Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left hope it
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left hope it is
Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, is in secret talks with Jeremy Corbyn about voting reform in a bid to form a progressive electoral alliance against the Conservatives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I await the usual Labour types condemning this undemocratic gerrymandering.
At the very least, there should be a referendum.
Would those wanting to make the change to PR without a referendum also support withdrawal from the EU without a referendum if the Tory/UKIP majority put it in their manifestos too?
"it isn’t a formal pact, merely if the parties end up in government in 2020" - In which case, Tim Farron is just whistling in the wind. - The whole thing sounds like a stich up to circumvent a referendum the Lib Dems couldn’t win last time through fair means. Tells you all you need to know about them I guess.
Perhaps Farron reckons the Lib Dem brand is so trashed allying it with Corbynite Labour can't do any harm?
But, suppose for the sake of argument, Lab, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Plaid formed a pact, what then? There must be a good chance of a rival CON/UKIP pact, or at least tactical voting.
Adding the votes together for each bloc gives a net gain of 25-30 MPs for the Right, as the Left piles up huge, useless, majorities in safe seats.
THE SNP's shadow leader of the House of Commons says he and most of the party's 115,000 members are “relatively relaxed” about not seeking a mandate for an independence referendum in May.
Despite many activists wanting a swift second vote, Pete Wishart, one of the party's most senior MPs and chair of the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Select Committee, said the coming Holyrood election would be about good governance, not the constitution.
The No vote in 2014 was “decisive” and should be respected, he told the Sunday Herald....
“We’ve had that referendum, we got a decisive result, and we said that would be a once in a generation referendum.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14226379.Wishart__I_m__quot_relaxed_quot__about_no_manifesto_commitment_on_Indyref2/
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Desperate times.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12117890/Europe-the-gloves-are-off-as-Tory-rift-widens.html
A former Labour pollster has told the BBC that a report into why Labour lost the 2015 election is a "whitewash and a massive missed opportunity". - Deborah Mattinson completed voter research to feed into Dame Margaret Beckett's report, but says her evidence was not published.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319
It’s one thing to lie to the electorate, it sometimes works, but lying to oneself never helps.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319
"Let me say that again. Unless there is a seismic shift in polling, Donald Trump stands to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the 2016 general election. Potentially the first ever president who has never held elected office or been in the military."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292
'The Big Short'. Shortlisted for Best Picture.
1. It explains the '08 crash so any idiot can understand it
2. The financial crash started in the US and Brown had nothing to do with it
3. Entertaining. Anyone involved in banking will enjoy it in the way photographers liked 'Blow Up'
4. WONT WIN. Too misogynist and the suspect morality was made far too alluring"
It now seems the odds are likely to drop sharply and it's now a real possibility for "Best Picture". The fact that the only time you see women they are stupid /naked/and or lap dancers might have put some in the academy off now it's 2016. Apparently not.
Also, the Donald is only one arrogant comment away from sinking his own campaign. I think he got away with it this time, but next time.....
And there will be lots more next times over the coming weeks.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
Somebody was asking about surprise wins for the conservatives. They had undoubtedly given up on Cannock Chase. We had one national mail shot, one 'insert name her' candidate shot, no canvassing by phone or door to door, and just two posters - one of Miliband in Salmond's pocket, and one saying 'vote Milling' on the wall of the local funeral parlour.
Yet they still won with an average swing against a Labour campaign that was so hyperactive you would have sworn all its activists were on speed. Admittedly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to campaign on 'Save Stafford Hospital', but in the end I don't think it made any difference.
This tells me 2 things:
1) focus groups are a waste of money.
2) in the end, it looks as if the campaigns made no difference - people voted on national issues, e.g. Miliband's hopelessness and Labour's track record, or tuition fees.
That leads inexorably to a third conclusion;
3) Labour are facing major losses in 2020.
Even then, he might have got away with it (bearing in mind Ireland and Spain had even worse problems) had he not been so foolish as to claim that he had abolished boom and bust, or then claimed - obviously incorrectly- that a country with a large mortgage sector would not be affected by the subprime crisis, and finally denied that he had ever said he had abolished boom and bust. That made him look not merely like a fool, and a complacent fool at that, but a liar - and Labour have never recovered from that.
Until they face up to the 'yes, we may have spent a little more than was wise in hindsight, but we couldn't see into the future - can you?' then they wont get a hearing.
I thought one of the defining moments of GE2015 was the audience reaction to Miliband's straight 'no' to 'did you spend to much?' - a combination of sharp intake of breath and groan - very British. And deadly.
The others you mention - well, Barings was the victim of fraud, not a systemic blowup. Don't know anything about the others so can't comment.
The point about Brown's silly remarks is of course unfortunately unanswerable.
Brown has talked specifically about the end of Tory boom and bust, but to suggest, as he did in the Mail interview, that it was always the mantra seems faintly ludicrous to anyone with an internet connection and the inclination to trawl through his public statements and speeches.....
But Brown's claim to the Mail just doesn't stand up. There have just been too many memorable references to the end of boom and bust - without any mention of Tory.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html
There was a referendum on electoral reform (albeit one system) which was comprehensively rejected.
If you want to change to a different system, fine. But you have to ask the public, not just impose it especially - presumably - as a partisan measure that is not supported by the other major party.
Who do they think they are?
The full story of this period has yet to come out.
I said Farron was a muppet.
As Mr. Eagles observes, Corbyn is horrendously unpopular and diametrically opposed to the majority of the electorate on many small issues, such as the nuclear deterrent, democratic freedom [Falklands], migration, shooting terrorists before they can kill people and whether or not we should have an army.
Any kind of alliance with that, with a Labour Party that may have moved on from dreaming of axing their leader and is now content with wailing and gnashing of teeth is insane.
BCCI and Barings were clear cases of fraud - and neither of them became systemic. The secondary banking crisis was more serious - but well handled by the Guvnor's eyebrows - and was 40 years ago.
Sub-prime lending - and more particularly the financial instruments built on top of that (and yield chasing by the Landensbanken) was the proximate cause of the financial crisis. Some of our credit institutions were poorly managed - the usual issues of bad lending or bad funding - but the regulatory system was absolutely ineffective and the regulators were asleep at the switch.
Brown didn't cause the financial crisis - but he should have spotted the imbalances that were building in the global economy (he was warned on multiple occasions) and we were wholly unprepared when the storm arrived. Additionally - as has been talked about ad nauseum - he behaved as if the tax revenues from the City were permanent not cyclical and inflated spending well beyond the capacity of the tax base, leaving the UK with one of the worst structural deficits in the West
It would be outrageous, but I wouldn't put it past them
HOW are we to use our two votes, one for a constituency MSP and one for a list candidate, at the Holyrood election in May?
As an SNP member, I have been told by Nicola Sturgeon to use both for our party but I don’t intend to obey.
As it seems certain the SNP will get back into power on constituency seats alone, I am not going to waste that second vote.
I am not a nationalist, I am a socialist. I am also seeking a second referendum when the time is right.
So, while going SNP with my constituency vote, I am looking for a socialist-independence home for my second one. I have found it in new Left organisation RISE – unambiguously socialist and committed to seeking a mandate for a second referendum.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jim-sillars-believe-independence-believe-7232528#cScFJBdkq2ATiygS.99
I'm very wary about that ERS table. It's very dangerous to extrapolate from results under one system to results under a different system, especially when those systems are as different as First Past The Post and STV.
Come on, chaps. It's not a minor category.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319
"Yes, she picked up on the economy, but there actually was no analysis. It's reduced down to one bullet point in the report."
Ms Mattinson said voters "didn't trust Labour to manage the economy" and they "categorically" blamed the party for the 2008 financial crisis.
She also said people did not see Labour leader Ed Miliband as "prime ministerial".
"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.
Peter Brookes' summed it up quite well in his Times Cartoon, with a speech bubble emanating from Miliband's arse.
Karen Danczuk @KarenDanczuk 15h15 hours ago
To be someone's special lady is one of my goals for 2016 ❤️❤️❤️ KD
Thanks for the economic facts. All very complicated, but basically, I and the ordinary voter see it in simplistic terms.
Gordon abolished boom and bust, therefore he assumed that his twenty Micawber shillings (income) were safe forever and spent accordingly. But they included the financial taxes which went down when the Bust came. Therefore he was unprepared.
Alternatives ... cut spending or increase taxes or both.
Labour formula: 2010-2015 Er... yes but no, but yes. It wasn't our fault.
Jezza formula: Spend more to earn more. And tax the rich.
Public reaction ... Labour all over the place or illogical. Tax the rich is always popular but the b*stards might run away and we're left with nothing.
Yes, I'm sure it's simplistic, but economics is not a science anyway. And try telling the public that spending more than your income is the way to the promised land.
Plus ca change ...
In a sense, the fact that their narrative has some truth in it is irrelevant. They were in power, they made policy mistakes, they get blamed, as did Major and Lamont over Black Wednesday. Until they accept that, deal with it properly and start to work in a meaningful way to regain public trust, they will still struggle because they look like a bunch of whiny children who are unfit to be given major responsibilities.
That's not important while Corbyn is leader, of course, but it will matter greatly to whoever replaces him.
However if the election results did give UKIP a sizeable breakthrough at Westminster then that should be respected, it would be what people had voted for and it would be up to politicians to try to make the result of the electorate's verdict work.
If parties come to an agreement before the election to reform the electoral system and put it in their manifestos then of course it would be fine to implement it once in government.
I suppose that the best result for the opposition parties would be for an agreement to be made with Labour about the introduction of PR and then for Corbyn to step down or be replaced befioe the GE.
Which once more raises the question of why Unionists won't say they won decisively. Their refusal to do so over the last 15 months has been unhelpful.
I'd vote for Kermit or Gonzo over Corbyn any day.
Mr. Mark, precisely. With Labour careering over to the Mad Even In The 1980s left, there's a wide open ground in the centre-left. But Farron appears more interested in throwing away an electoral system the public backed in a referendum a couple of years ago, without troubling to consult the electorate.
"No political party has a divine right to exist and unless Labour really listens to those people it must persuade, it stands no chance of winning the next election."
Play just starting in Centurion. Alastair Cook needs another 50 runs to become the first England player to reach 10,000 Test runs:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/223646.html
I can only conclude that Farron is desperate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hG4X5iTK8M
Unfortunately there's no credible alternative. Far sighted dissident Labour MP's could steal a march here. Again that needs a bit of fire and backbone, something Labour MP's have a demonstable lack of.
For example, the UKIP and Green vote could have both been higher, largely at the expense of the Conservatives and Labour respectively, even though I don't think the SNP or LDs would have been much affected either way.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6879167/Is-Theresa-May-ready-to-show-UK-the-door-over-EU.html
The FSA didn't do anything apart from demand that everyone (and his dog) had a photocopy of his/her passport lodged with HR and had clicked through a couple of online tests which you could get the dog to do for you.
That's ridiculous considering that his voters in Iowa are previous known caucus goers, unlike Trump's higher headline number that may or may not show up.
Also if Cruz wins Iowa, does it REALLY boost Marco Rubio in New Hampshire. That's a stretch of logic too far for me. More likely it boosts Ted Cruz as the stop Donald candidate (Rubio and Cruz are both very Conservative, so no reason they shouldn't take each other's voters)
If Trump wins Iowa he may well run the table, and perhaps should be sub Evens. But if he doesn't win, it is Ted Cruz and not Marco Rubio that is nationally in second place. Their Betfair odds are completely the wrong way round.
Right now Cruz and Trump are a 53% book. It must be heavily odds on one of them wins it, shorely.
Dutch them if you haven't already, or back Cruz if you're long Trump.
Any PR election pact should get over the leftie love-in that was the AV referendum and get UKIP on board. If there was such a deal between Farron and Farage then I would be impressed that this was a genuine call for fairness rather than some stitch up.
I would favour a system like Holyrood, where PR seems to work reasonably well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413988/Why-Labour-REALLY-lost-Margaret-Beckett-whitewash-secret-party-report-reveals-Britain-voted-Tory-Ed-Miliband-disaster-just-couldn-t-trusted.html
Have only scanned through the article.
http://oscar.go.com/news/home-featured-content-list/oscar-nominations-2016-the-complete-list-of-nominees
Labour will not win an election until they have an appeal that works in Loughborough. It is the seat that decides elections. I cannot see Corbyn making progress there.
On the previous thread TSE made an excellent point about Conservative canvassing, how organised and professional the operation is, by comparison the UKIP approach is shambolic; no back data, no targeting, naive canvassers enthusiastically knocking door after door. This time last year I attended a campaign meeting with the UKIP hierarchy and was told to get out in our target areas, none of us knew what our target areas were. This remains the single biggest problem UKIP face, 4m voters but spread across the country and within constituencies, the Libs have worked out a way of ploughing limited resources into areas that are ripe for picking.
Incidentally, a terrifying thought for several on here that are arguing for electoral reform, under PR I would almost certainly be an MP, be careful what you wish for.
(Light blue touch paper and retreat safe distance)
Another astute announcement by Corbyn
At the revised price, I'm not sure. On the plus side it has now won your recommendation and the Producers Guild award, both of which have good predictive records; against that, it is a comedy drama like Wolf of Wall Street which did not win, and is dominated by white men which in the new environment since last week, might make a difference.
http://www.all-in.de/nachrichten/deutschland_welt/politik/Emnid-AfD-wird-fast-nur-von-Maennern-gewaehlt;art15808,2177927
All those attacks on the bedroom tax don't appear to put off Syrians et al.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2879143/IMF-implores-Brown-to-cut-his-borrowing.html
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051
As far as I remember neither the LDs nor the Tories promised to change the voting system to AV in their 2010 manifestos, so clearly a referendum was necessary - especially as the Tories actually opposed it. If a group of parties have an overall majority in the Commons and all propose the same new voting system in their manifestos, I cannot see the problem - they would have the mandate to make the change. It would be deliciously ironic, though, if between them they got under 50% of the vote :-)
But it's not going to happen. Corbyn is electoral poison and under him Labour will get a worse result in 2020 than they did last year.
THE comedian Eddie Izzard is being touted by Labour moderates as their secret weapon in the battle to wrest control of the party back from Jeremy Corbyn and his hard-left supporters.
Izzard, 53, is a long-standing Labour activist and will be approached by senior MPs to stand for the ruling national executive committee (NEC) this year.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/homeV2/article1659822.ece