Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At last! Betting on the May 2016 Scottish Parliamentary Ele

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At last! Betting on the May 2016 Scottish Parliamentary Election

Given what we’ve seen it is very hard to envisage anything other than a big SNP victory. Unlike last month’s general elections north of the border where the SNP were able to pick up 56 of the 59 seats with 50% of the vote the system for Holyrood is different and should see many more parties being represented.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 758
    NOM surely.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Ah the scottish play. Time for early bed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Bit of a wait for a 5% payout.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Pulpstar said:

    Bit of a wait for a 5% payout.

    Might be cheaper finance for them than issuing a short-term note.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    edited June 2015
    Will be interesting to see if tactical voting can keep the Nats from an overall majority again? Means that Con voters need to vote Lab for the seat and Con for the list, Lab voters doing the same. Except in the Con areas, then both need to be the opposite! Does anyone in Scotland care about LDs any more?
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Monkeys said:

    NOM surely.

    NOM may have a chance, but isn't value at that price IMHO.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SeanT said:

    Cheer up everyone

    In three weeks the nights start drawing in.

    Actually, the nights start getting longer, drawing out...

    [/pedant]
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I agree with Mike. As proportional systems go it seems to work quite well. It would be a good model for Westminster.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Surely SNP majority is the value bet at 4/7?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2015
    From Hansard today....Gisela Stuart: "I do not disagree with a word my hon. Friend has said. I ask new Members of the House to take note. Too often, we spend time on all the important things in life such as rubbish not collected, the potholes in our constituencies and the hedges not being cut, but we do not spend enough time on what the role of this House should be: taking a strategic view of what this nation is about, what the requirements of this nation are and whether the Government are fulfilling them."


    Is it a slur against potholes?!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @georgeeaton: More Burnham endorsements on the way, including London MPs - set to take him past 50.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    No wonder Mr Smithson likes the proportional system, especially after the Yellows took a real caning.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Scott_P said:

    @georgeeaton: More Burnham endorsements on the way, including London MPs - set to take him past 50.

    Shaping up nicely... for the Tories.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Scott_P said:

    @georgeeaton: More Burnham endorsements on the way, including London MPs - set to take him past 50.

    Shaping up nicely... for the Tories.
    So long as Yvette can take another 2 !
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    edited June 2015
    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Pulpstar said:

    So long as Yvette can take another 2 !

    I'm conflicted. For betting purposes I want Yvette to win. For party-political purposes I'd like Andy to win. On the off-chance that one of the candidates might end up as PM, for the good of the country I'd like Liz to win.

    Naturally my principal interest is in Yvette!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Disraeli said:

    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
    It is possible to have an "open list" based on individual votes rather than the party order. We could do a lot worse.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    Disraeli said:

    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
    It is possible to have an "open list" based on individual votes rather than the party order. We could do a lot worse.
    Many thanks for the clarification, Mr Fox. :-)
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    Disraeli said:

    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
    Let be honest the Conservatives and Labour parties at the moment chose who goes to parliment in a huge number of safe seats. Party lists will be just the same unless, as you suggest, individual party members in each area vote on the order.
    The maintaining of the FPTP element and the constituency link that goes with it for the majority of MPs whilst having a more proportional result overall I think make it good system.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    David Cameron must be willing to walk away from EU talks, says Boris Johnson http://d.gu.com/B3f0K4

    Boris comes to the fore, and takes a stand that will make him leader of the Tory Eurosceptics.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,596
    Disraeli said:

    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
    Depends on the party. We Scottish Lib Dem members voted on the order of our lists. Don't ask me how UKIP picked their Scottish list for the Euro election.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System.
    It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    Disraeli said:



    It is possible to have an "open list" based on individual votes rather than the party order. We could do a lot worse.

    Many thanks for the clarification, Mr Fox. :-)
    The Danes leave it to the individual parties to decide whether their lists are open or closed - the theory being that if you choose to have a closed list (i.e. the party decides the sequence of candidates elected) that tells voters something about the party, which may or may not put them off. Personally I prefer a straight open list system, but it is a little more unpredictable - you can vote Tory thinking you'll get Bill Cash and find you've elected Ken Clarke because he got more individual votes.

    Onm topic, that 7-4 for NOM looks quite good odds. The SNP would have an overall majority on the 2010 figures, but there seems at least an even chance that they won't do quite that well again.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    No wonder Mr Smithson likes the proportional system, especially after the Yellows took a real caning.

    This. The ear-splitting sound that you hear after every single election is losers whining like a jet engine at full revs that the system should be changed for something which just happens to by coincidence suit them more.
    The word "fair" is always used ... which directly translates (as always) into "better for me".

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    You ba*****ds. The one night in a year I get to go out on the lash, and you lot start talking about the modern military on pt. Ba*****ds.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    On topic: anything that gives more power to the parties is terrible. AMS has a party list, so is, by definition, terrible. ;-)
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    GeoffM said:

    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System. It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?

    You mean go back to the old system, GeoffM? In Scotland, the Tories would lose almost all their seats again. Not sure that is really what you want, is it?

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    There's an appeal from one of the less-known London candidates (Patil) that notes that 53 of the CLPs have already nominated and Jowell, Khan and Lammy have all got the 5 they need. He says there are 21 CLPs left which will all select this week, and he urges them to nominate others like him to maximise the debate.

    Since every CLP has to nominate one woman and there are only two women candidates, the obvious missing one is Abbott. This may be partly because the party is in a pensive, not very left-wing mood, and partly because she's annoyed members by sniping at the party through her TV slot ("I want a candidate, not a bloody pundit", as one put it). She may well still make it to the ballot, but I don't think she'll be selected.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    PClipp said:

    GeoffM said:

    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System. It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?

    You mean go back to the old system, GeoffM? In Scotland, the Tories would lose almost all their seats again. Not sure that is really what you want, is it?

    I'm pro independence for Scotland so I don't really care.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    GeoffM said:

    No wonder Mr Smithson likes the proportional system, especially after the Yellows took a real caning.

    This. The ear-splitting sound that you hear after every single election is losers whining like a jet engine at full revs that the system should be changed for something which just happens to by coincidence suit them more.
    The word "fair" is always used ... which directly translates (as always) into "better for me".

    Overall majority government on 37 per cent is a little ridiculous, though.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    GeoffM said:

    No wonder Mr Smithson likes the proportional system, especially after the Yellows took a real caning.

    This. The ear-splitting sound that you hear after every single election is losers whining like a jet engine at full revs that the system should be changed for something which just happens to by coincidence suit them more.
    The word "fair" is always used ... which directly translates (as always) into "better for me".

    So you'll be against the boundary changes?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    GeoffM said:

    No wonder Mr Smithson likes the proportional system, especially after the Yellows took a real caning.

    This. The ear-splitting sound that you hear after every single election is losers whining like a jet engine at full revs that the system should be changed for something which just happens to by coincidence suit them more.
    The word "fair" is always used ... which directly translates (as always) into "better for me".

    So you'll be against the boundary changes?
    I support independently drawn up boundary updates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    Once the Smith plans have been passed and Labour has a better leader at Westminster and a new leader in Scotland things could change a little, no chance SNP will not be largest party, but if more tactical voting outside chance they could lose their absolute majority at Holyrood
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    What's the latest from Denmark?
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 597
    I'm not keen on AMS, its just FTTP with a party list top-up. It still allows parties to win over half of seats with less than 50% of the vote. Indeed given the General Election result the SNP could well win a majority through constituency MSP's alone next year. It also creates two classes of MSP's with separate and unequal mandates (by-elections are not held for list MSP vacancies), yet list MSP's have the same rights as constituency MSP's despite having a much lower threshold to be elected. List systems also effectively let the party pick candidates instead of the electorate.

    I much prefer STV, which is more proportional, maintains the constituency link, elects everyone on an equal basis and allows the electorate to choose between multiple candidates from the same party.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    dodrade said:

    I'm not keen on AMS, its just FTTP with a party list top-up. It still allows parties to win over half of seats with less than 50% of the vote. Indeed given the General Election result the SNP could well win a majority through constituency MSP's alone next year. It also creates two classes of MSP's with separate and unequal mandates (by-elections are not held for list MSP vacancies), yet list MSP's have the same rights as constituency MSP's despite having a much lower threshold to be elected. List systems also effectively let the party pick candidates instead of the electorate.

    I much prefer STV, which is more proportional, maintains the constituency link, elects everyone on an equal basis and allows the electorate to choose between multiple candidates from the same party.

    Excellent - so we've established that you think STV benefits your partisan cause best.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited June 2015
    dodrade said:

    I'm not keen on AMS, its just FTTP with a party list top-up. It still allows parties to win over half of seats with less than 50% of the vote. Indeed given the General Election result the SNP could well win a majority through constituency MSP's alone next year. It also creates two classes of MSP's with separate and unequal mandates (by-elections are not held for list MSP vacancies), yet list MSP's have the same rights as constituency MSP's despite having a much lower threshold to be elected. List systems also effectively let the party pick candidates instead of the electorate.

    I much prefer STV, which is more proportional, maintains the constituency link, elects everyone on an equal basis and allows the electorate to choose between multiple candidates from the same party.

    It's practically impossible to stop parties winning over half the seats with less than half the vote. Almost no system will stop it. It almost happened in Germany last time, and they have a list system. STV will often allow an artificial majority on forty-two to forty-five per cent of first preferences. (Admittedly, it will be based on transfers from eliminated candidates, so it's less egregious than when the list system or FPTP yield this result, because you've at least asked the unsuccessful voters who they'd prefer instead.)

    However, you can scale this systems by this desirable quality of not magnifying a small plurality, and proportional list systems will come on top while FPTP will be dead last. I mean, it is very silly that two of the last three general elections have produced working majorities on 35 and 37 per cent of the vote - and for different parties! you couldn't make it up.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    On topic:

    SNP most seats probably correct at 1-20; Also SNP majority about right at 4-7 with NOM @ 7-4.

    Lab Maj @ 12-1 - more like 1200-1 now lol.

    Betting w/o SNP would be very interesting,

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302
    You can't separate the type of voting system you want from the type of political parties you want. A proportional system favours more narrowly defined issue based or ideological parties who then form coalitions according to their share of the vote. A constituency based FPTP or related system favours more broad based parties and penalises single-issue parties in terms of direct representation, although they can still exert huge influence on the result.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    EPG said:

    you couldn't make it up.

    Of course you can make it up. You can make anything up.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    I'd love to know who is backing England at 32.0 in the Test. 100+ more like.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Pulpstar said:

    I'd love to know who is backing England at 32.0 in the Test. 100+ more like.

    Not me!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited June 2015
    GeoffM said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd love to know who is backing England at 32.0 in the Test. 100+ more like.

    Not me!
    410 runs;
    98 overs;
    Need a draw only;
    Cloud cover;
    5th day pitch;
    Alistair Cook captain;
    Possibility of more rain;
    Outfield slowed from rain last night;
    Chris Gayle in at 3

    I've gone -430 Eng; +50 NZ; +28 Draw anyway.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    GeoffM said:

    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System.
    It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?

    People are slightly more intelligent. They can handle stuffing in two ballot papers. The result is a more representative one. Why not ?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    surbiton said:

    GeoffM said:

    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System.
    It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?

    People are slightly more intelligent. They can handle stuffing in two ballot papers. The result is a more representative one. Why not ?
    I don't believe that the average person is, although people with lower intelligence won't see it that way. We will have to agree to disagree.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Pulpstar said:

    GeoffM said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'd love to know who is backing England at 32.0 in the Test. 100+ more like.

    Not me!
    410 runs;
    98 overs;
    Need a draw only;
    Cloud cover;
    5th day pitch;
    Alistair Cook captain;
    Possibility of more rain;
    Outfield slowed from rain last night;
    Chris Gayle in at 3

    I've gone -430 Eng; +50 NZ; +28 Draw anyway.
    Good analysis and good position.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Under FPTP, the SNP will probably win 60 out of 73 if current polling continues. Since the SNP support is almost everywhere, they will add very few to this total under the list system. Probably 10. That takes them very close to their current numbers.

    However, because it is Holyrood, the SNP may not get 45-50% of the votes. I suspect overall, they will be a couple of votes short of overall majority. So, 7/4 NOM has value.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (Previous Thread)

    I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.

    It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.

    No way. Gordon Brown would have had an extra two years to be catastrophically gallumphious and Labour would have lost big-time in 2012. The result of the 2012 election would have been decided in 2008/9 just as the result of the 1997 election was decided in the autumn of 1992 after Black Wednesday.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    You can't separate the type of voting system you want from the type of political parties you want. A proportional system favours more narrowly defined issue based or ideological parties who then form coalitions according to their share of the vote. A constituency based FPTP or related system favours more broad based parties and penalises single-issue parties in terms of direct representation, although they can still exert huge influence on the result.

    very insightful post. Thanks.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    GeoffM said:

    Thanks, Mike, for explaining the Additional Member System.
    It all seems overly complicated. Wouldn't it be simpler just for everyone in an area to vote for one candidate and the person with the most votes wins?

    It would indeed be simpler, but "being simple" is not the only criterion required for an electoral system.

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I am a life-long supporter of STV, and I have been a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years. But at the moment I think that it is likely that I will allow my membership to lapse.

    One problem is that in recent years the ERS has become obsessed with irrelevant things, like gender quotas and votes for 16-year-olds, and of course it was the leadership of ERS which was primarily responsible for the disastrous, patronising and counter-productive Yes campaign in the AV referendum.

    But, perhaps more interestingly, I am not sure that I necessarily support STV any more. I like the idea of relatively small STV constituencies (only 2 or 3 MPs each - enough to provide a boost for the two main parties) but even that might be too proportional.

    The most recent information released by the ERS talks ridiculously about 2015 being the "least proportional ever" result. There would have been a problem if one party had got a majority of seats and a different party had got a plurality of votes; in 2005 it *was* a problem when Labour got a large majority of seats with only a 3% lead in the popular vote. But I don't regard a majority of seats, and a 7% lead in the votes, to be particularly a problem.

    If we had some form of PR, then David Cameron would still be Prime Minister anyway, except propped up by UKIP in some form. In 2010 there would have been a Conservative-LibDem coalition, just as there was under FPTP.

    That makes me think:
    Why do people vote for minor parties?
    Why did 23% vote Lib Dem in 2010?
    Why did 12% vote UKIP in 2015?

    It was not because they wanted a Lib Dem government in 2010, or a UKIP government in 2015. If the Lib Dem voters had wanted a Lib Dem government in 2010, then they would not have descended into howls of outrage as soon as the Coalition was formed, and they would have been more grateful in 2015 for the things which have been enacted by the Lib Dems in government. Similarly, if UKIP had a few dozen MPs, UKIP voters would not have been enthusiastic about them hurtling into a coalition or a confidence-and-supply arrangement (or whatever) with David Cameron.

    People voted Lib Dem in 2010 and UKIP in 2015 because they wanted to be grumpy, rebellious, register a particular type of abstention, or "send a message" to the two main parties.

    ...
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (continued ) ... Beyond that, it doesn't matter much how many MPs the Lib Dems or UKIP have. It doesn't have to be "proportional". The mood of the people of the UK is that they actually like majority governments most of the time. We only need to have hung parliaments when it's reasonably close between the two main parties. When one is clearly ahead of the other (as in 2015, 2001, 1997 and 1992) it is better to have a majority for one party, and to let the minor parties grumble in opposition.

    Finally, there is no point in tinkering with AV, which is an irrelevance. In the vast majority of constituencies, people know who the top two candidates are going to be. Voters are able to decide whether they want to (a) choose between the top two, or (b) register a protest by voting for a minor candidate. Voters, in other words, transfer their votes according to their preferences before they even write their X on the ballot paper.

    Thus it is quite odd, but I have actually come to like FPTP.
  • JohnLoony said:

    (Previous Thread)

    I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.

    It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.

    No way. Gordon Brown would have had an extra two years to be catastrophically gallumphious .....
    Would Brown still have succeeded Blair in that scenario though? Blair wouldn't have been ousted in 2007, not within months of winning a third general election, so he'd have been PM during the crash. This could potentially lead to Labour giving Blair most of the credit for handling the crash well, leaving Brown with most of the blame.

    Another influence on the Labour succession would be the Conservative leader at the time, probably not Cameron.

    I suspect Blair would have stayed until 2009/10, and Brown wouldn't have had a coronation. He probably would still have won, but it's far from a certainty.

  • bunncobunnco Posts: 169
    FLASH

    Charles Kennedy former LIBDem leader dead according to family BBC reports
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Charles Kennedy found dead at his home- Sky News.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    OMG F*** WTF!!! Charles Kennedy? Dead? OMG
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I walked past Charles Kennedy at the Imperial War Museum three years ago. He had his son (then aged about 4 or 5) with him. My sister, brother-in-law and nephew (then aged 6) walked straight past him but didn't notice him. How dreadful to lose a father at such a young age.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 994
    edited June 2015
    RIP Charles Kennedy. Very bad news. Though originally from the SDP his stance on Iraq showed he was a good Liberal. Not been a good year to be a Liberal Democrat
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Very good posts JohnLooney. I've always suspected the ERS of being left wingers who wanted to stop the Tories ever getting a majority again. They probably thought that with a more proportional system Labour and the Lib Dems could lock the Tories out of Downing Street forever more. How times change!

    I voted Ukip because they've become the party that I identify most strongly with on a number of issues. I'm was fully aware that my vote wouldn't make any difference, but I'd have voted Ukip had I lived in a marginal as the Tories hadn't done enough to get my support and EICIPM would have been funny.

    The Tories have a majority now and so will be judged at the next election. My main concern with FPTP is that it concentrates the election into a small number of marginals. Take my constituency of Woking, there really is no viable alternative to the Tories following the Lib Dem collapse. But I guess that could change one day.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    BBC - Charles Kennedy, former Liberal Democrat leader, dies aged 55.

    Sad news indeed, and 55 is no great age at all. Condolences to all friends and family. RIP.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    RIP Charles Kennedy.

    I was walking the Pennine Way when he was elected leader of the Lib Dems, and I hunkered down in the lee of Stoodley Pike monument so I could listen to the result on the radio.

    Probably the moment I realised I was a politics junkie.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    As it happens, it was just a few hours ago that I was pondering the thought of what some of the middle-aged former MPs might be doing, after being made redundant last month. Charles Kennedy was the first name I thought of as an example, along with various former Scottish MPs who would normally have assumed that they had safe seats for life.

    My own MP (now 43) is very able and intelligent and could have done all sorts of well-paid jobs if he had lost; he did say that he was considering teaching as one possibility. Some will no doubt be less able to adjust or find something suitable.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    tlg86 said:

    Very good posts JohnLoony. I've always suspected the ERS of being left wingers who wanted to stop the Tories ever getting a majority again. They probably thought that with a more proportional system Labour and the Lib Dems could lock the Tories out of Downing Street forever more. How times change!

    The leadership of ERS over the 20 years of my membership has been genuinely multi-party (lots of Lib Dems and Labour, but also Conservative, UKIP, Liberal, Green etc) but the CEO is the ghastly Katie Ghose, who seems to be the type who assumes that the Lib Dems are duty-bound to form a progressive alliance with Labour. Whenever I get emails from ERS telling me what's happening, these days it's usually rubbish about women or 16-year-old or whatever, and only rarely about STV.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RIP Charles Kennedy His family will need a lot of support. Its a terrible thing to lose someone close. I know.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    JohnLoony said:

    tlg86 said:

    Very good posts JohnLoony. I've always suspected the ERS of being left wingers who wanted to stop the Tories ever getting a majority again. They probably thought that with a more proportional system Labour and the Lib Dems could lock the Tories out of Downing Street forever more. How times change!

    The leadership of ERS over the 20 years of my membership has been genuinely multi-party (lots of Lib Dems and Labour, but also Conservative, UKIP, Liberal, Green etc) but the CEO is the ghastly Katie Ghose, who seems to be the type who assumes that the Lib Dems are duty-bound to form a progressive alliance with Labour. Whenever I get emails from ERS telling me what's happening, these days it's usually rubbish about women or 16-year-old or whatever, and only rarely about STV.

    Ghose appears to be a trojan horse, inserted into the ERS by Labour to ensure that the debate is kept ridiculously vague and unfocused, allowing ample opportunity for the opponents of fair elections - Labour and the Tories - to keep the debate contained.

    There can be little other explanation why the ERS even mention AV, why they failed to communicate to the public that AV is not PR and allow the media to continually mix up the two and allow opponents of PR to go unchallenged when they try to do so. It would also explain why the ERS allow the unpredictable and unstable full list PR to be considered instead of focusing entirely on the fair, stable and eminently sensible AMS system.

    It also explains why Labour never select her. As a way to maintain the dominance of Labour and the Tories, taking their fifth column out the ERS would be distinctly problematic.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    RIP Charles Kennedy. Shocking news to start the day with. Spare a thought indeed for all those other former MP's and party agents who have had less than a month to try to adapt to the new realities.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited June 2015
    DavidL said:

    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.

    We won't see how this works out because it is illegal under electoral law and the Electoral Commission have the full ability to rule Shadow Parties out of the electoral process. Going from memory, I believe the reason this all came out was because of calls by SLAB to do such a thing but I may be wrong.

    As a learned man, I would not have expected you to fall to such blatant anti-SNP propaganda. Your post sounds as bad as anything from Scott P.

    BTW, even were it not both illegal and likely to be politically detrimental, it would also be completely unnecessary while the SNP have both the Greens and Tories as very reliable and consensus based allies in Holyrood.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    In shock at the news. RIP Charles.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.

    We won't see how this works out because it is illegal under electoral law and the Electoral Commission have the full ability to rule Shadow Parties out of the electoral process.

    As a learned man, I would not have expected you to fall to such blatant anti-SNP propaganda. Your post sounds as bad as anything from Scott P.

    BTW, even were it not both illegal and likely to be politically detrimental, it would also be completely unnecessary while the SNP have both the Greens and Tories as very reliable and consensus based allies in Holyrood.
    This is a law that is yet to be tested and our Electoral Commission is as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. Having just had a Coalition government nationally parties being supportive of each other certainly will not be enough.

    I think finding a way of ultimately destroying Scottish Labour would tempt the SNP and a Scottish Socialist party is an obvious way of doing it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    My condolences to Charles Kennedy's family. His father died only in April. To lose both father and son so close together must be so difficult. My thoughts are with them.
  • heseltineheseltine Posts: 50
    Really sad news about the death of Charlie Kennedy. Here was a man with a brilliant mind but like most people who verge on that level of intellect he had his own personal demons. I hope her is remembered for the times when he did speak out against controversial issues such as the Iraq war. He also was electorally the most successful LD leader winning 63 seats in 2005. RIP old boy..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Off-topic:

    Huzzah! They've just mentioned on the radio that the government will be extending its troubled families program.

    I can't find a link yet, but if I heard correctly then it's a really good move.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-than-105000-troubled-families-turned-around-saving-taxpayers-an-estimated-12-billion
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Woke up to see the news about Charles Kennedy. I'm absolutely shocked.

    A man who struggled with demons in his last years, and whom I'm never certain got the support he needed. RIP.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    DavidL said:

    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.

    We won't see how this works out because it is illegal under electoral law and the Electoral Commission have the full ability to rule Shadow Parties out of the electoral process.

    As a learned man, I would not have expected you to fall to such blatant anti-SNP propaganda. Your post sounds as bad as anything from Scott P.

    BTW, even were it not both illegal and likely to be politically detrimental, it would also be completely unnecessary while the SNP have both the Greens and Tories as very reliable and consensus based allies in Holyrood.
    This is a law that is yet to be tested and our Electoral Commission is as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. Having just had a Coalition government nationally parties being supportive of each other certainly will not be enough.

    I think finding a way of ultimately destroying Scottish Labour would tempt the SNP and a Scottish Socialist party is an obvious way of doing it.
    The Commission may be completely and utterly useless at regulating the campaign and the behaviour during the vote but one area where they have full competence is in the recognition and ratification of political parties. In this particular case I see little likelihood of the Commission failing in such a matter.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Shit. RIP Charlie, I voted for him in 2005. Condolences to his family.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    I am not sure that I would describe Charlie Kennedy as having a brilliant mind but he had a greater sense of decency, fairness and morality than pretty much anyone else in politics in his generation. His courage in opposing the Gulf war was immense, knowing that the media would be so strongly against him and accusing him of undermining "our boys". I find it hard to think of an equivalent in recent times.

    I had the pleasure of meeting him several times in the heady early SDP days. He was the shining, future star. It seems like only yesterday.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    Very sad news indeed about Charles Kennedy. As others have said, had his demons but his principled opposition to the Iraq War stood out like a beacon.

    His poor family must be devastated; an awful time for them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    edited June 2015
    Sad news to wake up to hear about Charlie Kennedy. A genuine and principled politician who spent his lifetime in public service whilst dealing with his own struggles in life. RIP, and hope that his young family have good support around them at this terrible time.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited June 2015
    I can't imagine having 8 MPs to represent me. What an absurd system, must have been designed by political obsessives rather than normal people.

    Edit: also, party lists are very undemocratic. I voted for AV but all these other wacky systems just seem to be designed to by-pass the stupid public
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,772
    edited June 2015
    Very sad news about Kennedy. I didn't always agree with him, but I respected him for being one of the all-too-few politicians who said what he thought to anyone, and was willing to accept that would alienate some potential voters. He was also a man of pretty shrewd political judgement (when he was sober - that was his big problem, of course). Coupled to the quality of candidates the party attracted in mid-Wales, it got the Liberal Democrats my vote in several elections. He must have been going through a truly dreadful time, with his father's death and then losing his seat coupled to the wipeout of his party.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sad news indeed about Charles Kennedy. To lose a father and his job as well as seeing his life's work destroyed is tough on anyone, but tougher still when alcohol dependent. I hope for his families sake that it was natural causes rather than at his own hands.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,772
    I don't know the system in Scotland very well. However, the fact that the ambulance crew reported it directly to the police rather than the Procurator Fiscal when it did not seem 'suspicious' to the police struck me as very ominous.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Anyway, this talk of electoral reform is a waste of breath really, not going to happen until say 2028 when Labour are back in. Then they will do it without a referendum.

    Sad news about Kennedy, far too young
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Roger said:

    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.

    He was wrong about not going into coalition. There was no other realistic option for the Lib Dems, given that their political position over the years was to move to a voting system that would lead to near-permanent coalitions.

    They couldn't refuse a workable coalition the first time one came up.

    BTW, did he really say that the coalition would be a disaster for the Lib Dems when he voted against it?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Roger said:

    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.

    Still smarting Roger after your party's humiliation at the polls?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Sandpit said:

    Will be interesting to see if tactical voting can keep the Nats from an overall majority again? Means that Con voters need to vote Lab for the seat and Con for the list, Lab voters doing the same. Except in the Con areas, then both need to be the opposite! Does anyone in Scotland care about LDs any more?

    Ha Ha Ha
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited June 2015

    Roger said:

    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.

    He was wrong about not going into coalition. There was no other realistic option for the Lib Dems, given that their political position over the years was to move to a voting system that would lead to near-permanent coalitions.

    They couldn't refuse a workable coalition the first time one came up.

    BTW, did he really say that the coalition would be a disaster for the Lib Dems when he voted against it?
    It's simply untrue to say that the Liberals could not reject coalition. They could, trivially so. They had a position to decide both which party took power and how any deal would work out and they capitulated to the Tories and got the worst possible deal.

    Any alternative would have been better than the Extinction of their party (which is what they now face).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Disraeli said:

    Saltire said:

    "I like the Scottish approach because it keeps the constituency link while providing a degree of proportionality."
    I am surprised that this method of voting is seldom mentioned as a possible replacement for FPTP when it comes to HoC elections.
    Using the existing areas for Euro elections could be the way to divide up the UK, albeit unlike in Holyrood elections due to the bigger differences in population each area would elect differing numbers of list MPs. It is more proportional than AV but less complicated than STV.

    Saltire, I think that you made some good points. My only caveat would be that I don't like the party apparatchiks deciding on the order of the candidates in the list. I believe that some applications of the list system allow for party members to choose the order? Or am I mistaken?
    Depends on the party. We Scottish Lib Dem members voted on the order of our lists. Don't ask me how UKIP picked their Scottish list for the Euro election.
    All 3 of you
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    Millsy said:

    I can't imagine having 8 MPs to represent me. What an absurd system, must have been designed by political obsessives rather than normal people.

    Edit: also, party lists are very undemocratic. I voted for AV but all these other wacky systems just seem to be designed to by-pass the stupid public

    Have you looked at the (British) system for the European elections?

    Agree about party lists though. In our area we have one excellent MEP but his party’s general policies are not those I prefer. Every Euro election I wonder whether to vote for the party or the man! Especially as “my" Party is the LD’s who need every vote they can get!
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2015
    OMG. I've just seen Charles Kennedy news! RIP.
    I always liked him
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Disraeli said:



    It is possible to have an "open list" based on individual votes rather than the party order. We could do a lot worse.

    Many thanks for the clarification, Mr Fox. :-)
    The Danes leave it to the individual parties to decide whether their lists are open or closed - the theory being that if you choose to have a closed list (i.e. the party decides the sequence of candidates elected) that tells voters something about the party, which may or may not put them off. Personally I prefer a straight open list system, but it is a little more unpredictable - you can vote Tory thinking you'll get Bill Cash and find you've elected Ken Clarke because he got more individual votes.

    Onm topic, that 7-4 for NOM looks quite good odds. The SNP would have an overall majority on the 2010 figures, but there seems at least an even chance that they won't do quite that well again.

    Very wishful thinking indeed, more likely to be a much bigger majority.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Labour should vote Labour for the list given how many FPTP seats will lose. The great majority of their Holyrood seats will likely come from list section next year.
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Will be interesting to see if tactical voting can keep the Nats from an overall majority again? Means that Con voters need to vote Lab for the seat and Con for the list, Lab voters doing the same. Except in the Con areas, then both need to be the opposite! Does anyone in Scotland care about LDs any more?

    Ha Ha Ha
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2015

    Roger said:

    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.

    He was wrong about not going into coalition. There was no other realistic option for the Lib Dems, given that their political position over the years was to move to a voting system that would lead to near-permanent coalitions.

    They couldn't refuse a workable coalition the first time one came up.

    BTW, did he really say that the coalition would be a disaster for the Lib Dems when he voted against it?
    The alternative to Conservative coalition in 2010 would not have been coalition with Labour, because even then the numbers would not have added up. The only realistic possibility would have been tacit or explicit support for a Conservative minority government. Such a government may well have been shortlived with a second election in 2011 or 12 when the economy had stabilised a bit. Whether the LDs would have done well in it would be uncertain, but I think unlikely to have done as badly as this year.

    Kennedy was right to lead the opposition to Labours Gulf War, If only our leaders had stood firm I think the US would not have been so keen on going in alone. Lets hope the Chillcot report vindicates the LD position and finishes off the career of people like Alastair Campbell.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    HYUFD said:

    Once the Smith plans have been passed and Labour has a better leader at Westminster and a new leader in Scotland things could change a little, no chance SNP will not be largest party, but if more tactical voting outside chance they could lose their absolute majority at Holyrood

    More chance of my granny growing a pair, lot of very BIG ifs there.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    DavidL said:

    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.

    LOL David, you really need to stop reading these comics, did they also have one on nazi planes on the moon.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Very sad news about Charlie Kennedy.

    On topic there was a story in the ST at the weekend in which the SNP are going to create a sort of sister party, allegedly of even more left wing loons, to "game" the system and stop the other parties from getting list seats.

    The system is proportional because the party who wins the constituencies in an area is at a disadvantage in the lists but the plan, allegedly, is that the SNP will get their supporters to vote for this sister party on the list vote and SNP on the constituency vote.

    We shall see how this works out but there is no political system known to man that politicians cannot game given the opportunity.

    We won't see how this works out because it is illegal under electoral law and the Electoral Commission have the full ability to rule Shadow Parties out of the electoral process. Going from memory, I believe the reason this all came out was because of calls by SLAB to do such a thing but I may be wrong.

    As a learned man, I would not have expected you to fall to such blatant anti-SNP propaganda. Your post sounds as bad as anything from Scott P.

    BTW, even were it not both illegal and likely to be politically detrimental, it would also be completely unnecessary while the SNP have both the Greens and Tories as very reliable and consensus based allies in Holyrood.
    It is just bollocks, everything that happens nowadays is attributed to the SNP. Anybody from Scotland will know that there is no way the socialists they are talking about will be anywhere close to , listen to or have anything to do with the SNP.
    Sour grapes from the usual right wing losers.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited June 2015

    Roger said:

    A tragedy that the Lib Dems should not only lose one of its most talented and entertaining members but also one of the very few (if not the only one) who voted against the coalition agreement correctly anticiipating the disaster joining the Tories would be for his party.

    Finding a Lib Dem with a moral compass was always difficult after Nick Clegg took over. Now finding any the public might want to identify with is going to be just about impossible.

    .........Kennedy was right to lead the opposition to Labours Gulf War, If only our leaders had stood firm I think the US would not have been so keen on going in alone. Lets hope the Chillcot report vindicates the LD position and finishes off the career of people like Alastair Campbell.
    Will the Chilcott report come out? A race between the report and the coffin dodging abilities of the committee's members. Was there ever such a poor project manager in the civil service than Chilcott?
Sign In or Register to comment.