General British politics discussion thread

hotmail.com

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes to all that, but it also means they have no policies and don't believe in anything apart from staying in power.

That is certainly true of Johnson, his only policy is to 'make Johnson great again'. You'd wonder though how long they can run a country like this before it crashes on the rocks.

Fianna Fail had the same ideology - stay in power and shift positions to ensure they keep winning elections.

Most countries have a 'party of government' that are seen as a stable force, that represent the middle ground. Cautious and prudent, reflective of the general population.

Johnson on a personal high because of the vaccine success. That may wear off in time and the Tories will have no problem ditching him if he becomes a liability.

O'Neill

hotmail.com wrote: »

Fianna Fail had the same ideology - stay in power and shift positions to ensure they keep winning elections.

Most countries have a 'party of government' that are seen as a stable force, that represent the middle ground. Cautious and prudent, reflective of the general population.

Johnson on a personal high because of the vaccine success. That may wear off in time and the Tories will have no problem ditching him if he becomes a liability.

Well they've made a complete shambles in the last year alone (their Covid response until recently), education, continuing disapearance of Johnson ect.. No resignations, no one held to account. After all that, if they're still electing them then I can't see Johnson going away any time soon.

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No. Each candidate had the two boxes. You put an "X" in the left box for your preferred candidate and the right box of a different candidate to signify your second preference.

Whoosh. Thanks for the explanation. :rolleyes:

Yes, it's a confusing ballot that I could make out because I'm not a moron and can read instructions.

I'm not suggesting that you should put "1" and "2" in those boxes in clear contravention of the directions as given.

I'm suggesting in designing the form anew that perhaps using "1" and "2" in a singular column of boxes (like we do in Ireland) might be clearer in deciding your preferences, ie. Your "first" and "second" choices.

But thanks for making it clear that that point wasn't blindingly obvious.

---

I've worked in the past on form simplification and plain English campaigns within the public sector. This wouldn't get out of the first of those meetings. It looks fairly malicious to me. Though I've not seen previous mayoral ballots.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

Fianna Fail had the same ideology - stay in power and shift positions to ensure they keep winning elections.

Most countries have a 'party of government' that are seen as a stable force, that represent the middle ground. Cautious and prudent, reflective of the general population.

Johnson on a personal high because of the vaccine success. That may wear off in time and the Tories will have no problem ditching him if he becomes a liability.

Prudent isn't something I would use to describe Fianna Fáil or the Tories or even the GOP.

Reputation and reality are seldom aligned.

breezy1985

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Whoosh. Thanks for the explanation. :rolleyes:

Yes, it's a confusing ballot that I could make out because I'm not a moron and can read instructions.

I'm not suggesting that you should put "1" and "2" in those boxes in clear contravention of the directions as given.

I'm suggesting in designing the form anew that perhaps using "1" and "2" in a singular column of boxes (like we do in Ireland) might be clearer in deciding your preferences, ie. Your "first" and "second" choices.

But thanks for making it clear that that point wasn't bleeding obvious.

---

I've worked in the past on form simplification and plain English campaigns within the public sector. This wouldn't get out of the first of those meetings. It looks fairly malicious to me. Though I've not seen previous mayoral ballots.

I'm almost certain it was the same last time. I seem to remember doing a sort of double take when I read the instructions.

I think though it probably looks more unusual to us than it would be to a London voter with no PR experience. Writing numbers would be the more unusual version for them

BonnieSituation

breezy1985 wrote: »

I always spend ages looking at them before handing them in. Some of those list and AP voting cards can be laid out or worded odd. Same goes for referendums.

Last mayor's elections I seem to remember having a load of ballot cards. Mayor, list, assembly and Brexit and each one looked and operated nothing like the others

I find it mad that we're always told that PR-STV as a system is too confusing and yet we use it for every* election here.

The amount of systems that I've seen to be in place on Thursday is absolutely bananas. And not one of them of the quality of ours.


*Presidential elections and by-elections are technically IRV. But the voting method remains the same which is key.

BonnieSituation

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm almost certain it was the same last time. I seem to remember doing a sort of double take when I read the instructions.

I think though it probably looks more unusual to us than it would be to a London voter with no PR experience. Writing numbers would be the more unusual version for them

That's fair enough.

Perhaps the actual design has been changed somewhat to be less legible and clear?

Being confusing is one thing, but still being confusing AFTER reading instructions is criminal.

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm almost certain it was the same last time. I seem to remember doing a sort of double take when I read the instructions.

I think though it probably looks more unusual to us than it would be to a London voter with no PR experience. Writing numbers would be the more unusual version for them

I do not think they get proportional representation at all.

The FPTP system has the single party candidate selected by a small constituency party committee. The European Parliament elections had to be proportional representation, so they had a list system that was entirely controlled by the political party.

The system for the Scottish Assembly has a FPTP seat election (again party control) and then an opaque system of top up seats selected from a party list - again party control, but more importantly, designed to prevent a single party getting a majority.

Democracy is not a strong point in the UK.

PommieBast

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm suggesting in designing the form anew that perhaps using "1" and "2" in a singular column of boxes (like we do in Ireland) might be clearer in deciding your preferences, ie. Your "first" and "second" choices.

Using two columns is intended to make it easier to machine read the ballot papers. Having four columns rather than two like previous elections and making the 'A' and 'B' very small is rather suspicious..

BonnieSituation

PommieBast wrote: »

Using two columns is intended to make it easier to machine read the ballot papers. Having four columns rather than two like previous elections and making the 'A' and 'B' very small is rather suspicious..

I had thought it might be the machine reading factor, but I've never seen it crop up before so had no idea if it was something they used.

The amount of ballots to be counted is so low though that hand counting should be used.

Honestly, we should get the Brits over for our next election and show them how it's done. Don't forget that it was them that imposed it on us anyway to help Unionist minorities.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/proportional-representation-and-the-single-transferable-vote-its-use-in-ireland-1.1035255?

Oh irony of ironies.

PommieBast

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Honestly, we should get the Brits over for our next election and show them how it's done. Don't forget that it was them that imposed it on us anyway to help Unionist minorities.

Make that English. Scotland uses STV for local elections and the Welsh assembly intends to introduce it.

breezy1985

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think they get proportional representation at all.

The FPTP system has the single party candidate selected by a small constituency party committee. The European Parliament elections had to be proportional representation, so they had a list system that was entirely controlled by the political party.

The system for the Scottish Assembly has a FPTP seat election (again party control) and then an opaque system of top up seats selected from a party list - again party control, but more importantly, designed to prevent a single party getting a majority.

Democracy is not a strong point in the UK.

Well I suppose we are dealing with subjects of the crown and not citizens

BonnieSituation

PommieBast wrote: »

Make that English. Scotland uses STV for local elections and the Welsh assembly intends to introduce it.

It's fascinating that those that could really benefit from FPTP like the SNP and Welsh Labour don't want it.

Take from that what you will.

If English Labour had backed AV in 2011 who knows where we'd be now.

breezy1985

So Wales is finished with none of the final 8 list seats going to Labour for that 1 seat needed for a majority.

I have tried but can't really understand the list thing and I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about it as on quick glance it looks fairly undemocratic to throw seats at the parties who can't get elected ( I know that's not what is happening but I can see how it would look that way to some)

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

So Wales is finished with none of the final 8 list seats going to Labour for that 1 seat needed for a majority.

I have tried but can't really understand the list thing and I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about it as on quick glance it looks fairly undemocratic to throw seats at the parties who can't get elected ( I know that's not what is happening but I can see how it would look that way to some)

That is exactly what is happening. It is a system designed to prevent any party getting an overall majority.

If they want proportional representation, then the best system is STV. It is easy to understand - vote No. 1 for you first preference, 2 for the next and so on. It only gets complicated when parties or voters want to manage the vote to get above their share of the result. Now counting is a different matter.

The multiple seat variation puts the voter in charge rather than the party.

breezy1985

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is exactly what is happening. It is a system designed to prevent any party getting an overall majority.

If they want proportional representation, then the best system is STV. It is easy to understand - vote No. 1 for you first preference, 2 for the next and so on. It only gets complicated when parties or voters want to manage the vote to get above their share of the result. Now counting is a different matter.

The multiple seat variation puts the voter in charge rather than the party.

I'm all for a list system where a voter gets a constituency vote and a list vote but this system almost seems designed to look shady to turn people against PR

Capt'n Midnight

There's no elections in Norn Iron so they've decided to have some of their own rather than feel left out.
Steve Aiken to resign as UUP Leader

The comments

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde - To lose one Unionist leader is unfortunate, to lose two is carelessness.

...
P.S This means the Chief Constable has now outlasted two of the three unionist leaders who called for his resignation. Politics is a funny old world sometimes isn't it?

...
Unionism is celebrating the centenary of Northern Ireland by imploding. I’m half expecting Jim Allister to resign next

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm all for a list system where a voter gets a constituency vote and a list vote but this system almost seems designed to look shady to turn people against PR

Or a deliberate perversion of democracy.

If the list system was designed to balance the vagaries of FPTP - well maybe. However, it looks to deliberately pervert it. They would never use it for a Westminster election. That would be too much democracy - the voters could never understand it.

Capt'n Midnight

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm all for a list system where a voter gets a constituency vote and a list vote but this system almost seems designed to look shady to turn people against PR

It is designed to prevent a single party majority. The way to game the system is to have two parties. One for constituency and a parallel one for regions. Alba in theory might have been this but Greens more likely to get seats.

Didn't Lib Dems insist on it when Labour granted devolution ?
Otherwise it was expected Labour would have a majority.

breezy1985

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or a deliberate perversion of democracy.

If the list system was designed to balance the vagaries of FPTP - well maybe. However, it looks to deliberately pervert it. They would never use it for a Westminster election. That would be too much democracy - the voters could never understand it.

I don't fully understand it and I have tried so I can't imagine how it looks to the casual voter. Ide certainly cry foul if we had it here

breezy1985

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It is designed to prevent a single party majority. The way to game the system is to have two parties. One for constituency and a parallel one for regions. Alba in theory might have been this but Greens more likely to get seats.

Didn't Lib Dems insist on it when Labour granted devolution ?
Otherwise it was expected Labour would have a majority.

Oh ya the never ending Scottish Labour majority.

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't fully understand it and I have tried so I can't imagine how it looks to the casual voter. Ide certainly cry foul if we had it here

From the poor understanding I have, it is a system of granting seats to parties that are unable to get them by actually persuading enough voters to actually voting for them.

Parties that do well in the direct seats do not get many (or any) extra seats. Labour in Wales are denied any extra seats even though they got 50% of the seats.

It is an opaque system and deliberately so.

BonnieSituation

It's a essentially a way of fixing the shítshow of FPTP without actually getting rid of FPTP fully.

Capt'n Midnight

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't fully understand it and I have tried so I can't imagine how it looks to the casual voter. Ide certainly cry foul if we had it here

FF have a long tradition of "independents". And people leaving and rejoining.

Ideal candidates for the regionals where they wouldn't be penalised because they wouldn't be under the FF banner.

Mr.Nice Guy

https://twitter.com/LucidTalk/status/1391043864706887682

This would seem tough for the SNP given the tactical voting from Labour and Tory voters.

Update: BBC's Nick Eardley says SNP sources are privately conceding Aberdeenshire West.

10000maniacs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's no elections in Norn Iron so they've decided to have some of their own rather than feel left out.
Steve Aiken to resign as UUP Leader

The comments

The problem with Aiken was he wanted to appear moderate while defending the removal of the NI Protocol. Can't do both.
The only thing Unionists were betrayed by was their own stupidity in supporting Brexit in the first place.

breezy1985

So by being 2 half parties Labour and Tories can get twice as many list seats as SNP. Obviously offset by Greens maybe getting a ton too

breezy1985

There was a council controlled by "Other" just lost to the Tories. Anyone know who the other were ?

ArmaniJeanss

The combined total of first preference constituency votes for SNP/Greens/Alba is probably the most relevant figure in terms of winning IndyRef#2, rather than exactly how many seats that percentage translates into.

Seems to me that it will remain below 50% (albeit there will be small percentages of Labour & Liberal voters who would vote for independence, and also some Green voters who would vote against).

But I'd still fear that they don't quite have enough to get Independence over the line, especially when the campaign rhetoric hots up.

BonnieSituation

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The combined total of first preference constituency votes for SNP/Greens/Alba is probably the most relevant figure in terms of winning IndyRef#2, rather than exactly how many seats that percentage translates into.

Seems to me that it will remain below 50% (albeit there will be small percentages of Labour & Liberal voters who would vote for independence, and also some Green voters who would vote against).

But I'd still fear that they don't quite have enough to get Independence over the line, especially when the campaign rhetoric hots up.

If the campaign for independence started at 48% in 2014 they would have won it at a canter.

The more Unionism refuses to engage on the issue and continues to treat the SNP with contempt then it can only play into the hands of independence supporters.

Talk of independence isn't going to go away.