements in government then I worry for them.
It is another example of the muddled thinking in the LDs. No sooner do they get a coalition that they have prayed for they then start trashing the performance of the coalition and act in duplicituous ways towards their main partner. They then wonder why the voters are not giving them credit for the achievements of the coalition....
Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy.
I do forget that, to be honest. Possibly because the rhetoric against their current programme is essentially the same, so if it was as bad as you say back then, the impact of the argument is dulled by the same one being used now by those totally opposed to any austerity.
Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy.
I do forget that, to be honest. Possibly because the rhetoric against their current programme is essentially the same, so if it was as bad as you say back then, the impact of the argument is dulled by the same one being used now by those totally opposed to any austerity.
I wouldn't be surprised if YG still have a Labour lead - as everyone knows by now their total population is not a representative sample of the UK population so their poll is a sample of an unrepresentative sample of the population.
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
Worth remembering that Ashcroft polls tend to allocate don`t knows entirely to party for which previously voted(ICM does 50%) thus boosting Cons and Libs.
Though unsure why Ashcroft seems to pick up the largest share of the Green vote while other pollsters show them declining.
Mostly, the more - shall we say - "radicalised" PB Tories criticising Mike?
I can't think of any less partisan issue, than wanting to see elections conducted according to the rules. This vote-swapping is sailing very close to the wind: it probably isn't bribery or personation under the RPA 1983, but it's close enough that no prudent solicitor would advise a client in advance that it was absolutely OK, crack on, no conceivable problem. It is certainly against the spirit of the law.
RPA 1983, s. 113(5):
A voter shall be guilty of bribery if before or during an election he directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan or valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting.
The question therefore is whether a promise to vote is capable of constituting valuable consideration. This is a strange statutory provision. Any contract in which one party promised to vote would be void on public policy grounds, ergo there would be a total failure of consideration. Yet valuable consideration must mean something here, and there is no a priori reason why mutual promises to vote or refrain from voting could not constitute detriment flowing from the promisee.
So far the Labour party therefore has got away with promising to the benefit claimants and public sector workers that they will gain from the extra Govt spending on them.
Exactly. David Cameron is promising thirty million workers a tax cut if they vote for him. Is that bribery? Of course not. It is an arbitrary law which was presumably drafted as widely as necessary to punish the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone for voting in a verboten manner.
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
Wut ? Keynes advocated heavy spending stimulus in a downturn and cutting back and saving in the good times. The sort of pissing money up the wall in the good times both parties have been doing in the last decade probably has him spinning in his grave!
If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
I heard today and in previous days Clegg stating that people should not vote for the party of the right or the party of the left but instead vote for the party of the centre. Meanwhile we have all the past statements from Vince, Tim and Charlie that the Lib Dems are a party of the left and that their heart beats on the left. This is coalition inside the LDs just cannot hold for ever.
True. While the pitch to the centre is one which works on me to some degree, fence sitter as I am, it would appear the LDs achieve much greater success when being more openly of the left (protest vote aside, half their voters jumped ship immediately in 2010, a great many to Labour), and so they can either refocus properly as truly centrist, and be about where they are now, maybe a little bit better, or go properly left and likely do better and be happier for it with many (though not all) of its MPs.
There was a laughable over-reaction to the YG poll yesterday and Saturday night. Outliers aside, the polls all seem to be saying one thing: the Tory vote is going to be mid-30s and solid, the Labour vote is going to be lower; while Labour's collapse in Scotland means that the Tories should win most seats. If EdM has a particularly bad four weeks enough Labour voters could stay at home for the Tories to get a very small overall majority.
SO a very honest appraisal of the position from a traditional Labour supporter and I agree with you. I keep looking at the Target seat list and keep coming back to the same conclusion, Labour could easily end up with fewer than 258 seats.
I know it's heresy to say so but I have quite liked the coalition for any number of reasons. Yes they had punch ups but at the end of the day the Lib Dems took a huge leap and removed Brown. They then went the full term of a coalition government and in my view Danny Alexander has been superb throughout. Vince Cable should have crossed the floor on day one.
I wouldn't mind another 5 years of this because the political differences are their strengths of course because they can disagree without facing the party splits mantra. Everyone expects coalitions to be split occasionally.
All in all a good job done in my view. Obviously not all will agree and I can see any number of the points why not already made since 2010.
Alternatively we could have had the clunking fist and a rainbow coalition of course..... Lib / Lab pact in technicolour if you prefer.
Just a view of course.......
I think you're completely right. In very tough circumstances the LDs and the Tories have worked together really very well. Even Vince Cable (who perhaps had to hold his nose) hasn't done so badly. I think I'd struggle if I had to choose between 'current coalition' and Conservative for my vote, and that's partly because of the individual LDs in government.
Here we have 2 people praising the coalition. But the LDs have spent 5 years rubbishing their own government? How can they defend the coalition? How then can they defend themselves? They have thrown away whatever chance they had to influence government. Remind me - what is the point of politics?
Both Conservative and Lib Dem backbench MPs have criticised the government. On a few issues the government has accepted that each party can hold different views. So what?
Numerous Lib Dem Ministers IN Govt have criticised the Conservatives. I am struggling to think of 1 Conservative Minister who has done that even though they out numbered the LDs by 4+ to every 1 LD.
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Simple: Free market economics works.
This government has worked.
Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
I heard today and in previous days Clegg stating that people should not vote for the party of the right or the party of the left but instead vote for the party of the centre. Meanwhile we have all the past statements from Vince, Tim and Charlie that the Lib Dems are a party of the left and that their heart beats on the left. This is coalition inside the LDs just cannot hold for ever.
True. While the pitch to the centre is one which works on me to some degree, fence sitter as I am, it would appear the LDs achieve much greater success when being more openly of the left (protest vote aside, half their voters jumped ship immediately in 2010, a great many to Labour), and so they can either refocus properly as truly centrist, and be about where they are now, maybe a little bit better, or go properly left and likely do better and be happier for it with many (though not all) of its MPs.
That "left" pitch really only worked when the Labour party was in a slump, now it is a bit more vibrant than GE2010, the LDs struggle to win lefties and the centrist voters struggle with a party of duplicituous whingers.
Its too late to edit, but I do apologise, it was of course our good friend logical_song who said that, sounds more typical of him than you to be honest
Apology accepted. I do so hate that 'fit for purpose' phrase. I don't think it's grammatically correct, and I regard it as simply ghastly.
In my experience it usually heard in low end business efficiency, wannabe manager type conferences, goes along with "80/20 rule", "think outside the box", "core competency, "take it to the next level". "give 110%", "boil the ocean" and similar flatulence
Synergistic dynamism. Wonderful! It must be in their DNA.
I confess I have not actually seen or heard the phrase 'synergistic dynamism' before, so do not know if it has ever been used somewhere, but I am predicting it will be used at some point.
I feel your pain. How long before other biological concepts make it into business speak? Coevolution has to be a top candidate.
See that the PB right-wing loons having a go at OGH for putting the 4% Labour lead into the headline. Lol.
You all have a choice, don't like OGH's threads, you can duly p*ss off from this blog.
OGH is the boss! Long live the boss!
Particularly a Labour voting boss, eh
I'm voting for Vince Cable in Twickenham under a vote swap deal. The other party has not yet indicated how he would like to vote in Bedford.
It takes a lot to make me pompous (I think) but I think such arrangements are disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What a stupid comment. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. We have a voting system that forces this sort of approach onto people. The alternative for me is wasting my vote.
Are you seriously suggesting that is what people should do?
Your wishes are more important than the right of the people of Twickenham to select their local MP.
How unbelievably self-centred of you. You may not value the geographic-centred nature of the UK electoral system, but millions of your fellow citizens do.
Who are you to say that you, Mike Smithson of Bedford, are more important than Amelia Jones, of 23 Acacia Avenue, Twickenham?
If someone in Twickenham decides the best use of his/her vote is to swap it with Mike or anyone else, what is the problem?
Because they are allowing an outside force to direct the selection of a local representative. Twickenham's MP is the elected representative of the people of Twickenham. (Arguably this is a breach of electoral law in that the individuals are selling their votes for something of value)
People from Twickenham and Bedford are making rational decisions about how best to deploy their votes. The Twickenham resident will vote in Twickenham, the Bedford resident will vote in Bedford. Nothing is being sold.
Feck, you are classic: Ignorant-to-bliss....
Using your low-education - and despite your "Master" in 'History' - when the EU-vote arrives in 2017 you should be able to transfer your English vote to some politician named after The Netherlands (and used to run Froglundt)...?
Worth remembering that Ashcroft polls tend to allocate don`t knows entirely to party for which previously voted(ICM does 50%) thus boosting Cons and Libs.
Though unsure why Ashcroft seems to pick up the largest share of the Green vote while other pollsters show them declining.
Wrong,
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
I heard today and in previous days Clegg stating that people should not vote for the party of the right or the party of the left but instead vote for the party of the centre. Meanwhile we have all the past statements from Vince, Tim and Charlie that the Lib Dems are a party of the left and that their heart beats on the left. This is coalition inside the LDs just cannot hold for ever.
True. While the pitch to the centre is one which works on me to some degree, fence sitter as I am, it would appear the LDs achieve much greater success when being more openly of the left (protest vote aside, half their voters jumped ship immediately in 2010, a great many to Labour), and so they can either refocus properly as truly centrist, and be about where they are now, maybe a little bit better, or go properly left and likely do better and be happier for it with many (though not all) of its MPs.
That "left" pitch really only worked when the Labour party was in a slump, now it is a bit more vibrant than GE2010, the LDs struggle to win lefties and the centrist voters struggle with a party of duplicituous whingers.
I am assuming the LDs, post Clegg, will tack left after the GE when I am expecting a Miliband government and the true lefties to be disappointed that Labour cuts hurt just like Tory cuts, making a return to the LDs more likely, though not inevitable by any means.
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Simple: Free market economics works.
This government has worked.
Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
We don't have pure free market. France is a basket case right now and using that as your counterpoint is a joke. Our GDP per head is $12000 behind the USA. No amount of stupid left wing blog posts can hide that reality.
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
They lost because they didn't win. Had they got enough votes they would have won and the other candidate would have lost. Blaming the rules is a folly, how about trying to win instead?
and so on. Recognise the building in the 2010 clip? Or is the speech in some sense not political? Because asking for "a mandate from the British people" looks a bit political to me. What tradition do you think has been breached?
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
They lost because they didn't win. Had they got enough votes they would have won and the other candidate would have lost. Blaming the rules is a folly, how about trying to win instead?
That is more accurate - They lost because they didn't win. It's nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the mechanics and the plumbing of the system, so let's don't say "no need to change the voting system to placate losers".
Philip Thompson - why is France a basket case? They don't have their own currency but many of their fundamentals look stronger than the UK. As I say higher GDP per head, less debt, more saving and investment and better infrastructure.
PhilipThompson Though Denmark and Sweden have a higher gdp per capita than the US in nominal terms and Norway Switzerland and Luxembourg in nominal terms too
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
They lost because they didn't win. Had they got enough votes they would have won and the other candidate would have lost. Blaming the rules is a folly, how about trying to win instead?
That is more accurate - They lost because they didn't win. It's nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the mechanics and the plumbing of the system, so let's don't say "no need to change the voting system to placate losers".
If the argument made in favour of changing the system is that the losers lost then saying that it is by design and fair that losers lose makes that argument nul and void.
Unless you care to explain why you think that we should be rewarding losers? Unless you are willing to do that then it's just stating the obvious.
According to Anthony Wells if this was an England only election and the Ashcroft figures applied Cameron would have a majority of 4, still 17 less than Major got in 1992 throughout the UK. Under AV of course the Tories + UKIP make 51%, again showing the idiocy of the Tory No campaign in 2011 http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator
As it is across the UK Labour are on 311 and the Tories on 300, so Miliband is 15 short, but minus 25-30 Scottish seats Cameron should lead the largest party and with 25 odd LDs and the DUP just scrape over the 326 margin for confidence and supply
As a Liverpool fan, I've not seen a league title victory in decades despite us regularly scoring lots of points - the fact that we scored 84 points but didn't get the title last season doesn't mean we should get some sort of proportional share of the title, we lost fair and square.
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
But this is begging the question. The rules are fair because the second- and third-place candidates lost. Why did they lose? Because of the rules.
They didn't lose because of the rules, they lost because less people voted for them.
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
They lost because the rules of FPTP say second-place candidates can never get a seat, unlike other electoral systems. That doesn't mean the rules produce fair results as a yardstick for other systems, it just means the rules operate mechanistically as designed.
They lost because they didn't win. Had they got enough votes they would have won and the other candidate would have lost. Blaming the rules is a folly, how about trying to win instead?
That is more accurate - They lost because they didn't win. It's nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with the mechanics and the plumbing of the system, so let's don't say "no need to change the voting system to placate losers".
If the argument made in favour of changing the system is that the losers lost then saying that it is by design and fair that losers lose makes that argument nul and void.
Unless you care to explain why you think that we should be rewarding losers? Unless you are willing to do that then it's just stating the obvious.
Again, second-place candidates are only "losers" because of the design of the system. That's an outcome, not a confirmation of its fairness. It has no fairness content; it is totally fairness-neutral. If there were a system where the Conservatives won every seat by design, all the Labour candidates would be "losers".
DavidL - If you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne are centrists then it's no wonder so many of your fellow countrymen are disillusioned with life in the Union! Let us not forget that they unveiled the most ridiculous anti-government scorched earth austerity programme in 2010 that was almost beyond parody in its anti-keynesian idiocy. Luckily for us George did a partial u-turn as borrowing refused to come down and he even embraced a bit of stimulus to the housing market (completely the wrong sector of the UK economy to be stimuating but you could argue something was better than nothing). All the worst kind of Tory thinking - get government out the way, don't interfere in the market, unless it's housing, in which case it's all fine.
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Simple: Free market economics works.
This government has worked.
Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
Almost no serious economist would try and defend the whole free markey mantra any more. You think the UK has a stronger economy than socialist Germany or Sweden? Are you having a laugh? Our GDP per head is even $2000 behind France, a 'socialist' country with less debt better infrastructure and higher investment than ours. No amount of stupid right wing newspaper headlines can hide that reality.
Your source for that 2000 claim?
A brief examination of wiki reveals that in 2013 the IMF had France ahead, and the World Bank had Uthe UK ahead.
Un as France massively outgrew us in 2014, your claim does not look well founded.
Worth remembering that Ashcroft polls tend to allocate don`t knows entirely to party for which previously voted(ICM does 50%) thus boosting Cons and Libs.
Though unsure why Ashcroft seems to pick up the largest share of the Green vote while other pollsters show them declining.
I was polled for what was an Ashcroft survey and the Greens were prompted along with BNP & UKIP.
Philip Thompson - why is France a basket case? They don't have their own currency but many of their fundamentals look stronger than the UK. As I say higher GDP per head, less debt, more saving and investment and better infrastructure.
The UK was horribly weakened by thirteen years of Labour malice and incompetence while France prospered under Chirac. Now the roles are reversed.
Comments
Well worth a listen as are some of the others
Going to one of his stand ups / political interviews in Victoria would be a great way for London/SE PBers to meet up
If so he could be in a heap of trouble.
Imagine if in the run-up to the GE he actually travelled to Twickenham and started knocking on the doors of constituents wearing a yellow Lib Dem rosette and actually tried to persuade them to vote for Vince Cable.
And all to win a bet.
If that isnt illegal then it very well should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could I swap my vote in a very marginal constituency for two votes in a less marginal constituency? We need some official exchange rates.
I notice nearly 60% of Green party candidates have an "other" background...I guess it might be a bit niche to break down the sections to include a specific one eco-warrior.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32121316
We need a conspiracy theory stat.
The fact that someone in Twickenham voted for Vince does not mean that OGH is voting for Vince.
Anyone planning to write a vote sharing app ? VotR maybe ?
50,000 seconds
I'd object to any app or otherwise that violates the ballot being secret, but in reality even with photos its easy to fake voting however you like.
i) for the third election in a row the majority of people who even bother to vote will elect nobody.
ii) that in a national election the national votes have no direct bearing on the outcome - the sixth party may come third, while the third party comes eighth, first comes second, etc...
iii) 70% of the winners will once again have seats for life.
iv) I have no choice but to vote for the one donkey in a rosette offered by a party - a closed list of one!
v) in order to cast an effective vote I may have to vote dishonestly.
vi) 70%+ of the seats (and their voters) will be safely ignored by the parties.
vii) the effectiveness or otherwise of my vote has been decided in advance by an unelected mandarin drawing squiggles on a map.
All these pollster calling out the Weekend YG – now I see his Lordship has joined the gang .
With the SNP's move to the left under Sturgeon and their greater focus on the the central belt aswell it could give the Tories and the Libdems a chance around the fringes of Scotland to gain/hold 1 or 2 seats. (Although the effect of the SNP's shift may well only make a difference in 2016 and beyond)
Staff have been urged to put up "no photography" signs in polling stations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27486392
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gunshots-hit-building-at-national-security-agency-campus-in-fort-meade/2015/03/03/e6a4b11e-c1f7-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html
:tumbleweed:
ii) The national election is a collective of local ones, national total is meaningless.
iii) Nonsense - see Scotland. Winning doesn't mean seats for life, it just means they won.
iv) Wrong, you can join the party and seek to affect the
v) You can cast your vote however you wish. No system other than pure self-reliant anarchy guarantees you get what you want.
vi) No they're not, they're backed the parties representing what that want all the time and not just in 40 days. Just because the Blues won't win Liverpool Walton doesn't mean Labour ignores the wishes of people in Walton.
vii) No, its decided by your neighbours and the tens of thousands of voters in your constituency.
Nothing disgraceful, just bad misinterpretations and/or false assumptions.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/30/drug-abuse-charity-drugscope-closes-lack-funds
Anyone who votes for candidates who come in second or below don't have their votes "not counted" or other nonsense. They lost, pure and simple. There are winners and there are losers in each constituency - no need to change the voting system to placate losers.
So far the Labour party therefore has got away with promising to the benefit claimants and public sector workers that they will gain from the extra Govt spending on them.
Do you think that the list is trying to be 'all manner of consideration' or do you think it's trying to leave windows open?
At least the Thatcherites had the excuse in the 1980s that there were people like Milton Friedman preaching free market economics. What's Osborne's excuse?
Do we know how many each party will get?
Its upto each individual to choose how to vote and each candidate to acquire the most votes. The rules are crystal clear up front.
This government has worked.
Labour and Continental European socialism doesn't work. What's the excuse for that?
I will be waiting to see how much lower he will sink before he loses in less than 6 weeks` time.
Though unsure why Ashcroft seems to pick up the largest share of the Green vote while other pollsters show them declining.
Exactly. David Cameron is promising thirty million workers a tax cut if they vote for him. Is that bribery? Of course not. It is an arbitrary law which was presumably drafted as widely as necessary to punish the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone for voting in a verboten manner.
If you think Osborne's feeble cutting back of less than 2% over a whole parliament is austerity, you have clearly lost touch with that well known right-wing monetarist Denis Healey who cut 4% from spending in one year in 1974, I realise him being Labour, and therefore making "cuddly cuts" is different.
Using your low-education - and despite your "Master" in 'History' - when the EU-vote arrives in 2017 you should be able to transfer your English vote to some politician named after The Netherlands (and used to run Froglundt)...?
:such-a-joke:
Ashcroft’s voting intention question has included UKIP in the main prompt since 2015. People who say they don’t know how they will vote are reallocated based on how they say they voted at the previous election, but at a different ratio to ICM (Ashcroft weights Conservatives and Labour down to 50%, Lib Dems down to 30%, others I think are ignored). In terms of likelihood to vote, Ashcroft weights people according to how likely they say they are to vote in similar way to ICM.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/05/election2005.uk5
and so on. Recognise the building in the 2010 clip? Or is the speech in some sense not political? Because asking for "a mandate from the British people" looks a bit political to me. What tradition do you think has been breached?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-gordon-brown
Unless you care to explain why you think that we should be rewarding losers? Unless you are willing to do that then it's just stating the obvious.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator
As it is across the UK Labour are on 311 and the Tories on 300, so Miliband is 15 short, but minus 25-30 Scottish seats Cameron should lead the largest party and with 25 odd LDs and the DUP just scrape over the 326 margin for confidence and supply
A brief examination of wiki reveals that in 2013 the IMF had France ahead, and the World Bank had Uthe UK ahead.
Un as France massively outgrew us in 2014, your claim does not look well founded.