politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The winners under First Past The Post should rigidly adhere to

The chart above is self-explanatory and illustrates clearly how well the electoral system treated the Tories at the last election and how hard it was on the smaller parties particularly UKIP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It is apparent that all of our political parties regard inconvenient laws as something to be circumvented. If they want to be treated with respect, politicians should do as the rest of us are expected to do and obey the law.
If they think the laws are stupid, they should campaign accordingly, not seek to pull the wool over the eyes of the rest of us.
And welcome back old bean!
Constituency spending limits are an anachronism in the digital and quasi Presidential age.
Augustus, Lord of Carp, it hasn't been that long. Welcome back.
I am Very much more concerned in regard to voter fraud than a few quid over the top but rules is rules and they should be followed I guess.
What would the graphs look like during Tony "I'm just a straight kind of guy" Blairs landslides.?
Campaign spending limits are past their sell by date
***
Why not just put the Government up for sale to the highest bidder? And/or criminalise poverty? (This also applies to David L's comment)
The current campaign spending laws were archaic a way back; they are now ridiculous (and demonstrably held in contempt by the major parties). That they should continue to break the law on a regular basis rather than reforming it is strange.
Bradley retires
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-4070910/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-retires-cycling-20-year-career-saw-win-five-Olympic-gold-medals.html
I misread that as "I would abolish elections altogether" and thought "How Trumpian of you."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years?CMP=fb_gu
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/814082598477631488
It might be improbable that X will win, it might be that candidate Y or Mr Z believes that X can't win, but to make a statement which is provably untrue ought to be illegal.
"We have had people before flexing their muscles, as it were, and saying they're out of here and then realising, actually, London is the place to be and we have a huge amount going for us that would be incredibly difficult to replicate anywhere else.
"We do have to have a different mindset, I think. We do have to embrace the opportunities, we have to look forwards, not at what we might have lost, and I think that's something that isn't quite there yet."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/28/business-chiefs-back-staying-post-brexit-britain/
The rules are built around fairly clear distinctions in spending - the battle bus and venue hire for the manifesto launch are national, the election address local etc. But modern campaigns, either deliberately or just because methods have changed, leave it very unclear. Is a letter from Cameron (at the time) to a voter in Torbay that doesn't mention the local candidate a local expense? I'd say yes because who else do you want the voter to support but the local Tory representative... but I appreciate there's at least some debate. And what of a battle bus ferrying large numbers of volunteers rather than the party leader and entourage? Or a targeted social media campaign focusing on employees of an employer which happens to be huge in Luton North?
Either the Electoral Commission needs to engage much more in what a modern election looks like and draw up very clear guidance (rather than the current "use your best honest judgement" nonsense), or they need to shift to a purely national limit with no distinction between spending categories in the campaign period, and a reasonably simple formula (£x multiplied by number of candidates, possibly plus y pence multiplied by votes at last election, for example).
Mr. Quidder, hard to believe Blair partook in constitutional buggery.
Early reports of the flash in the sky are said to be discounted.
Labour as well as the tories also found guilty of breaches of the spending rules.
The Lib Dem fines were for not declaring all the costs on the original returns on time, not for breaching the spending limits.
Was it a problem when FPP worked in Labours party Jon?
How about vote fraud, why does Labour have a problem with a clamp down?
I don't agree with this, John. Ultimately, the point of the expenses limit is to avoid elections being won by deep pockets.
If you tweet something reach isn't really a function of pocket depth (aside from promoted posts which have an actual cost - notional cost isn't the point here). So if a party organises supporters to post X on private accounts, then I don't see this as very different from getting canvassers or delivers out working.
The analogy with broadcast isn't sound either. The broadcast restrictions are because there was a wish (rightly or wrongly) to allow a space in which the public could be reasonably confident there is a semblance of balance and parity of coverage. I know some on here disagree it's achieved... but I do think voters watch TV and listen to radio expecting some balance in election coverage, whereas they don't (and nor should they) in the press, or on YouTube, or on bits of paper stuffed through their letterbox.
The US has gone too far in the other direction - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC - but there is a happy medium between the extremes, and I think we're closer to it than they are.
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/hard-brexit-benefits-change-britains-24.html?m=1
6 months on and we're nowhere nearer a cogent plan.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/introduction/index_en.cfm
Netanunu losing his marbles.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/26/netanyahu-snubs-may-over-un-settlements-vote-israeli-media-says
Soon he will have to snub everyone apart from Trump.
Your post about Assange is beyond the pale.
"he is a thoroughly unpleasant individual who deserves to be disposed off of in a set of black bags"
Seriously though, suggesting people deserve to be murdered is throughly unpleasant.
Personally, I don't see the need for showing ID in order to vote, but the postal voting system needs a clampdown and the outlawing of parties' activists handling postal votes is long overdue.
Con 323 (330)
Lab 230 (232)
SNP 54 (56)
LD 12 (8)
UKIP 8 (1)
Green 3 (1)
A bit fairer I would have thought... and Dave would still be PM with Nick as Dep!
But our present rules are arcane, complex and largely pointless. They have allowed the incompetent buffoons in the Electoral Commission to stay off the unemployment register where they belong but it is hard to see any other benefits.
Take postal voting: yes, there have been a few court cases about fraud, and occasionally organised fraud, but little evidence that there has been frequent mass fraud on a scale likely to change the result of an election (*), and especially in a GE.
So we need evidence before we make policy. Perform as much research as can be done whilst maintaining voter privacy and anonymity (and that is a big problem for research). Random checks of PV signatures might be one system, especially where fraud is suspected or likely.
(*) The following is an example where it may well have:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/councillors-guilty-of-postal-votes-fraud-that-would-shame-a-banana-republic-5350422.html
Genuine pilots' forum seems to be waiting for real news.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/588730-tu154-out-sochi-missing-9.html
Could be a big problem, could be a tiny one.
I bet their are some cracking quotes from the Guardianistas of this world on how brilliant Assange is...dating back to when he was helping to dump a tonne of shit over Bush led US.
"Personation meaning in Urdu"
From google.co.uk with a cleared cache.
Good evening, everyone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38450840
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1596032/vote-rigging-in-muslim-communities-goes-unchallenged-because-pc-police-are-scared-of-causing-offence/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/election-fraud-allowed-to-take-place-in-muslim-communities-becau/ Nope; only discovered that yesterday when I wanted to check I had the right word. Are you getting a different result?
The Electoral Commission seems happy to go on the record about this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11373206/Ballot-rigging-risk-in-Pakistani-and-Bangladeshi-communities.html
truthcomplexities of trade deal negotiations.Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.