It is, in fact, a natural consequence of bankrupt FPTP, for those with more than one brain cell...
Only if you are stupid enough to think we are voting for parties rather than individual constituency representatives.You must have given your one brain cell to someone else.
Only 20% can name their MP. Numerous surveys over the years reveal most voters believe they are voting for the PM/party of their choice, and their vote directly influences this, which of course it doesn't...
The highest ever vote for the Natural Law Party was for their Glasgow Maryhill candidate in 1997 whose name happened to be Blair.
I'm not convinced that the SNP stuff is working in itself for the Tories, BUT it's having the advantage of stopping Labour from talking about their top issues, which indirectly I suppose does still help the tories.
We really need some more telephone polls. It is quite clear that the change in Yougov's methodology (using January as a base and trying to measure change from there) simply has not worked. It was a perfectly sound idea but the nature of their panel seems to mean they have far fewer undecided and uncommitted than the average.
It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.
The big thing that we need to know this week is the changes in numbers registered in various swing constituencies. If the electoral roll is really down by 8 000 in Loughborough then those are most likely students and Nicky Morgan is safe. There are a few other such marginal seats and ideally we would have the demography by age, social class and ethnicity in order to determine shifts in how seats will vote.
It matters not only in specific seats but also for turnout calculations and also for most seats/most votes markets.
If the missing couple of million were red and green youngsters then there is no need for 2 million blue, yellow and purple Cornish mothers to shift their vote.
Take away all those groups and YouGov were left with 8% of the electorate who think a Lab/SNP deal of some sort is likely AND think this would be a bad thing AND think a Tory government would be preferable BUT are not already voting Tory.
The above from UK Polling Report and a good analysis of why this Australian ordered Tory camapign is total rubbish. Even the 8% are responding to leading questions in polls. An appeal to so narrow a swing base will not succeed and indeed could prove counterproductive if it crowds out other messages.
It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.
Now around 50% of these people will already be voting SNP but I suspect this anti-Scots Tory tirade will swing a few more into the tartan pile.
The comeback from Labour surely is that a vote for Cameron after hammering at this meme is effectively a vote for ending the UK - and the chaos that would ensue, especially with the EU referendum to contend with and a narrow majority reliant on the bar steward wing of the Tory party. I can't stand the SNP and their fantasies, but after effectively disenfranchising Scottish voters and insulting those they have voted for as 'pickpockets' the answer from Scotland is likely to be that we'll see youse later then. If the Tory party is perceived to have won the election by demonising the Scots it's 300 years up in smoke because people didn't hate Ed Miliband as much as they were supposed to and got bored of hearing nonsensical catch phrases droned on about.
It also helps things turn round the other way and expose the farcical nature of the Tory argument - which is that no government is likely to provide rock solid stability and strong handed government because the country is to divided and the result will be inconclusive.
Nope, I'm still not getting it. The Tories are trying to win the election and may even increase their number of MPs in Scotland (though that is not guaranteed of course, I believe even retaining the single seat they have at present is not certain), and I cannot see how doing that undermines the union. The landslide win of the SNP is undermining the union, how could it not. How can that be prevented? Nothing the Tories can do can prevent it. Hell, it has been argued that the Tories winning the election is the best outcome for the SNP, so the argument then becomes 'Tories winning the UK wide election is unfair to the UK'. I also don't get this disenfranchisement point. Who's disenfranchising them? People vote for Sinn Fein knowing and accepting they will not play a part in UK politics. SNP MPs most certainly will play a part in UK politics, and it is only right and fair that they should, but there's nothing in a unitary state that says they should be included in the government of the UK, and someone pointing out that a party that seeks to end the union might not have the best interests of the union at heart is hardly an unreasonable tactic which means a vote for those saying it is a vote for ending the UK.
The EU referendum argument causing chaos, in particular in relation to Scotland, has some sense to it. While there is no principle that says all parts of the UK should vote separately on the issue, this being a unitary state still, not a federation, it certainly can be argued that holding one and not doing that stirs up that issue. But with an SNP landslide, these issues are already on the horizon.
The point about exposing the argument about stability given the outcomes are all going to involve horsetrading and tight majorities through coalition, is I think one that is viable, certainly in countering the 'coalition of chaos' argument somewhat.
We really need some more telephone polls. It is quite clear that the change in Yougov's methodology (using January as a base and trying to measure change from there) simply has not worked. It was a perfectly sound idea but the nature of their panel seems to mean they have far fewer undecided and uncommitted than the average.
It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.
The big thing that we need to know this week is the changes in numbers registered in various swing constituencies. If the electoral roll is realy down by 8 000 in Loughborough then those are most likely students and Nicky Morgan is safe. There are a few others and ideally we would have the demography by age, social class and ethnicity in order to determine shifts in how seats will vote.
It matters not only in specific seats but also for turnout calculations and also for most seats/most votes markets.
If the missing couple of million were red and green youngsters then there is no need for 2 million blue, yellow and purple Cornish mothers to shift their vote.
Will we ever have enough information to work out what the effect will be with any confidence? I have reservations about what the gross reductions or increases tell us.
What we are seeing is the consequences of the dishonest tactics used to keep rotten boroughs and exaggerated representation by denying the boundary changes exacerbated yet further. A vote in Liverpool Riverside is now worth almost twice as much as in some constituencies.
''It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.''
So what. So effing what. Personally I;ve had a gutsfull of Scotland and the Scots in the last 18 months, and with every passing day I wish I little more you had voted for independence.
Sun Politics retweeted Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 13m13 minutes ago For those enjoying @MarinaHyde's column tonight, worth knowing, for balance, #Labour have excluded The Sun from Miliband events for a month.
Today The Sun tomorrow Putin taken on!!
Basically Miliband has the guts to show two fingers to Murdoch !
''It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.''
So what. So effing what. Personally I;ve had a gutsfull of Scotland and the Scots in the last 18 months, and with every passing day I wish I little more you had voted for independence.
We really need some more telephone polls. It is quite clear that the change in Yougov's methodology (using January as a base and trying to measure change from there) simply has not worked. It was a perfectly sound idea but the nature of their panel seems to mean they have far fewer undecided and uncommitted than the average.
It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.
If it 'may be the case that simply nothing is happening' then how can it be 'quite clear the change [in methodology] simply has not worked'? It there's the possibility it is right, and it's just very boring, then it cannot be certain it hasn't worked, surely.
Maybe I have not expressed that well. It just seems to me that since they brought in the change Yougov have been unnaturally moribund with nothing outside the MoE. The other polls have had more of the natural variation one might expect.
As you say they may be right and the other pollsters wrong but it seems just too flat to me.
I was just being pedantic really. Considering the lack of coherent comment floating around here this evening, and of which I am frequently guilty of, it was a bit rich of me to quibble. I take your point about being unnaturally moribund (great expression, that) - it's been even more boring that usual it seems.
it's fecking clear that the Miliband=Sturgeon meme is working for Tories
Is it? Christ, how far behind would they be if they didnt have this to rely on?
Oh, I entirely agree. I think the Tory campaign has been bloody dismal. It should have been far more aggressive and ferocious on the last Labour government's terrible, terrible failures (on all fronts). They could, for instance, have used my Telegraph blog to that point.
.. which I modestly think is the most articulate demolition of New Labour ever written, ever, by anyone, in the universe.
Instead they've been mincing around going on about stuff I can't even remember.
The only meme to hit home is this Scottish angle. Presumably their focus groups are confirming this, so they are now dutifully repeating it.
I totally agree that New Labour was the worst government this country ever had. But Ed Miliband has killed it, it's Old Labour now, the only thing left from New Labour is Umunna.
Worse than that. Ed Milliband has preserved the worst bits of New Labour: its authoritarianism, its dismal embrace of identity politics and its contempt for civil liberties and free speech.
Oh! You live in Scotland under the SNP? Welcome to life under the Yestapo. The Labour party is a paean of democracy in comparison.
Sun Politics retweeted Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 13m13 minutes ago For those enjoying @MarinaHyde's column tonight, worth knowing, for balance, #Labour have excluded The Sun from Miliband events for a month.
Today The Sun tomorrow Putin taken on!!
Basically Miliband has the guts to show two fingers to Murdoch !
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't. But they keep plugging away with it because they love it so much.
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't. But they keep plugging away with it because they love it so much.
''It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.''
So what. So effing what. Personally I;ve had a gutsfull of Scotland and the Scots in the last 18 months, and with every passing day I wish I little more you had voted for independence.
So why did we beg them to stay in the Union ?
Well I believe in it, but plenty don't or didn't care much one way or the other. It's always been known that rUK, particularly the English bit, might get fed up of the perception that Scotland's demands never cease.
I'm not fed up, the Scots are voting for the party they think will best represent their interests at Westminster, even if I'd prefer they hadn't felt a separatist party was the best choice, as even if they don't think so, that makes the union inevitable, for the above and other reasons I fear. I cannot see the SNP slipping up like PQ.
It is, in fact, a natural consequence of bankrupt FPTP, for those with more than one brain cell...
Only if you are stupid enough to think we are voting for parties rather than individual constituency representatives.You must have given your one brain cell to someone else.
Only 20% can name their MP. Numerous surveys over the years reveal most voters believe they are voting for the PM/party of their choice, and their vote directly influences this, which of course it doesn't...
The highest ever vote for the Natural Law Party was for their Glasgow Maryhill candidate in 1997 whose name happened to be Blair.
I rest my case. Most voters, and many sadly still on PB, really don't understand FPTP.
It was farcical (and the LDs greatest strategic error since nurturing the nascent Labour party 1900-1910) to ask the largely innumerate electors' opinion (and at the most inopportune time)...
We really need some more telephone polls. It is quite clear that the change in Yougov's methodology (using January as a base and trying to measure change from there) simply has not worked. It was a perfectly sound idea but the nature of their panel seems to mean they have far fewer undecided and uncommitted than the average.
It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.
The big thing that we need to know this week is the changes in numbers registered in various swing constituencies. If the electoral roll is realy down by 8 000 in Loughborough then those are most likely students and Nicky Morgan is safe. There are a few others and ideally we would have the demography by age, social class and ethnicity in order to determine shifts in how seats will vote.
It matters not only in specific seats but also for turnout calculations and also for most seats/most votes markets.
If the missing couple of million were red and green youngsters then there is no need for 2 million blue, yellow and purple Cornish mothers to shift their vote.
Will we ever have enough information to work out what the effect will be with any confidence? I have reservations about what the gross reductions or increases tell us.
What we are seeing is the consequences of the dishonest tactics used to keep rotten boroughs and exaggerated representation by denying the boundary changes exacerbated yet further. A vote in Liverpool Riverside is now worth almost twice as much as in some constituencies.
I do not think there is time for detailed demographic analysis, but if we knew the drop in voters in each council district, we would get some feel as to whether the changes are going to tilt a parliamentary seat one way or another.
With time short it would be useful to concentrate on marginal seats.
It is, in fact, a natural consequence of bankrupt FPTP, for those with more than one brain cell...
Only if you are stupid enough to think we are voting for parties rather than individual constituency representatives.You must have given your one brain cell to someone else.
Only 20% can name their MP. Numerous surveys over the years reveal most voters believe they are voting for the PM/party of their choice, and their vote directly influences this, which of course it doesn't...
The highest ever vote for the Natural Law Party was for their Glasgow Maryhill candidate in 1997 whose name happened to be Blair.
Your reuters link is from 1 September and refers to May talking about 'dereliction of duty'.
On 8 September Parliament heard evidence that a Home Office researcher had been threatened by South Yorkshire police officers on behalf of child abusers.
That is outright collaboration of the police with child abusers - a far more serious issue than mere 'dereliction of duty'
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't.
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't. But they keep plugging away with it because they love it so much.
Do you seriously believe a Lab/SNP arrangement is going to work out well? Really?
It is, in fact, a natural consequence of bankrupt FPTP, for those with more than one brain cell...
Only if you are stupid enough to think we are voting for parties rather than individual constituency representatives.You must have given your one brain cell to someone else.
Only 20% can name their MP. Numerous surveys over the years reveal most voters believe they are voting for the PM/party of their choice, and their vote directly influences this, which of course it doesn't...
The highest ever vote for the Natural Law Party was for their Glasgow Maryhill candidate in 1997 whose name happened to be Blair.
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't. But they keep plugging away with it because they love it so much.
Keep up the self-delusion.
You do it - for another 15 days. Anyway you told us that you re-arranged your assets in December in anticipation of a Miliband victory . So , not a surprise to you.
But Miliband must have surprised you in this campaign ?
It is, in fact, a natural consequence of bankrupt FPTP, for those with more than one brain cell...
Only if you are stupid enough to think we are voting for parties rather than individual constituency representatives.You must have given your one brain cell to someone else.
Only 20% can name their MP. Numerous surveys over the years reveal most voters believe they are voting for the PM/party of their choice, and their vote directly influences this, which of course it doesn't...
The highest ever vote for the Natural Law Party was for their Glasgow Maryhill candidate in 1997 whose name happened to be Blair.
''It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.''
You get the feeling yougov is asking the same committed people the same questions and getting the same answers.
Their 'NowCast' is slightly more interesting since I assume it picks up the VI question at the start of their marketing research questionnaires to try and give constituency forecasts. But even so, there aren't really the tools available to explore if there is anything much happening there.
What exactly is the "private benefit" btw? It to far too remote and nebulous, for any court to take an interest. It would only be tangible in any event if the majority in the constituency was exactly 1 (or a tie). Last happened in 1910 (or 1886).
The private benefit is the promise of the other party to vote in a certain fashion or to refrain from voting. Even if it has a marginal effect on the election or might be of marginal benefit to the promisee when considered objectively, that is enough to constitute sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law (Bainbridge v Firmstone (1838) 112 ER 1019 (KB); Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87, 114 (HL) per Lord Somervell of Harrow).
Your reuters link is from 1 September and refers to May talking about 'dereliction of duty'.
On 8 September Parliament heard evidence that a Home Office researcher had been threatened by South Yorkshire police officers on behalf of child abusers.
That is outright collaboration of the police with child abusers - a far more serious issue than mere 'dereliction of duty'
What was Theresa May's response to that ?
OK, I see you've now retreated from the absolutely ludicrous claim you made earlier that Theresa May had 'said nothing'. Thank you for accepting my point on that - as I said, a 5 -second Google search showed how daft it was. She has been forthright and unambiguous on the matter.
Now we've established that, let's turn to the second point: that she has 'done nothing'. Here you might be on stronger ground, except that you've completely failed to understand the timescales for taking action. The Jay report was delivered only a few months ago. We live in a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The Home Secretary does not have the power or inclination to intervene personally in criminal cases - thank goodness. However, the implication that nothing is being done is as ludicrous as your suggestion that she had said nothing. There are multiple criminal investigations continuing, perpetrators are successfully being prosecuted, the IPCC is investigating multiple officers of South Yorks police. This stuff takes time. Sure, hot-heads want instant action, but in the real world assembling evidence and pursuing cases that will stand up in court takes a very, very long time.
Happy St George's day from Beijing. Plane home today. Can't wait.
On the GE, with all this polling being done I am very surprised that no-one seems to have bothered to do one that focuses on the Midlands. That is where things will be decided and, I suspect, the Tories are doing pretty well there, Broxtowe (perhaps) notwithstanding.
SeanT's point about the potential UKIP upside for the Tories is an important one, but following on from that I just do not see how he gets to a Labour plurality given the almost total wipe-out that is coming in Scotland. Where on earth are the compensatory 50-60 gains in England and Wales going to come from? Remember, a lot of the red LDs returning to the Labour fold will be voting in safe Labour seats.
You do it - for another 15 days. Anyway you told us that you re-arranged your assets in December in anticipation of a Miliband victory . So , not a surprise to you.
But Miliband must have surprised you in this campaign ?
He hasn't surprised me at all. He has continued, as I expected, to come up with facile and trivial echoes of focus-group concerns, but without coming up with any serious policies to address them. There's a big market for that - unlike many Labour supporters, I never thought he'd be a disaster in electoral terms. Indeed I spent much of 2011 on here making that point, and I bet on Labour then at very good odds.
He may, God help us, become PM. If so, he will be the worst in living memory.
I think the Tory SNP line is a core vote strategy- might achieve some inner glow, but is not going to shift votes. That is the problem- Tories love it because it is telling them something they want to hear and think, nay believe, will shift votes. But it won't.
Not what the polling says
Polling says alot of things, but does it shift votes? As a Labourite, what worries me most is when the Tories talk of building a strong economy because they want to build good public services. This makes me twitch nervously- win, win- you get a good economy and you get public services. And the message is overwhelmingly positive. And the Tories can promote both, whilst deftly hitting at Labour.
It strikes me that the Tories do not want to fight this election in this way- maybe because they don't believe in public services. So as said they are much happier to lurch back into a core vote strategy that will ultimately end in defeat.
Take away all those groups and YouGov were left with 8% of the electorate who think a Lab/SNP deal of some sort is likely AND think this would be a bad thing AND think a Tory government would be preferable BUT are not already voting Tory.
The above from UK Polling Report and a good analysis of why this Australian ordered Tory camapign is total rubbish. Even the 8% are responding to leading questions in polls. An appeal to so narrow a swing base will not succeed and indeed could prove counterproductive if it crowds out other messages.
It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.
Now around 50% of these people will already be voting SNP but I suspect this anti-Scots Tory tirade will swing a few more into the tartan pile.
8% would take the tories from 34% to 42% and Labour would suffer proportionately. Instead of a 4% swing to Labour in the marginals we would have a 4% swing at least to the Tories. In the context of margins, 8% is massive.
We really need some more telephone polls. It is quite clear that the change in Yougov's methodology (using January as a base and trying to measure change from there) simply has not worked. It was a perfectly sound idea but the nature of their panel seems to mean they have far fewer undecided and uncommitted than the average.
It may be the case that simply nothing is happening but I would like to see some telephone polls before I take it as gospel.
The big thing that we need to know this week is the changes in numbers registered in various swing constituencies. If the electoral roll is realy down by 8 000 in Loughborough then those are most likely students and Nicky Morgan is safe. There are a few others and ideally we would have the demography by age, social class and ethnicity in order to determine shifts in how seats will vote.
It matters not only in specific seats but also for turnout calculations and also for most seats/most votes markets.
If the missing couple of million were red and green youngsters then there is no need for 2 million blue, yellow and purple Cornish mothers to shift their vote.
Will we ever have enough information to work out what the effect will be with any confidence? I have reservations about what the gross reductions or increases tell us.
What we are seeing is the consequences of the dishonest tactics used to keep rotten boroughs and exaggerated representation by denying the boundary changes exacerbated yet further. A vote in Liverpool Riverside is now worth almost twice as much as in some constituencies.
Liverpool Riverside had an electorate in 2010 of 74,539 - higher than the average!
It will be very interesting to see the final electorate figures for this GE. Of course Con lost out by not getting the boundary changes but it may be that the constituencies are actually fairer in 2015 than they were in 2010 - London (and in particular Inner London) is the fastest growing area of the UK - where almost all seats are Lab.
''It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.''
So what. So effing what. Personally I;ve had a gutsfull of Scotland and the Scots in the last 18 months, and with every passing day I wish I little more you had voted for independence.
Take it up with the Brit Nat politicians that offered the fearties a bribe then.
Nope, I'm still not getting it. The Tories are trying to win the election and may even
The point about exposing the argument about stability given the outcomes are all going to involve horsetrading and tight majorities through coalition, is I think one that is viable, certainly in countering the 'coalition of chaos' argument somewhat.
It's to do with the level of the rhetoric, no one is saying the SNP should be in government. There won't be an SNP-Lab coalition, for several very obvious reasons. The SNP may even have to vote for a Labour budget and QS that contains very little in the way of its demands if they are well designed enough (perhaps calling the Nats' bluff on fiscal autonomy for example) - what's the alternative, vote with the Tories? It's fair enough to warn about it, making it the centre-piece of your entire campaign and warning that no government supported on a vote-by-vote by SNP politicians should ever take power really is playing with fire. I doubt the Scots will see it your way. If it's successful, it doesn't take a genius to work out how this ends - Sturgeon and Salmond get their 50 odd MPs, Cameron scrapes in with or without the Lib Dems, and the narrative becomes that Scotland was defrauded by the Tories' tactics and promise a second referendum if they win 2016 that's even more potent if future cuts are as frontloaded as Osborne says and an EU referendum. Yes would then walk it.
Both arguments speculate about what would happen after the election, in a way that's unhelpful to your opponents by pointing out the worst case scenarios as a result of their actions. The general point is that the utter chaos that would ensue from a weak Cameron government hasn't often been explored enough.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
With current forecasts, such as the Newsnight Index, the chances of the DUP having a decisive part to play in which parties take power after the election must be quite high — possibly over 50%.
Now we've established that, let's turn to the second point: that she has 'done nothing'. Here you might be on stronger ground, except that you've completely failed to understand the timescales for taking action. The Jay report was delivered only a few months ago. We live in a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The Home Secretary does not have the power or inclination to intervene personally in criminal cases - thank goodness. However, the implication that nothing is being done is as ludicrous as your suggestion that she had said nothing. There are multiple criminal investigations continuing, perpetrators are successfully being prosecuted, the IPCC is investigating multiple officers of South Yorks police. This stuff takes time. Sure, hot-heads want instant action, but in the real world assembling evidence and pursuing cases that will stand up in court takes a very, very long time.
Yet again you are wrong.
I said that Theresa May had said nothing and done nothing about the revelation that South Yorkshire police officers had threatened a Home Office researcher.
As you are unable to link to anything that Theresa May has said or done about that revelation then I assume you are willing to accept I am right.
Now to your main point.
You are willing for the 'system' to proceed as the 'system' says.
My point is that the 'system' has failed and so outside investigation is needed.
Such outside investigation was instigated by Eric Pickles re Rotherham Council. And this outside investigation has led to action namely Rotherham council being revealed as 'unfit for purpose' and placed into special measures.
I think a similar outside investigation should be launched into the South Yorkshire Police.
Instead you would prefer the 'system' to continue and an IPCC to take place, taking years and most likely a whitewash at the end.
As happened regarding the Rochdale police.
Regarding the timescales the Times investigation was back in 2012, shortly afterwards the Home Affairs Select Committee made damning comments about the SYP.
So why didn't the IPCC launch an investigation then ?
When Keith Vaz sets the standard for prompt and purposeful action then something is badly wrong with the official bodies.
The whole dredful Rotherham story has had a continual theme of government agencies claiming that there wasn't a problem.
So why should we assume that the IPCC are any different ? Well I don't.
Ultimately RN we have different viewpoints - you are an establishment supporter and trust in the 'system'. Perhaps your past experiences bring you to that viewpoint but mine do not. In line with what Sean Fear wrote on the previous thread I now believe that the establishment in this country is 'endemically corrupt', certainly my knowledge of the establishment in my part of the world backs up this view.
With current forecasts, such as the Newsnight Index, the chances of the DUP having a decisive part to play in which parties take power after the election must be quite high — possibly over 50%.
It's not 50%, but it is quite high as they will talk to both Labour and the Tories.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
What exactly is the "private benefit" btw? It to far too remote and nebulous, for any court to take an interest. It would only be tangible in any event if the majority in the constituency was exactly 1 (or a tie). Last happened in 1910 (or 1886).
The private benefit is the promise of the other party to vote in a certain fashion or to refrain from voting. Even if it has a marginal effect on the election or might be of marginal benefit to the promisee when considered objectively, that is enough to constitute sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law (Bainbridge v Firmstone (1838) 112 ER 1019 (KB); Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87, 114 (HL) per Lord Somervell of Harrow).
The problem you have is none of these old cases deal with voting. In the US, which has some authority here, the courts have decided that vote-swapping, indeed websites which encourage such, are protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt, for slightly different reasons, that our courts would find the same.
I see no difference between a man persuading his wife and children to vote Labour because "we'll all be better off", and two acquaintances persuading each other to vote howsoever for the same end.
It's just too nebulous, remote and intangible, and almost certainly "protected" in any case as far as the law is concerned.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Which side did you support in the referendum?
I was Yes. I thought it would be obvious. I would vote to get out of EU if that ever happens, it would be a peg on the nose vote though. Oh and I once voted Tory much to my fathers fury and my mothers delight, but not since Heath have I done that nor has my mother. His decision to drag us into EU without a referendum didn't go down to well in these parts and many have never forgiven the Tories for that.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
on the hastag #walesdebate it seems Leanne Wood gave a very good performance in the Welsh debate, introducing the catchphrase "they say it, we mean it" and Labour's Carwyn Jones didn't even turn up. With pollsters already putting Plaid on 4 seats, things are starting to look up for them.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Which side did you support in the referendum?
Very deadpan, Andy
btw, thanks @mikesmithson for the Montgomeryshire info. I'm putting together a basket of constituencies that the tories will need for most seats - Montgomery came back onto my radar. If the non-Lembit LD does win it back, it'll probably be more about the local LD's indefatigability than the tories having a bad night overall.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Which side did you support in the referendum?
With the "Itwasrigged" name
Tongue well in cheek when I thought that one up. My family went pretty much 50:50 on Referendum. I personally thought it came too early. Too many fearties.
Looks like Leanne has smashed it out the park in the Wales debate tonight.
I can't imagine how badly Carwyn Jones failing to show will play. Labour in Wales are accused of arrogance just as much as SLAB ever were. But the idea of the SLAB leader not turning up to an election debate is unthinkable.
The more I think about this, the bigger it could actually be. Every party will benefit from this, with the biggest benefit probably going to Plaid.
Looks like Leanne has smashed it out the park in the Wales debate tonight.
I can't imagine how badly Carwyn Jones failing to show will play. Labour in Wales are accused of arrogance just as much as SLAB ever were. But the idea of the SLAB leader not turning up to an election debate is unthinkable.
The more I think about this, the bigger it could actually be. Every party will benefit from this, with the biggest benefit probably going to Plaid.
Aberconwy was Labour's 326th seat by odds @ 9-4. 4-9 for the Tories looks even better than before here imo with Plaid probably taking the Labour vote now (See Cleggasm)
The problem you have is none of these old cases deal with voting. In the US, which has some authority here, the courts have decided that vote-swapping, indeed websites which encourage such, are protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt, for slightly different reasons, that our courts would find the same.
I see no difference between a man persuading his wife and children to vote Labour because "we'll all be better off", and two acquaintances persuading each other to vote howsoever for the same end.
It's just too nebulous, remote and intangible, and almost certainly "protected" in any case as far as the law is concerned.
Old cases? Lord Somervell of Harrow's short speech in Chappell v Nestle is the leading authority on consideration! It is trite law that a promise to do something may be consideration. Bainbridge v Firmstone and Chappell v Nestle are the classic authorities for the fact that parties may stipulate for what consideration they like, regardless of the fact that a reasonable man would consider it worthless, intangible or remote.
In English law, the legality of vote swapping depends on the construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss. 113(5)-(6) and the Bribery Act 2010. There is nothing to suggest that prohibiting vote swapping would engage any right under the ECHR, let alone amount to an infringement of one. The courts would thus construe the statute by reference to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words Parliament used.
The moral (and legal) difference between vote swapping and the man persuading his family to vote Labour on the ground that they will be better off is clear. The expected benefit to the family derives from the legitimate exercise of public authority. It is not a private inducement to vote a certain way in return for a reward.
The problem you have is none of these old cases deal with voting. In the US, which has some authority here, the courts have decided that vote-swapping, indeed websites which encourage such, are protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt, for slightly different reasons, that our courts would find the same.
I see no difference between a man persuading his wife and children to vote Labour because "we'll all be better off", and two acquaintances persuading each other to vote howsoever for the same end.
It's just too nebulous, remote and intangible, and almost certainly "protected" in any case as far as the law is concerned.
Old cases? Lord Somervell of Harrow's short speech in Chappell v Nestle is the leading authority on consideration! It is trite law that a promise to do something may be consideration. Bainbridge v Firmstone and Chappell v Nestle are the classic authorities for the fact that parties may stipulate for what consideration they like, regardless of the fact that a reasonable man would consider it worthless, intangible or remote.
In English law, the legality of vote swapping depends on the construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss. 113(5)-(6) and the Bribery Act 2010. There is nothing to suggest that prohibiting vote swapping would engage any right under the ECHR, let alone amount to an infringement of one. The courts would thus construe the statute by reference to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words Parliament used.
The moral (and legal) difference between vote swapping and the man persuading his family to vote Labour on the ground that they will be better off is clear. The expected benefit to the family derives from the legitimate exercise of public authority. It is not a private inducement to vote a certain way in return for a reward.
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
Many Labour supporters do seem to be waking up to the dangers of the SNP. It's just a question of whether enough of them wake up in what is now the most important election in a generation. With completed postal votes already being returned, time is very much running against us.
The problem you have is none of these old cases deal with voting. In the US, which has some authority here, the courts have decided that vote-swapping, indeed websites which encourage such, are protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt, for slightly different reasons, that our courts would find the same.
I see no difference between a man persuading his wife and children to vote Labour because "we'll all be better off", and two acquaintances persuading each other to vote howsoever for the same end.
It's just too nebulous, remote and intangible, and almost certainly "protected" in any case as far as the law is concerned.
Old cases? Lord Somervell of Harrow's short speech in Chappell v Nestle is the leading authority on consideration! It is trite law that a promise to do something may be consideration. Bainbridge v Firmstone and Chappell v Nestle are the classic authorities for the fact that parties may stipulate for what consideration they like, regardless of the fact that a reasonable man would consider it worthless, intangible or remote.
In English law, the legality of vote swapping depends on the construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss. 113(5)-(6) and the Bribery Act 2010. There is nothing to suggest that prohibiting vote swapping would engage any right under the ECHR, let alone amount to an infringement of one. The courts would thus construe the statute by reference to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words Parliament used.
The moral (and legal) difference between vote swapping and the man persuading his family to vote Labour on the ground that they will be better off is clear. The expected benefit to the family derives from the legitimate exercise of public authority. It is not a private inducement to vote a certain way in return for a reward.
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
You can conceive of all sorts of scenarios where people might alter their vote in exchange for another doing the same.
Husband: I like the Greens, but they can't win (under FPTP), so I'm not voting for them... Wife: Me too, but they could win if enough people voted for them, of course. Husband: True, but not enough people will. Wife: Well, I will, if you will! Now, there's TWO votes. Husband: OK, it's a deal! [Btw, I'm feeling horny tonight...]
It would be negligent in the extreme for Dave not to talk about the SNP. Everyone knows lab seats + SNP support is the only way Miliband gets near number 10. So we absolutely should be having a proper conversation as a country about what it would mean. It's just labour don't want to discuss it because they know it's bad for them, and would be bad for our country.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Which side did you support in the referendum?
With the "Itwasrigged" name
Tongue well in cheek when I thought that one up. My family went pretty much 50:50 on Referendum. I personally thought it came too early. Too many fearties.
I forgot to add that I have nothing but contempt for the fearties that voted No because when you have been stuck in a force 9 in the North Sea and the boys who have been fishing for years if not decades are throwing up their guts and finding religion again well after that not a lot scares you.
One possible reason amongst many why the electorate is turning to the SNP in Scotland is the dearth of talent in the Brit Nat Parties. Well we don't exactly have a great choice. The SNP just tend to have the best politicians up here at the moment, that is if you can get beyond the Press and Media bias. The older more able Liberals are past their sell by date or discredited themselves. The more able Tories flee south looking for safe seats or they go off to make loads of dosh. As for Labour well they got lazy and took their vote for granted and the Press and Media bias meant most of them became victims of their own propaganda; they thought themselves invulnerable and even in some cases actually talented political heavy weights.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Which side did you support in the referendum?
With the "Itwasrigged" name
Tongue well in cheek when I thought that one up. My family went pretty much 50:50 on Referendum. I personally thought it came too early. Too many fearties.
I have nothing but contempt for the fearties that voted No
That's what lost you the last referendum - keep up the good work!
And finally, if you HAD to choose, which would you rather have? OA (Midlands/Wales) A Labour led government with SNP support: 38 (33) A Conservative led government: 47 (49)
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
So what level of money should you be allowed to contract to sell your vote for? Would £50, £5, or 50 pence be de minimis? Bribery is bribery. Interest reipublicæ ne maleficia remaneant impunita.
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
So what level of money should you be allowed to contract to sell your vote for? Would £50, £5, or 50 pence be de minimis? Bribery is bribery. Interest reipublicæ ne maleficia remaneant impunita.
Its like the old George Bernard Shaw joke.
Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Well, I suppose so....
Would you sleep with me for £5?
What do you think I am?!?
Madam, we've established what you are, we're merely haggling over the price.....
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
So what level of money should you be allowed to contract to sell your vote for? Would £50, £5, or 50 pence be de minimis? Bribery is bribery. Interest reipublicæ ne maleficia remaneant impunita.
No amount, although the value of a sausage roll could conceivably form the basis of an imminent test case...
We're not talking about money though in the "Smithson Case." Merely two intelligent people, during political discourse, agreeing jointly to do what appears to be in their best interests. Just like any other two voters, Husband/Wife etc, quite possibly...
Chance of their agreement being both successful and the determining factor?
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
So what level of money should you be allowed to contract to sell your vote for? Would £50, £5, or 50 pence be de minimis? Bribery is bribery. Interest reipublicæ ne maleficia remaneant impunita.
Its like the old George Bernard Shaw joke.
Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Well, I suppose so....
Would you sleep with me for £5?
What do you think I am?!?
Madam, we've established what you are, we're merely haggling over the price.....
I'm sure that's been ascribed to Churchill too. Highly Apocryphal...
And if the wife said: "I only agreed because he promised to wash the dishes for the next month..." would the courts be interested?
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
So what level of money should you be allowed to contract to sell your vote for? Would £50, £5, or 50 pence be de minimis? Bribery is bribery. Interest reipublicæ ne maleficia remaneant impunita.
Its like the old George Bernard Shaw joke.
Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Well, I suppose so....
Would you sleep with me for £5?
What do you think I am?!?
Madam, we've established what you are, we're merely haggling over the price.....
I'm sure that's been ascribed to Churchill too. Highly Apocryphal...
No amount, although the value of a sausage roll could conceivably form the basis of an imminent test case...
We're not talking about money though in the "Smithson Case." Merely two intelligent people, during political discourse, agreeing jointly to do what appears to be in their best interests. Just like any other two voters, Husband/Wife etc, quite possibly...
Chance of their agreement being both successful and the determining factor?
Close to 0.000000
Bribing just one voter in a safe seat is an offence notwithstanding that it will likely have no effect on the result. As soon as you accept that all forms of money bribe are unacceptable, it follows benefits in kind and other inducements are as well. How would you feel about an agreement between ten voters in a safe seat and one voter in a marginal seat? Or if a wife "freely" made a declaration of trust over her vote in favour of her husband? Parliament has conferred the franchise on individuals. It is not property to be bought and sold, whether in exchange for someone else's franchise or anything else.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Maryhill_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1990s
That promise. Tens of thousands. How he must be regretting it.
It matters not only in specific seats but also for turnout calculations and also for most seats/most votes markets.
If the missing couple of million were red and green youngsters then there is no need for 2 million blue, yellow and purple Cornish mothers to shift their vote.
The above from UK Polling Report and a good analysis of why this Australian ordered Tory camapign is total rubbish. Even the 8% are responding to leading questions in polls. An appeal to so narrow a swing base will not succeed and indeed could prove counterproductive if it crowds out other messages.
It is, however, a findamentally anti-Scottish campaign and not 8% but around 80% of Scots will be offended by for example the Daily Mail front page.
Now around 50% of these people will already be voting SNP but I suspect this anti-Scots Tory tirade will swing a few more into the tartan pile.
The EU referendum argument causing chaos, in particular in relation to Scotland, has some sense to it. While there is no principle that says all parts of the UK should vote separately on the issue, this being a unitary state still, not a federation, it certainly can be argued that holding one and not doing that stirs up that issue. But with an SNP landslide, these issues are already on the horizon.
The point about exposing the argument about stability given the outcomes are all going to involve horsetrading and tight majorities through coalition, is I think one that is viable, certainly in countering the 'coalition of chaos' argument somewhat.
You've gone completely mad on this subject. This is Theresa May 'saying nothing', as you ludicrously claimed:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/uk-britain-abuse-may-idUKKBN0GX1UU20140902
What we are seeing is the consequences of the dishonest tactics used to keep rotten boroughs and exaggerated representation by denying the boundary changes exacerbated yet further. A vote in Liverpool Riverside is now worth almost twice as much as in some constituencies.
So what. So effing what. Personally I;ve had a gutsfull of Scotland and the Scots in the last 18 months, and with every passing day I wish I little more you had voted for independence.
Good night all.
I don;t think we did. David Cameron did because of his own personal vanity.
I'm not fed up, the Scots are voting for the party they think will best represent their interests at Westminster, even if I'd prefer they hadn't felt a separatist party was the best choice, as even if they don't think so, that makes the union inevitable, for the above and other reasons I fear. I cannot see the SNP slipping up like PQ.
It was farcical (and the LDs greatest strategic error since nurturing the nascent Labour party 1900-1910) to ask the largely innumerate electors' opinion (and at the most inopportune time)...
And a good night for real this time.
With time short it would be useful to concentrate on marginal seats.
In 1992, it was 310 candidates, and 310 lost deposits
Those links show May's inaction.
Your reuters link is from 1 September and refers to May talking about 'dereliction of duty'.
On 8 September Parliament heard evidence that a Home Office researcher had been threatened by South Yorkshire police officers on behalf of child abusers.
That is outright collaboration of the police with child abusers - a far more serious issue than mere 'dereliction of duty'
What was Theresa May's response to that ?
@tombradby: If uncertainty over how you would deal with the SNP becomes a bar to people voting for you, then you would do better to talk about it.
But Miliband must have surprised you in this campaign ?
Then Mike can put up a thread saying 'CON 8% ahead - looks good for Miliband'!
Now we've established that, let's turn to the second point: that she has 'done nothing'. Here you might be on stronger ground, except that you've completely failed to understand the timescales for taking action. The Jay report was delivered only a few months ago. We live in a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The Home Secretary does not have the power or inclination to intervene personally in criminal cases - thank goodness. However, the implication that nothing is being done is as ludicrous as your suggestion that she had said nothing. There are multiple criminal investigations continuing, perpetrators are successfully being prosecuted, the IPCC is investigating multiple officers of South Yorks police. This stuff takes time. Sure, hot-heads want instant action, but in the real world assembling evidence and pursuing cases that will stand up in court takes a very, very long time.
On the GE, with all this polling being done I am very surprised that no-one seems to have bothered to do one that focuses on the Midlands. That is where things will be decided and, I suspect, the Tories are doing pretty well there, Broxtowe (perhaps) notwithstanding.
SeanT's point about the potential UKIP upside for the Tories is an important one, but following on from that I just do not see how he gets to a Labour plurality given the almost total wipe-out that is coming in Scotland. Where on earth are the compensatory 50-60 gains in England and Wales going to come from? Remember, a lot of the red LDs returning to the Labour fold will be voting in safe Labour seats.
He may, God help us, become PM. If so, he will be the worst in living memory.
As a Labourite, what worries me most is when the Tories talk of building a strong economy because they want to build good public services. This makes me twitch nervously- win, win- you get a good economy and you get public services. And the message is overwhelmingly positive. And the Tories can promote both, whilst deftly hitting at Labour.
It strikes me that the Tories do not want to fight this election in this way- maybe because they don't believe in public services. So as said they are much happier to lurch back into a core vote strategy that will ultimately end in defeat.
It will be very interesting to see the final electorate figures for this GE. Of course Con lost out by not getting the boundary changes but it may be that the constituencies are actually fairer in 2015 than they were in 2010 - London (and in particular Inner London) is the fastest growing area of the UK - where almost all seats are Lab.
Both arguments speculate about what would happen after the election, in a way that's unhelpful to your opponents by pointing out the worst case scenarios as a result of their actions. The general point is that the utter chaos that would ensue from a weak Cameron government hasn't often been explored enough.
I look at my own constituency and see what Angus Robertson has up against him. Well Douglas Ross, the Tory a publicity seeking chancer in my view who has even been kicked off the Tory group on the local council which is now possibly one of the most reviled and unpopular councils in Scotland. Two SNP council gains since referendum is evidence enough of that. Sean Morton the Labour candidate who is another local councillor and has an altogether too high opinion of himself and I find him repellent personally and he slept with the Tories during the Referendum. But for the anti Democratic STV voting system he wouldn't get elected t the council in my view. I think my RMT shop steward father if he were living would deck him and then spit on him. I couldn't even tell you who the Lib Dem candidate is. There is a UKIP candidate who will probably peel a few votes off the Tories but not many, out of his depth, have actually had a leaflet from him which is more than I have had from the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories. Two thus far from the SNP.
I will be voting for Robertson because I trust him to look out for Morays interests. I don't particularly rate him as a politician but if SNP takes 40 plus seats then as SNP campaign organiser this will be a triumph for him. Oh and he married on of my neighbours. If the Tories were hoping for a referendum bounce then I don't think it will happen. Not here at any rate, Robertson is too boring to aggravate too many people.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
I said that Theresa May had said nothing and done nothing about the revelation that South Yorkshire police officers had threatened a Home Office researcher.
As you are unable to link to anything that Theresa May has said or done about that revelation then I assume you are willing to accept I am right.
Now to your main point.
You are willing for the 'system' to proceed as the 'system' says.
My point is that the 'system' has failed and so outside investigation is needed.
Such outside investigation was instigated by Eric Pickles re Rotherham Council. And this outside investigation has led to action namely Rotherham council being revealed as 'unfit for purpose' and placed into special measures.
I think a similar outside investigation should be launched into the South Yorkshire Police.
Instead you would prefer the 'system' to continue and an IPCC to take place, taking years and most likely a whitewash at the end.
As happened regarding the Rochdale police.
Regarding the timescales the Times investigation was back in 2012, shortly afterwards the Home Affairs Select Committee made damning comments about the SYP.
So why didn't the IPCC launch an investigation then ?
When Keith Vaz sets the standard for prompt and purposeful action then something is badly wrong with the official bodies.
The whole dredful Rotherham story has had a continual theme of government agencies claiming that there wasn't a problem.
So why should we assume that the IPCC are any different ? Well I don't.
Ultimately RN we have different viewpoints - you are an establishment supporter and trust in the 'system'. Perhaps your past experiences bring you to that viewpoint but mine do not. In line with what Sean Fear wrote on the previous thread I now believe that the establishment in this country is 'endemically corrupt', certainly my knowledge of the establishment in my part of the world backs up this view.
I have no doubt, for slightly different reasons, that our courts would find the same.
I see no difference between a man persuading his wife and children to vote Labour because "we'll all be better off", and two acquaintances persuading each other to vote howsoever for the same end.
It's just too nebulous, remote and intangible, and almost certainly "protected" in any case as far as the law is concerned.
btw, thanks @mikesmithson for the Montgomeryshire info. I'm putting together a basket of constituencies that the tories will need for most seats - Montgomery came back onto my radar. If the non-Lembit LD does win it back, it'll probably be more about the local LD's indefatigability than the tories having a bad night overall.
Think I'll leave it out of my basket.
I suspect that it will be the key seat in the East Midlands with Labour gaining the four around Derby-Nottingham plus Lincoln.
I don't know about Northampton South.
Time for pong to go to sleep
I suspect incumbency gets CON over the line, but it is not the nailed on certainty some on these boards think.
No bet at 4-7; 13-8. You can make a case for either. At Evens - Take Conservatives.
Smidgen of value in 13-8 maybe.
Important areas near my manor !
The more I think about this, the bigger it could actually be. Every party will benefit from this, with the biggest benefit probably going to Plaid.
Whereas Derbyshire South now looks almost a safe Conservative seat.
I wonder if High Peak might act more like a NW region seat than an East Midlands one. Not very spectacular at this time of night.
Night All.
In English law, the legality of vote swapping depends on the construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, ss. 113(5)-(6) and the Bribery Act 2010. There is nothing to suggest that prohibiting vote swapping would engage any right under the ECHR, let alone amount to an infringement of one. The courts would thus construe the statute by reference to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words Parliament used.
The moral (and legal) difference between vote swapping and the man persuading his family to vote Labour on the ground that they will be better off is clear. The expected benefit to the family derives from the legitimate exercise of public authority. It is not a private inducement to vote a certain way in return for a reward.
De Minimis Non Curat Lex...
Husband: I like the Greens, but they can't win (under FPTP), so I'm not voting for them...
Wife: Me too, but they could win if enough people voted for them, of course.
Husband: True, but not enough people will.
Wife: Well, I will, if you will! Now, there's TWO votes.
Husband: OK, it's a deal! [Btw, I'm feeling horny tonight...]
@TimesNewsdesk: Furious Miliband rounds on Tories talking up SNP
http://t.co/lZsR3tYMaM
Do you think it would be a good or bad thing if the SNP held the balance of power in a hung Parliament?
Net 'good' (vs 2 wks ago) : -42 (-9)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/igafr21zkl/SunResults_150421_GE2015_SNP_Website.pdf
And finally, if you HAD to choose, which would you rather have? OA (Midlands/Wales)
A Labour led government with SNP support: 38 (33)
A Conservative led government: 47 (49)
Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Well, I suppose so....
Would you sleep with me for £5?
What do you think I am?!?
Madam, we've established what you are, we're merely haggling over the price.....
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/
We're not talking about money though in the "Smithson Case." Merely two intelligent people, during political discourse, agreeing jointly to do what appears to be in their best interests. Just like any other two voters, Husband/Wife etc, quite possibly...
Chance of their agreement being both successful and the determining factor?
Close to 0.000000
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
At the same time Miliband PM after the GE just matched at 1.71 (lowest ever is 1.70) - though that market obviously opened far more recently.