Sean Fear’s local election commentary
October 20th, 2006-
What will be the impact of the Scottish switch to PR?
The next round of Scottish local elections will be held under the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation. First past the post has produced some very distorted results in the past, in Scottish local elections. For example, Labour won 87% of the seats in Glasgow, in 2003, on 48% of the vote, and most remarkably of all, a bare majority in Edinburgh with just 27% of the vote.
-
Surprisingly perhaps, Labour have opted to abandon an electoral system that provides them with a considerable advantage. In 2003, Labour won 41% of Scotland’s council seats on 33% of the vote. If their vote share were to remain unchanged next year, then they could well lose 100 seats.
In fact, their likely loss (assuming the same vote share) will probably be less than this. This is because the wards used for the purpose of the election will only contain three or four seats. In practice, that means that a party would need to poll at least 25% of the vote to be sure of winning a seat in a three member ward, and 20% in a four member ward.
Labour, with their 33% vote share, are far more likely to achieve this, than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, who each won 15% in 2003. The Scottish Socialists, and the Scottish Green Party, who both did well under the system of PR used for the Scottish Parliamentary elections, are unlikely to achieve this sort of vote share in more than a handful of wards.
While Labour are sure to lose overall control of Edinburgh, they can be fairly confident of retaining the majority of their councils in the Central Belt (unless their overall vote share falls sharply). In practice, winning 40% of the vote in any one council is likely to be enough to win an overall majority of seats, albeit, with considerably greater representation for opposition parties. The SNP, in particular, will be able to convert their substantial vote in the Central Belt into a considerable number of seats.
One feature of Scottish politics is the very substantial number of Independent councillors in rural areas. Unusually, they were favoured by the First Past the Post system. Scotland used small, single member wards, in which personal votes counted for a lot. Overall, Independents won nearly 20% of the seats in 2003, on 11% of the vote. With much larger, multi-member wards, their personal vote might be diluted, and the four main parties may well gain at their expense.
Last night’s local elections produced a net gain of one each for the Conservatives, and Labour.
Chiltern DC - Great Missenden: C 494, Lib Dem 149, Lab 23. An easy Conservative hold.
Durham CC - Dawden: Lab 775, C 148. An easy Labour hold.
Easington DC- Passfield: Lab 480, Ind 213 Labour gain from Independent
Manchester CC - Gorton South: Lib Dem 1588, Lab 1208, BNP 185, Green 151, C
90. Lib Dem hold. Labour and Liberal Democrat voters both came out to vote in larger numbers than in May, probably due to the BNP candidate, but the outcome between the two parties was almost identical.
North Shropshire DC - Hordley, Tetchill and Lyneal: C 169, Ind 74, Ind
40. Conservative gain from Independent.
Shrewsbury and Atcham BC - Lawley: Ind 318, C 298, Lib Dem 82. Independent gain from Conservative.
South Cambridgeshire DC- The Abingtons: C 496, Lib Dem 261. Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat, on a swing of 36%.
Sean Fear is a London Tory activist and writes a weekly local election feature for PBC
MessageSpace Advertising
Many thnaks for the interesting piece Sean. It will be interesting to see how that experiment pans out and if it causes Labour to reject PR at Westminister for all time.
It does seem that the march of PR is unstoppable, if a bit slow.
Surely the elected second chamber will use PR.
Does Westminster have sole control over methods of electing MPs or could Holyrood unilaterally decide on PR for electing MPs to Westminster in future for Scotland?
2. NI had PR for elections to Stormont until 1929 and then scrapped it…so it isn’t always a one-way street.
Top reult for tories in south cambridgeshire.
sorry result!
Icarus, if an elected second chamber was elected by PR, would the Lib Dems then argue that it was the more democratic house and remove themselves to that house? The leader of the party would then have to have a deputy in the Commons for PMQs. Certainly an interesting dilemma for them, since they insist PR is more democratic than FPTP?
There is a SPice briefing which models the 2003 results as if the were conducted with PR. Almost universal Labour losses ensue.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-05/SB05-31.pdf
This is before the current rise of the SNP.
However whether or not Independent councillours will band together to gain the most in rural and highland areas remain to be seen.
The benefits for the Tories are pretty much negligible.
Very interesting piece.
The change in the system will certainly cost Labour seats. But STV should still give them a boost above and beyond their 1st preference support. A party polling about 33% in first preferences could easily expect to get a “seat bonus” of 4% or thereabouts so Labour could easily have won 37% of the seats if STV had been used last time. (Meaning a loss of only 4% of the seats.)
It’s hard to make an estimate of what the “seat bonus” will be (theoretically it could be negative) but the biggest party in Ireland has got an average bonus of about 4% over the last 5 or 6 elections. The elections are not directly comparable but it’s as good a place to start from as any.
I agree with Sean that it is highly unlikely that Labour will maintain control of Edinburgh, but (even if they keep exactly the same vote share) their grip also looks very tenuous in Clackmannanshire, East Lothian, Midlothian, Renfrewshire, Stirling and West Lothian.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-05/SB05-31.pdf
“STV in local government elections: modelling the 2003 result”, by John Curtice and Stephen Herbert
In reality, we know that there is likely to be some kind of swing from Lab to SNP (how large is clearly open to debate), so Labour are likely to be the big losers from the new system. The SNP are very likely to lose control of their sole council though, Angus, and the LibDems control of their only one: Inverclyde. The Tories do not have any councils to lose (except South Ayrshire, which since a by-election, has like Edinburgh depended on a casting vote).
Expect to see the “Independents” (sic) take a bit of a thrashing too.
sid @ 5 & 6
……and a poor result in the North (particularly Gorton)
Stuart Mackinnon and I (Stuart Dickson) posted at the same time, hence the duplicate link.
When I was looking into this, I considered that Labour would just hold Midlothian, West Lothian, and East Lothian, based on 2003 vote shares. If there is a swing to the SNP in those authorities, then Labour will lose overall control.
I would think that after the election the only councils not run by coalition will be Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and East Ayrshire. Possibly North Ayrshire too.
There was some talk of independents in the Highlands banding together in some sort of loose alliance but I’m not sure what came of this. I would also expect some independents to run under there true colours this time round!
14. How dou you think the current independents split among the main parties and ‘real’ independents, Max? (roughly speaking of course)
By-Election Results: Thursday 19th October 2006.
Chiltern DC, Great Missenden
Con 494 (74.2; +9.8), LD Michelle Gausman 149 (22.4; -13.2), Lab 23 (3.5; +3.5).
Majority 345. Turnout 36.4%. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Durham CC, Dawden
Lab 775 (84.0; +4.3), Con 148 (16.0; -4.3).
Majority 627. Turnout 18.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.
Easington DC, Passfield
Lab 480 (69.3; +26.8), Ind 213 (30.7; -26.8).
Majority 267. Turnout 15.2%. Lab gain from Ind. Last fought 2003.
Manchester City MBC, Gorton South
LD Charles Glover 1588 (49.3; +1.5), Lab 1208 (37.5; +1.7), BNP 185 (5.7; +5.7), Green 151 (4.7; -3.8), Con 90 (2.8; -5.1).
Majority 380. Turnout 29.9%. LD hold. Last fought 2006.
North Shropshire DC, Hordley, Tetchill and Lyneal
Con 169 (59.7), Ind 74 (26.1), Ind 40 (14.1).
Majority 95. Turnout 26.5%. Con gain from Ind. Unopposed in 2003.
Shrewsbury and Atcham DC, Lawley
Ind 318 (45.6), Con 298 (42.7), LD Patricia Aidley 82 (11.7).
Majority 20. Turnout 35.7%. Ind gain from Con. Unopposed in 2006.
South Cambridgeshire DC, The Abingtons
Con 496 (65.5; +42.8), LD John Williams 261 (34.5; -29.1), [Ind (0.0; -13.8)].
Majority 235. Turnout 43.4%. Con gain from LD. Last fought 2004.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
“Surprisingly perhaps, Labour have opted to abandon an electoral system that provides them with a considerable advantage”….
Not surprising at all as the LibDems made sure a move to a fair voting system was part of the coalition agreement with Labour in scotland.
In rural areas where independents are common they are often opposed by only one party. This can give them a boost since in a contest between an independent and a Labour candidate, for example, supporters of the SNP, Lib Dems and Conservatives may all support the independent in order to vote against Labour, while in a contest between an independent and an SNP candidate, Labour, LD and Conservative supporters can all vote for the independent against the SNP. It is more difficult for independents to benefit from this in multi-member wards, where several parties are likely to have candidates standing.
English mayoral elections and Irish elections show far fewer people transferring second preferences to other parties than the research briefing suggests. If that holds true in these elections smaller parties could secure a seat in a three/four member ward with much less than 25%/20% of the vote, although it is true that they need these percentages to be sure of a seat.
The implosion of the SSP is also a factor that will have to be watched carefully.
Will coalitions create a new breed of parliamentarian?
18 - indeed the Green party won parliamentary seats in the last GE in Ireland with only 9% of the first preference vote in one constituency (a 5-seater) and 12% of the first preference votes in another (a 3-seater)
I honestly don’t know Fred. I know of a number of Tories who sit as independents – including a former election candidate and in the Borders there were and are a few independents who are Liberal Democrats. David Steel’s election agent was a long standing Borders independent.
Sean – as I understand it Labour are only putting forward nine candidates in midlothain which would
prevent them from taking control of the 18 seat council.
18 Yes, occasionally you see parties getting a quota even when they start off with very few first preference votes. But it’s highly unusual.
Max, why are Labour fielding so few candidates there?
The interesting thing will be how the other parties make capital out of their gains from Labour, even if the Labour % vote remains at the same level. This could boost the other parties and once and for all do away with the “wasted vote” scenerio.
(Hello Colin, how are you?)
Ian Sewart (11). Would you describe the Tory result in Gorton only as “poor”? Fifth place with under 3% of the vote…..? and this the party that boasts that it is on its way to form the next goernment…..?
I’m not sure Sean they must have just figured out that that was the most people they could get elected. As I understand it by putting forward too many candidates you can lessen your chances of having anyone elected at all.
Max, I always thought the sensible practice was to field a few more than you expect to get elected, just in case you do better than you anticipate (eg you only field one candidate who wins 50% of the first preference vote, and you lose a quota). So perhaps they don’t expect to win even half the seats.
Field far too many, and indeed, your vote will shred.
21, 22, 25, 26 - Could it be that Labour only have nine people willing to stand, rather than making a sophisticated estimate of the optimal number of candidates? It’s not always easy finding people willing to stand as council candidates and this is a particular problem for Labour as their candidates know that they face a lot of anger on the doorstep about the war in Iraq, and other matters
27 - I very much doubt that’s the case.
26 - Perhaps Sean. The six wards only contain three seats each so even to get nine they have to pick up two out the three seats in half of those wards which isn’t going to be all that easy.
There is another website that has done a ward by ward breakdown the results are a little – but not massively – different.
http://uk.geocities.com/scottishelections/stv2003.htm
Padarn at 27: do they? I actually voted for the war, and virtually never meet any angry comments on the doorstep. Hard to imagine that counmcil candidates with no involvement in the decision at all get much flak. A different factor could be that would-be candidates are themselves upset about the war and more reluctant to stand - I’ve not run into this locally but I can imagine it.
RE 29, Nick I know that morale is low in our local Labour party at the moment. We will have to see how it goes in May though.
How are they counting the votes in Scotland? Is it manual or computer, and will the parties be suggesting to their voters in different parts of the ward how they number their choices in order to maximise the number elected?
28 Thanks for the link.
I’m fairly sure that in Scotland most parties will field far fewer candidates in a number of areas. In 2003 we contested all the seats in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. There is no way we will be fielding 30+ candidates in these areas next time – not because we couldn’t – but because it would be electorally mad.
24. Oh come on Sage! Labour only got 23 votes in the Chiltern DC election and they are the government.
Libdems down net -1 on the night.Con net +1, Lab net +1.
If I were going to make sweeping statements of one night of by election results I could go back to an old favorite. “Welcome to the return of two party politics”…
29. NickP, just saying ‘I voted for the war’ doesn’t quite encapsulate the vehemence of your support for the Iraq invasion, does it?
According to ‘publicwhip.org.uk’ you voted in every possible case for the US-led invasion, giving you a 99.3% record of voting support for the war - making you second equal amongst all British MPs in your recorded support for war, making you more supportive of the war (judging by your voting record) than, say, Ann Clwyd, Jack Straw, Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon.
You also voted, it seems, against all parliamentary enquiries into the war and its ancillary intelligence failures.
Just want to get that straight, as I’m sure you do.
Thought I would make this comment here even though it has more relevance to the other 2 previous threads.
Mike Smithson, you remain behind the times on Cameron. The Tory Conference has given the chink in the Hollow One’s armour, and it will begin to show over the next few months. The voters were waiting for Cameron to ‘push on’, but he remains stuck. The Martin Rowson cartoon that has become a legend in these parts is going to become the prevailing mood. Disappointment and disillusionment at a happy face sent to mask the ‘real intentions’ of the Conservative Party.
George ‘Me Too’ Osbourne’s inability to give a reasoned response to the Tax Commission is the reality. The Cameron project’s shotcomings are that it was thought out on the back of a postage stamp. The longer that the Tories avoid specifics the more they undermine themselves and can be portrayed as say anything do anything power seekers.
Just like Blair, Cameron feels that victory lies in ‘Middle England’ and just like Blair, Cameron wants to steer away from hard and fast statements that pin him down. Unlike Blair Cameron does not need to win ‘Middle England’ but Northern England for the Tories to be back in business.
And it is clear after the devastation that Thatcherism brought to those areas that they want more than empty platitudes to convince them to consider the Tories again. Dave needs to confront his party and ‘win’ to have his symbolic shrugging off of old Toryism. But at every opportunity him and his team have to get that moment of victory they back off and instead opt for mild rebuke. Cameron wants to be just like Blair. But he is different in one valuable respect. He may be tough to hit like his hero, but he has little in the way of knock out punches of his own.
“And it is clear after the devastation that Thatcherism brought to those areas that they want more than empty platitudes to convince them to consider the Tories again. ”
Well, as I pointed out last week, Thatcherism was rather popular in quite a lot of the North of England (we had 63 seats in 1987, and 55 [on present boundaries] in 1992). Repudiating Thatcherism would make the task of winning those seats back harder, not easier.
There were of course, considerable parts of the North where Thatcherism was hated (eg Liverpool, Manchester, most of South Yorkshire), but the seats in those places aren’t even on the Conservatives’ target list.
24 - Unfortunately for you DC if last night’s by-election resemble a return to two party politics (which they don’t) the Tories would be the third party, being outpolled by both the Lib Dems and Labour.
5 - not sure you can put it all down to a good Tory result as every Conservative from that sort of area knows that Independents can and often do take Conservative votes.
They stood last time but not last night.
38. Indeed, Dan, but the Lib Dems not putting up a candidate in their ‘target seat’ of Durham is a bit worrying in this contaxt.
38. I think you meant 34. But your point is well made. DC makes a rather a daft claim from a set of Thursday night local by-elections. He could equally claim that Independents were going to replace Conservatives in large swathes of Tory Territory based on those results. Oh well…
23. Hi Mike. PPC anywhere at the moment?
36 - if the next polls show the Conservatives declining and maybe Labour taking the lead, then maybe you will have a point. If (as I suspect) they show a Conservative lead of 4-6% you will look pretty silly.
I know you WANT Cameron to do badly but all the evidence so far suggests that he is doing rather well!
40. zebidee, I think Dawdon ward is in Easington constituency, not in City of Durham.
40 The Durham CC byelection was not in the target seat of Durham but is in the Easington constituency which is still unfortunately a LibDem ( and Conservative ) desert .
38. Yes but look at the swings in the two Lib Dem-Tory contests…if the average swing was repeated in a GE the Lib Dems would be left with barely a single seat…and church bells would ring out across the kingdom…
for Tressage at 24
OK………as well as could be expected under the circumstances……..urban; Northern; multi-cultural; not middle-class……..not Con territory……..so a two-Party contest it is!
re 36 Please use another name. The place to make political points is in your comment not in the name box. Almost everybody else on the site is following the new practice and I must ask you to do the same.
Local politics is sometimes quite bizarre:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/politics/2005-2777.html
http://www.wakefieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=702&ArticleID=1833072
Still searching for a pic of said candidate to see if he was decent-looking…
Admin. I will of course heed your request from now on in. However, could I please ask what constitutes a ‘political point’. Is, for example, my anti-persona (if that is what he is?) DC (my hips don’t lie)making a political point? I always assumed he was. I saw a Blue2Win and a RedFlag that both seem to have been here for some time.
Should we therefore all have totally political neutral names (i.e. Mike, Dave, Susan etc.) or are you only banning ‘negative’ political statements as names? And am I allowed to call myself IHDC to maintain consistency?
I ask all of this without my tongue in my cheek, but purely to clarify the position.
Yours
Ian Hately Duckham
46 Rosa Minerk - but there was no independent standing this time and as every Conservative from that sort of area knows that Independents can and often do take Conservative votes.
50. You could change your name to “Baby Moses”
Like him you are in de Nile.
Shhh! Dan. Encourage their complacency!
Tony Blair is in Lahti, Finland.
I lived in Lahti for a couple of years. It consists largely of concrete and unemployed people. And snow for half the year. I hope Tony Blair likes it there. I didn’t.
Tony Blair and Lahti deserve each other.
Given Labour’s heavy targeting of Gorton Constituency in the last set of local elections in Manchester, I was expecting a better result for Labour.
51. The indy with S Cambs got 14% last time…the Lib Dem vote was down 29% this time..methinks tis you who is a mite complacent.
31 - the plans are that the votes are to be counted electronically - the same goes for the Parliament votes as well
The seats are either 3 or 4 seat wards so the smaller parties are going to struggle to win seats. I presume the parties will have their vote management strategies to try and maximise the votes in the ward as it would be political suicide to put up the full amount of candidates as there are seats. Very well known and popular councillors might get elected on the first count and their surplus transferred.
55. I’d suggest that any place where the BNP get twice as many votes as the Tories is somewhat odd. At least they voted in the LDs and not Lab.
Why wouldn’t you put up 4 candidates for a 4 member ward?
One of the beauties of STV is that you get to choose which of the candidates put up by your party you prefer.
Rosa - Kevin gave an explanation for the poor Lib Dem result in South Cambs on the previous thread -
“Yes the South Cambs result is undeniably good for the Tories and poor for the Lib Dems.
Some strong local factors do explain much/some of the swing: The Tory candidate was a local Tory County Councillor, whereas the Lib Dem was a last minute replacement from some distance away (the original candidate was local but had fallen ill).”
I don´t think very much can be read into this result.
I would suspect, Julian (58) that the current Tory message of “Hello, Sun! Hello, Clouds!” does not go down very well in Manchester Gorton.
59 If normally the Tories get 24% in the new ward then there is a chance that they could all get 6% first preference votes in a four ward seat and could all get eliminated during the count process.
But their 2nd and 3rd preference votes would be allocated to the others
55. I expected a better LD result considering they didn’t do very well last may in that ward and this time being a byelection they could have moved more resources there.
In the end I think it’s a decent result for both LD and Labour
41. IHD. I said ‘if’ I were making a claim which I wasn’t. You cannot from one set of council by elections.
50. I was edited! I’ve now taken my phrase off much to own sadness…
My real initials are indeed DC as Mike can tell from my email address which is genuine. I would never claim to be the great man himself. There is only one David Cameron. That would be a good chant at a football match.
63 Yes but if the quota is 25%+1 then they aint going to do it. If you put up 2 then far better chance if they got 12% each hoping for others to be eliminated first and get their second pref votes. Too risky to put up 4 candidates. I hear that none of the parties are putting up candidates for the full number of seats.
Claire Short has resigned the Labour Whip. Good Lass!!!
Marcia - A quota of 25% +1 is what is needed to be sure of election in a 3-member ward.
In a 4-member ward, you need 20% +1 to be sure of getting elected. The fifth candidate cannot reach this figure. So you can put up as many candidates a you like - provided your supporters give the rest of them their following preferences.
This, as Icarus says, gives greater say to the electors over who fianlly gets elected.
DC. I apologise. I assumed you were merely a cheerleader.
Jamie. Hohoho. The old ones are the oldest, as the saying goes
Suppose, you expect to get one quota in a four member ward. You’d field two candidates, and urge your supporters to transfer between the two.
Field 4, and there is indeed, a risk they’d all be eliminated.
68 - I sit corrected. But far too risky to put up a full slate.
SBS at 54: I think Lahti is incredibly beautiful - one of the loveliest towns I know, after Zurich. But I recall we’ve differed over Scandinavia before! De gustibus nil dispuatandem, eh?
I’m away now for a couple of days, by the way - back Sunday night.
72. Have a nice trip!
(I’m actually trying to gain the lost ground after being a bit harsh in the previous thread)
73 Andrea. Creep !
3 “Does Westminster have sole control over methods of electing MPs or could Holyrood unilaterally decide on PR for electing MPs to Westminster in future for Scotland?”
A very good question. I would presume that Westminster determines the electoral system toi be used for electing its constituent members, but only becuase that would seem to make common sense.
Anyone know for sure though?
75 Robin. The Scottish Parliament determined the system. However as with all devolved matters Westminster may rescind the legislation should it determine to do so. Westminster remains legislatively supreme.
60. I disagree! with a 12% swing from the Lib Dems to the Tories in the Chiltern election as well, it’s clear the Lib Dem vote in the home counties is in meltdown. Cameron’s blue tide is set to wash away all but a handful of Lib Dem MPs at the next GE!
76 - Jack. Thanks. Still not quite clear though - I know the Scottish Parliament determined the electoral system to be used for local and Scottish Parliament elections in Scotland, but does it have control over the electoral system which is used for Westminster Parliamentary elections within Scotland?
Sorry if I am being obtuse…
78 Robin. No. Westminster determines the electoral system for all UK seats.
79 Jack. Thanks - I assumed so. And thank God that it is so and some grubby stitch up between Labour & Lib Dems in Holyrood or the parish council in Cardiff can’t alter that fact.
Ooh - did I give away my vehement opposition to PR there?
80 Robin. Just a tad.
Having said that PR would not help Labour or the Lib Dems in Scottish Westminster elections. The main beneficiary would of course be the Conservatives.
77 - Can we please have some serious political discussion on here! I’m fed up of reading the same posts saying over and over again how Labour/Lib Dems/Tories are heading for melt-down at the next election
81. No. The main beneficiaries will be the voters, whose votes will all actually count under STV, and who will get a councils that truly represent local political opinion. Even Tories.
81 - And so it can be seen how principled my opposition is (!) - despite us doing better under PR in Scotland, I’ll still have no truck with it.
I don’t want to start the oft-repreated thread of which crappy PR system is better than which, but until a system is devised that avoids the potential for weak/minority government perpetually propped up by smaller parties with disproportionate control, and similarly avoids breaking the close link between MPs and single-member constituencies (and all the benefits that that link currently entails for accountability and localism), then FPTP is the best we have.
I see Steve Richard denouncing Bremner for being ever less funny for his transparent hatred of Blair yesterday. Funny I had similar thoughts about Richards being ever less funny for his transparent brownosing of Blair. Still like Odone says poor soul will struggle for sources soon.
79 and it is a reserved matter also in relation to the Scottish Parliament. Westminster can change the voting system for Holyrood. The Scottish Parliament cannot. All they can do is change the voting system for local government.
I see Labour is using Khalid Mahmood (one of the resigning PPS last month) to lecture her about loyalty…..
He questioned what prompted her to change her view considering she stood on Labour manifesto last year…has anyone asked what caused Mahmood to change his view considered he accepted the PPS position last year?
87 - he wants her to wear a veil…………………..
87. her is Clare Short, btw.
Not sure why some Labourites are complaining, I think it’s the best outcome for them too…no point to keep her and well, it’s better seeing her leave now instead in the run up of a GE.
88. She has a scarf…doesn’t it count?
90 Isadora Duncan…………….ohhh.
83 - Colin - With the greatest respect that’s balderdash.
In a single-member ward under STV my vote for a minority party would only count if my 2nd or 3rd choice happened to coincide with similar “least-worst” choices from other voters, and only then if all these least-worst 3rd choices add up to 51% or more - I could still end up on the “losing” side with no vote counted.
Alternatively in a multi-member STV ward, my vote’s ability to hold to account and remove a poorly performing representative is significantly reduced to the extent that effectively it is the party machine that determines who is (s)elected.
I already live under multi-member PR in North Wales. The arithmetic may be elaborate (even pretty) but as a system it stinks worse than a 3 week old dead horse stuffed with whale turd. And now we’ve got it, we’ll never get rid of it. I don’t care if you think STV is better than AMS or regional top up; they’re all seriously deficient in some way.
There - I said I didn’t weant to start this thread yet again, and that’s all I’ll say.
89 Andrea. Do you know if “Our Clare” is going to cross the floor and sit on the opposition benches …… perhaps next to Dr. Paisley ?!?!
93 JAck - She’ll have too won’t she? Labour’s side of the House is for the governing party only… if she’s no longer taking the Labour whip then she’ll have to cross the floor.
93. Jack
I think there’s the huge risk she’ll end up in his area…she can find a little place behind the Libdems…near the Nats and in front of the DUP!
94. Considering we’re talking about Clare, I think she can actually just sit on the carpet in the middle of the House not wanting to decide where to go.
95 Not near to Gorgeous George?
97. I think it’s more or less the area where Gorgeous sits when he visits the House
Sit her near to gospel singing Rev William McCrea of the DUP….she won’t last until the next election..
She cuts a bit of a sad figure these days. Thats what ya get for trying to mess with Page 3…
84 - I’m delighted to inform you that such a system has indeed been devised. And its name is the Single Transferable Vote :0
Rejoice, rejoice!
100 - ha ha - good one
99. Ah, when she announced that she was going to step down, the Sun launched a competition to suggest which job she can take now…and the piece called her “prudish” (for the Page 3 thing).
I actually emailed them my suggestion saying she doesn’t need a new job because after 23+ years in the Commons she’ll get a good pension and that whilst we’re on topic of Page 3, I would have been glad if they could have had some hot shirtless men too or if they were too prudish to do it…I think I didn’t win the competition though
94 Robin. The SDLP sit with Labour and in the Major years the DUP sat on the government benches. So it depends how semi detached “Our Clare” intends to be !!
103. Jack, you should consider her safety too!
44 Aha Mark, thankyou - though some of us are old enough to remember when it (Easington) was actually considered the fourth best Liberal prospect in the Northern region, with Peterlee Town Council under Liberal Control. These things are not set in stone!
104 Andrea. Not suggesting that our Nick P will bitch slap our Clare are you ?? …….. You’re in enough trouble with Nick as it is.
99. She will need a good set of ear plugs sitting between Paisley and Singing Billy!
106. Jack, I would never suggest it!
108 Andrea. I would !
What tabloid used to have the occasional Page 5 (or was it Page 7) guys?
107..given the choice Ian, I’d sit beside the big man, Willie is just lethal.
Mark Oaten is delighted to inform us about his Thailand holiday:
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22189-2412230,00.html
(picture included)
Cons doing very very well in Cambridgeshire recently, does anyone know the underlying reason.
110: It was The Sun’s ‘Page seven fella’ and lasted about a week.
112 - David Cameron?
113..yeah but, er..what a week?
Andrea, in case you didn’t know, Hunky Dunky on BBC1 now.
111 - hmmm, so Mark Oaten went to Bangkok, but then thought Phuket.
112- Stupidity? Belief in amiable puffball politics? Good question.
116. Ben, thanks…sadly I can’t see him!
92 there’s no such thing as STV in 1 member seats. Yes the system for the Welsh, Scottish and Euro elections does stink but it does ensure that whoever NewLab wants elected will get elected which is why they did it.
120 - STV in single member seats is known as the Alternative Vote (which, I think, is nationally only applied for the Australian House of Representative), though a ‘bastardised’ version is used for the London Mayoralty. AV is emphatically not proportional, and neither, strictly speaking is STV.
John Battle (Leeds West), Billy Etherington (Sunderland South), Paria Khabra (Ealing Southall), Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West), Des Turner (Brighton Kemptown) and Alan Williams (Swansea West) are going to stand down at the next election
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2006/10/20/17422/978
Can Leeds West be Balls’ new seat?
re 121 but as you get bigger seats it becomes more so. The problem is the small (3,4 member) seats that the Scots are having. A problem also arises by having both 3 and 4 member seats because that can allow gerrymandering. You have the 3 members seats where your party is strongest and the 4 member seats where you are in second place. The threshold is about 46%. So with more than 46% support you have 3 memebr seats and win 2 (67%) of them, and with less than 46% you have 4 member seats and in all probability win 2 (50%) of them - you can’t lose!
(122 - Thks for your reply - f**king tiscali has crashed again
)
David S - “Cons doing very very well in Cambridgeshire recently, does anyone know the underlying reason.”
We have already answered this question about four or five times.
There are special circumstances, both this week and last week. Please stop your tedious Tory spinning. Rik has already got the job.
123 - Yes. Absolutely!
122. Some figures
John Battle: born in 1951, first elected in 1987
Bill Etherington: born in 1941, first elected in 1992
Paria Khabra: born in 1924, first elected in 1992
Doug Naysmith: born in 1941, first elected in 1997
Des Turner: born in 1939, first elected in 1997
Alan Williams: born in 1930, first elected in 1964
The other Lab MPs who already announced their retirements were:
Brian Iddon: born in 1940, first elected in 1997
Clare Short: born in 1946, first elected in 1983
John Cummings: born in 1943, first elected in 1987
David Lepper: born in 1945, first elected in 1997
John Grogan: born in 1961, first elected in 1997
125 - Temper, temper. Funny, there always appear to be “special circumstances” when the LibDems get a well-deserved hammering
119. Sorry Andrea, Have I got news for you isn’t on the watch again I don’t think, so you missed it!
111 nice to see a liberal democrat who does not care about global warming and is willing to burn huge amounts of aircraft fuel on his holidays . I am sure it did him good
Can someone explain in simple words how the STV system works - or provide me with a link? Thanks
And what are the ” special circumstances ” for the Conservatives regular well deserved hammering in the North of England .
132 they dont know whats good for them
Piara Khabra standing down! Why? He is but a spring chicken.
Nick jests about Lahti. It has a nice lake, but there are certainly prettier towns, even in Finland.
Leeds West - bring back Meadowcroft!
123, in the Irish Republic in the 70s, a gerrymander was famously conducted on the multi-member constituencies - it was known as the ‘Tullymander’ after James Tully the minister for Local Government who was responsible. However it backfired as the Fine Gael/Labour coalition failed to reach the threshold and the seat bonus was to Fianna Fail instead, gifting them the largest majority in the history of the state.
132 - Mark, We can at least agree that this week’s small crop of locals was pretty p*ss-poor for yoour lot.
131 here is a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote
highlights from the EU media reception in Lahti Finland included
The Beatles band playing in the reception was originally from “The Beatles Story” which is a musical of Lahti City Theatre. The premier was 4.10.2006. The Beatles Story is a story of four guys from Liverpool. The musical is full of great live music of Beatles. All the band members are professional actors with Beatles in their heart. Lahti City Theatre´s Tero Porvali is playing John Lennon, Paavo Honkimäki is playing Paul McCartney, Jussi Puhakka is playing George Harrison and Ilkka Forss is playing Ringo Starr.
Dont you wish you were there !
Vino: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferrable_Vote
I’m sure I’ve coped you this link before
Jack: howcome you haven’t been banned for your postnominals?
132 - Mark, I believe one of the policies that might make it into the next Tory manifesto involves engaging the workshy to dig a large trench from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, so that all the red and orange bits can float away somewhere into the Arctic
139 - Tabman - thanks - yes you have!!! I remember voting for a tangerine who finished last!![come on I'm setting you up]
137 - thanks
132. I posted something related to that in my former unedited self further up the page (I remain IHDC, until told otherwise).
Cameron fails in the North because he tries to appeal to ‘middle England’. But the vaccuous, public school boy fop image, and the sunshine lightweight stuff does not appeal to people who are looking for someone a bit ’straight talking’. Cameron’s weakness is becoming obvious. His appeal is far too narrow, and he has not got enough of a team around him (or is too afraid to utilise them) who can reach out to the constiuencies he cannot reach personally.
Cameron wants to be just like Blair, but Blair had a proper sidekick in Brown. But ‘Me Too’ Osbourne diminishes. He is the embodiment of Cameron’s problem. That he is too fearful to step out of his comfort zone. Meeting the odd rapper only serves to highlight this even further.
A lot of tosh being written on here tonight as to why PR systems are “rubbish”. Nothing new…
143 - oh I don’t know, a bit of prejudiced unsupported assertion always goes down well
92. You can’t have STV or, indeed any proportional system when there is only 1 seat in a constituency. STV also removes the ability of a political party to order its list of candidates, so gives the voter choice between candidates of the same party in addition to the choice between parties.
144 - That’s really no way to talk about Stephen Tall
146 - aren’t I allowed a hissy fit for not winning LD Blog of the Year?
69. IHDC. Accepted. I prefer your ‘new’ name but I must admit I am missing my truthfull hips which Mike took away with the swift click of a mouse!
142. I don’t (surprise surprise) agree with you about Cameron having an appeal that is ‘far too narrow’. We don’t need to win that many votes off Labour. We just need most of the ‘nulabour’ votes and a big chunk out of the Libdems and others. That is where his appeal is going, and working!
147 - Of course, my child, of course. As long as the ‘fit’ doesn’t extend to your lousy comprehensive school
148 - ah … what was I saying about unsupported assertions? Meanwhile, on your right, support is drifting away …
136 We can agree that there was 1 decent and 2 poor results for the LibDems and a couple of good Conservative results in the South and bad in the North . Next weeks crop all in the North will be interesting . The Conservatives should gain the Chester one from the LibDems and the Blyth one from Labour .
134. SBS, yes, Khabra is such a young newcomer that I’m so surprised to see him in the list of retirements!
Btw, he was already 68 when he was elected for the first time…he shows that you can’t never lose hopes in a parliamentary career…not even if you’re already passed the retirement age
151. Hi Mark. So would that be two good weeks for the Conservatives and two bad weeks for the Libdems should that happen?
77 etc - funny when the Tories won the Wrexham by-election a few weeks a go (with a straight swap from condependent) we didn’t have Rik and the Tory cheerleaders saying ‘every Conservative from that sort of area knows that Independents can and often do take Conservative votes.’ It was an unadulterated good result for Cameron’s election winning Blue/Green machine.
I’m simply pointing out that Independent/Conservative candidates in rural areas are often the same thing - and for once Rik agrees with me.
Oh and by the way on Thursday more people voted Lib Dem than Tory…
154. That stat must be a comfort zone for you Dan.
When are we going to get another opinion poll? Withdrawl symptons are setting it!
More people voted Lib Dem than Conservative.
True enough - but Big Deal!
That one seat in Manchester yesterday accounted for 76% of the total Lib Dem vote yesterday - so it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to work out that the Lib Dems were absolutely nowhere at all in any of the other three contests they took part in.
“Play fair, Blair tells Russians” - I am sorry but we are in no position to negotiate with Russia. We need their oil and gas. The Russian ambassador to the UK made this abundantly clear on “Today” this morning. And the UK is one of only two energy self-sufficient countries in the EU. (Who is the other? I have no idea.)
This concern about Russia’s lurch towards authoritarianism is daft. Which is the extremist, cruel, intolerant state - Russia or Saudi Arabia?
Russia is now our friend. They have what we need, at least in the short term. Be pragmatic, and put up with Putin. He is the best offer on the table. What would you prefer, Putin, Zhirinovsky or the Communists? Or do you hark back to the days of Yeltsin?
138 - for all its faults, Lahti has the finest orchestra in Scandinavia. The conductor, Osmo Vanskaa, is often at the Proms. A very decent new concert hall too - Nick P - I’ll concede that too.
Since Icarus has failed to reply to my question at the top of the thread, maybe one of the other Lib Dem proponents of PR would like to explain how, if PR were brought in to the second house, your leadership would argue the case for remaining in the democratically deficient (in your eyes) Commons? Because if FPTP is not as democratic as PR it surely follows that if one house is PR the Lib Dem leader should be in THAT house.
158
An interesting argument.
ISTM there are a number of factors contributing to the decision. One is that a party leader seems to need the facility to debate face to face with the Prime Minister. Another goes to how the specified roles of the two houses are eventually defined, either in the relevant legislation or in the evolution of the unwritten constitution. I would have thought that for a party leader to be a member of what is merely a revising chamber would not be sensible but the more powers that chamber accrues the stronger the case becomes.
Can I add, in view of the aggressive point scoring that seems to have taken over this site recently, that I’m not intending to stay up all night arguing the toss.
Oh, Steven Whaley (156)…. What you are overlooking is that the Tories picked up council seats with very small electorates - seats that represent a very small percentage of any constituency.
Putting it another way, the Lib Dems this week won 25% of the seats they contested and out-polled the Tories. Not being hopelessly ambitious for my party, I will happily settle for winning 25% of the seats we contest at the next general election…..
I wasn’t overlooking that at all, Tressage, - indeed it was my precise point!
Or putting it another way, the Conservatives won 50% of the seats they contested - not beong hopelessly ambitious for the Conservatives, I will happily settle for them winning 50% of the seats they contest at the next general election…
162 - I must add that I’m almost as pro-Lib Dem as I am pro-Conservative so I’ve got no problem at all with seeing the Lib Dems do well. I was just very amused by Dan’s spin on the results.
I take it you work nights too, Steven!
Tressage, Re 125. A Tory !!!!!
&nI must have missed the answers.