Showing posts with label 2007 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2007 election. Show all posts

Monday, April 07, 2008

Another Liberal Democrat leadership election farce

Is this the rightful leader of the Liberal Democrats...December is always a difficult time for the postal system, so one has to wonder who thought it was a good idea to have a Saturday December 15th deadline for returning postal ballots in the most recent Liberal Democrat leadership election. The latest damning revelation is that over a thousand ballot papers arrived between the 15th and the declaration on the 18th. And these ballots would have given the election to Chris Huhne. (The Independent: Meet the real leader of the Liberal Democrats)

...or this?It gets worse. The returning officer asked both candidates if they wanted the late ballots counted, and it was Nick Clegg who was firmest against this.

So Nick Clegg isn't even the choice of his party to lead them. How long before Cleggover becomes Cleggunder?

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The new Liberal DemocRAT leader

A truthful poster for the Lib DemsAnd so it's "Calamity Clegg". So the Liberal Democrats look set to get into yet another mess.

Watch out for the hordes of anonymous comments claiming that it's a glorious moment and calling anyone who disagrees names (in spite of the claims of the Liberal Democrats to be "above tribalism" and all that other self-righteous hypocrisy they spew out).

So when's the next Liberal Democrat leadership election?

I don't knowI know nothingAs I type this the result of the Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2007 is about to come through. It's not exactly a contest that's set the world on fire with the candidates squabbling with each other, whilst the one Liberal Democrat who's come out of the last few months with his stature raised is Vincent Cable (see Shock of the week). No wonder people are already regretting that Cable didn't stand himself (BBC News: Vince Cable: Acting like a leader).

But let's not disguise the truth - whoever wins will be the fourth leader the Liberal Democrats have had in a single parliament. They've meandered all over the place, been utterly unable to give a consistent answer on what they'd do if there was a hung parliament which is, after all, the likely outcome of their wet dream of proportional representation! What do Liberal Democrats stand for? Other than leadership elections.

And whoever wins will be at the head of a fractious party that's used to squabbling and back & frontstabbing. The Liberal Democrats are now truly the nasty party - well they are the ones with "rats" in their name.

So when will the next leadership election be?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

So is STV easy to use?

There's been several posts related to Australia lately - I guess that's what Googling the elections can do to you! But before I turn my attention homeward I've just been glancing at the Australian Electoral Commission: 2007 Federal Election - Candidates details and Senate preference flows website. This rather dry sounding page lists all the candidates for the election including the Senate which is elected by single transferable vote. (For more details see my past post On second chambers: The Senate of Australia.)

One thing that stands out above all else is that the ballot papers can be HUGE. The candidates in New South Wales are no less than seventy-nine.

How are voters supposed to be informed about every single one of these candidates so they can work out an order of preferences for all seventy-nine candidates? Even the most ardent follower of politics would find this task hard.

Of course there are two ways round this. One is to pick a few candidates you like then number the rest in the order they appear on the ballot - a donkey vote. Alternatively they can "vote above the line" which is to select just one box for a party, and their vote will be allocated in accordance with one of the party preference tickets submitted (also available on the site).

Curiously most of the ardent STV advocates in this country who are aware of how the Australian system works are fiercely critical of making it easier to cast a valid vote. Would they rather have lots of donkey and spoilt votes?

Monday, November 12, 2007

Is this the emptiest PPB ever?

I've just seen this clip on YouTube of Wayne Swan, the Australian Shadow Treasurer (that's their equivalent of the Shadow Chancellor) making the following broadcast as part of the Australian election:

I've heard of positive campaigning, I've heard of negative campaigning but I've never before heard of surreal campaigning. Is the Australian Labor Party missing something besides a "u"?

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Well Clegg's a gonner

Not a very memorable muppetI missed this one earlier this week. Nick Clegg's leadership ambitions took a serious blow this week and it's possible he may never recover.

The supporter nobody wants...Yes he has received the backing of Lembit Öpik. (icWales: Öpik sides with Clegg on Lib-Dem vote)

Clegg has shrugged off the "Curse of Lembit" (see my past post Lembit Öpik's chance to sink yet another candidate's hopes) but others may not agree. Mike Ion: Message to Lembit Opik carried a warning a month ago; whilst Liberal England: The Curse of Lembit now reports a flurry of bets on Chris Huhne.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Conservative Future elections

The Conservative Future elections are almost upon us and the various candidates are currently declaring. I am especially pleased to see that Daryl Williams is running for National Chairperson and he has my full support. In the time I've been involved with Conservative Future Daryl has always stood out as one of the best campaigners, bringing dedication, hard work and enthusiasm to the task and inspiring others, and he would take the organisation forward by huge leaps and bounds.

(See also ConservativeHome's CF Diary: Daryl Williams launches campaign for the chairmanship for many other endorsements of Daryl.)

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Does English need a spelling reform?

Recently two incidents have left me wondering about this one.

Earlier this week I received back a copy of a thesis chapter from my supervisor and amongst the howlers in it he pointed out that I'd used the spelling "practice" when it should be "practise" for the verb. Since the noun uses the latter form, and Americans use both (and Microsoft's "UK English" spellchecker doesn't flag it as an error), it's an easy mistake to make. But both spellings are pronounced the same, are derived from the same root and so forth. Why exactly they're spelt differently is a mystery.

Another point came in reading a few pieces about the current general election in Australia where I was reminded that the Australian Labor Party uses that spelling despite ~our spellings being standard in Australia (including for "labour") because nearly a century ago one of the leading Labor politicians was an advocate of spelling who opted to "modernise" the name, only for the great spelling reform to not happen. (See Wikipedia: Australian Labor Party#History and King O'Malley.)

Spelling reform seeks to make a language easier to spell, removing irregular spellings and making spelling phonetic (now why isn't that word spelt the way it's pronounced?). Is this a pointless goal or could it bring greater benefits? Could it really reduce levels of dyslexia (another difficult to spell word) as some of its advocates claim?

In one area spelling reform happens all the time. As foreign words get incorporated into English very often they lose accents (e.g. rôle becoming role or élite becoming elite) even when there already conventions for how to type them without accents (e.g. without an umlaut "Führer" should be rendered "Fuehrer" and strictly not "Fuhrer"). Another change, although one that frequently provokes howls of pedants and protests, is when the English rules of pluralisation are followed - so it's "forums" not "fora" and "referendums" nor "referenda" (and the Blogspot spellcheck has just flagged the latter as an unfamiliar word). I have never understood why the Latin rules of pluralisation should be adhered to for words used in English, unless it's because some people want to show off that they know the language.

But overall English is a very complicated language to understand, and the international variations compound the problem further. Now as time goes on it's possible that some of the spellings will start to regularise naturally, but it would take millenniums to occur. Would a concerted effort help? And would it be possible to implement? (Just look at how much resistance to metrication in the UK, and the US is even worse on that one.) The German spelling reform of 1996 has been particularly controversial, but it's not yet possible to see if it has helped literacy rates.

Still we can at least try to ensure that only English plurals are used.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

No election for now

The speculation is finally over. BBC News: Brown rules out autumn election.

So numerous party activists will be breathing a sigh of relief as they now don't have to get time off work, traipse around on cold dark evenings, bother voters for no good reason and endure hectic candidate selections with all the usual rows.

And voters can be relieved as well. There'll be no extended news specials every night to cover the election, no forest of paper coming through letter boxes, no megaphone cars bellowing at them in the high street, no constant ringing at the doorbell and on the telephone and so forth. And no mass disenfranchisement of voters who've recently come of age or moved - many, many students would have been denied their right to vote in an election in November.

There was never any need for an election this autumn. Now everyone's been spared the harsh negatives of it.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

And Labour call this a dream ticket?!?!

Labour have elected as their Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. No I am not joking. (BBC News: Harman wins deputy leader contest)

Clearly the party has forgiven her for grammar schools, for being a weak Cabinet minister, for being a craven Brownite, for not even being able to remember who the Prime Minister is. And her speech was typical of the woman. Alongside Big Clunking Fists we have Little Rubber Fingers, unable to lay a blow.

This Brown/Harman ticket is less balanced than an anchor. Clearly Labour aren't serious about winning the next election.

Commiserations to Alan Johnson who cam so close to winning - he would have been my second choice. On my one meeting with the man when he was Higher Education Minister I found him refreshingly frank and reasonable. He is one of the best parts of this Cabinet and I hope he keeps a good post in Brown's government.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Return of the Bonapartists?

I've just seen the news that in the forthcoming French legislative elections, the great great nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte is standing. (BBC News: Napoleon runs for parliament seat) My knowledge of the convoluted history of French politics isn't good enough to recall what exactly what happened to the Bonapartists but I thought they were considered to have been the predecessors to Gaullism or something. Napoleon is running for Francois Bayrou's new party - is this a natural home? Can any readers who know better explain?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Gordon Brown - cowardly bully

Deep down, most bullies are secretly cowards, trying to dominate others as a way for overcoming their own insecurities. They invariably seek their goals by the easiest route and always despise fair play and genuine competition.

And in many ways this sums up Gordon Brown's approach to the Labour Leadership "Contest", big clunking fists and all.

Today comes the worrying news that John McDonnell may not be successfully nominated after all. (BBC News: Brown rival needs more supporters) Now some of this can be attributed to bitterness by Michael Meacher fans (or Labour MPs who, like me, just wanted to see the laugh of Meacher going forward) but Brown has refused to encourage Labour MPs to help ensure there is a contest, unlike Nicolas Sarkozy who urged France's Mayors to help give the public as wide a choice as possible. And it can be no coincidence that so many others who have been talked of over the years have declined to put themselves forward.

Why is Brown so scared of a contest? The favourite invariably wins a Labour leadership election, but it is far, far better to win over some opposition.

Four years ago many Labour friends of mine were proclaiming how Michael Howard had been "selected" "undemocratically" as Conservative leader after being the only candidate in the 2003 election. Where are they now?

Monday, May 14, 2007

So it's Brown vs McDonnell

I've been out all day so only just seen the news that Michael Meacher and John McDonnell have reached agreement that the latter will be the left-wing flag bearer for the Labour leadership election. Sadly this removes the comedy of seeing Michael Meacher claiming he could be a good Prime Minister.

One minor thought - this means that whoever gets elected, we'll have to update the "number of PMs who went to a university but not to Oxbridge". And that is a very small number.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Peter Hain proves he should never be Chancellor

Peter Hain has made a surprising gaffe when announcing that he has received sufficient support to be nominated for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party:

Mr Hain said he was pleased to get such support as it was not possible - mathematically speaking - for all six declared contenders to get on the ballot paper. (BBC News: Deputy contenders claim support)
Clearly he's not very good at maths. So here's a simple maths lesson for him.

There are 352 Labour MPs.

Each candidate for the Deputy Leadership requires the support of 45 MPs (including themselves).

352 divided by 45 is 7.8222222222222222222222222222222

So it is possible for seven candidates to be nominated.

And Peter Hain has got his sums wrong. Let's hope he's never made Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Meacher-McDonnell indecision

Michael Meacher demonstrates his ability to get photographed with world leadersThe previous news that Michael Meacher and John McDonnell had come to an agreement to ensure that Gordon Brown faces some opposition had cheered many, and both men are to be credited for having something that so many others on the Labour benches lack - balls. (So *someone* will take on Brown ) But now comes the news that the two have failed to reach agreement on who has more support, delaying confirmation as to whom will go forward to challenge Brown. (BBC News: Brown rivals delay bid decision) Kerron Cross has more information (Kerron Cross: McDonnell to Stand Down?), suggesting that McDonnell appears to have fewer nominations but is doubting the veracity of some of Meacher's. Will they honour the agreement come Monday?

What is more worrying are reports that even combined the two lack enough support to get one nominated. It cannot be in the country's interest for Gordon Brown to be made Prime Minister unopposed. Are there no Brownite MPs who would be willing to help their own man by ensuring that he can face some opposition? Or are the Brownites scared that Brown can't win?

The best thing Tony Blair has ever done

Goodbye. Good riddance.Sadly we've got another few weeks of him but the end is finally in sight. (BBC News: Blair will stand down on 27 June)

Everyone is scrambling to write the political obituaries and finding the same question - just what are Blair's achievements as Prime Minister?

Now a lot will rush and say "independence for the Bank of England" and "years of a strong economy", but I question whether these are Blair's achievements rather than Gordon Brown's. Scottish devolution? I would credit that to Donald Dewar. Indeed many of these supposed achievements seem to originated elsewhere from Downing Street.

The obvious exception is peace in Northern Ireland. Whilst others played their part (and have been rightly rewarded), it cannot be denied that the time Blair invested in the peace process (the area of government policy he gave more attention to than any other) has been essential for pushing the process forward.

And the other achievement is political. Blair transformed the Labour Party into a strong fighting force. He also destroyed the complacency that had built up in the Conservative Party. Indeed many of the changes made to the party in the last few years have been in direct response to the impact of New Labour. Ironically in the long run Blair's true political legacy may scarily be closer to the Conservative Party than the Labour Party.

And of course there have been failures. But rather than list them all, let's stick to just one - his own definition:

"My project will be complete when my party learns to love Peter Mandelson."

So he leaves with the project unfulfilled...

Sunday, May 06, 2007

French photographers

I'm currently watching the BBC News 24 French election special and at the moment we're seeing Sarkozy's motorcade heading to the UMP headquarters in Paris. Umpteen photographers on motorcycles are jostling for shots of the man.

Am I the only one reminded of Diana?

Cue a Daily Express headline on this tomorrow...

Royal guillotined

Voting in the French Presidential Election has now closed and Ségolène Royal has conceded defeat to Nicolas Sarkozy.

FANTASTIC!

Is Alex Salmond the new George W. Bush?

It may well look that way. The Scottish election had numerous problems and it now seems possible a legal challenge may be lodged. (BBC News: Labour may challenge Scots vote) In the constituency of Cunninghame North, Labour lost by just 48 votes, amidst numerous spoilt ballot papers. Defeated Labour MSP Allan Wilson may lodge a legal challenge.

I've just done the calculations (for those interested, the figures are at BBC News: Election Result: West of Scotland) and if the challenge is successful then it will totally reverse the numbers game in the Scottish Parliament. The top-up list seats in the West of Scotland region would remain the same - 4 SNP, 2 Conservatives, 1 Lib Dem (although the order of allocation would change slightly), so the effect would be to remove one seat from the overall SNP total and add it to the Labour total - giving Labour a one seat lead over the SNP (and also making some of the coalition numbers even tighter).

An SNP source ...described the potential action as "sour grapes".
On Thursday night the SNP were talking a lot about how damaging the voting problems had been. Now that those voting problems may have benefited them, they're labelling those who are seeking verification "sore losers". Why am I so reminded of Florida in 2000?

Saturday, May 05, 2007

The Labour Deputy Leadership election

Whilst the Labour leadership election alternates between minor farce (Michael Meacher's candidature) and outright enigma (just why are so many people who've worked with Borwn convinced that he would be a disaster as Prime Minister but none of them, Meacher aside, are prepared to try to stop him?), the deputy leadership election has for the most part been a vanity parade as a series of (mainly) Cabinet Ministers seek little more than the opportunity to be an unsackable Deputy Prime Minister, possibly with a grace & favour residence thrown in.

But there's one candidate who's been the exception to this. And whilst I am reluctant to endorse any candidate in another party's elections, I have to say I am seriously impressed with some of what Jon Cruddas is saying.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with many of his policies. But what he's saying about party organisation and the need to reconnect with voters is something that applies far beyond the confines of any one party. As noted by Tom Watson, "he is striving to energise [his] party's grass roots. You can't do that from a TV studio." (Tom Watson MP: Deputy Leader of the Labour Party) Here are some of his comments from the Changing our Party section of his campaign website:
But grassroots campaigning has to go hand in hand with giving members a real voice. The policy making process in the Party must be overhauled- at present it is simply an exercise in top down political control.
As I've said before (For Conservative Democracy), Conservative members also need a real voice. Grassroots campaigning by members with a real say is one of the best ways to reconnect with voters, with human faces not mass media machines.

The Deputy Leader should be the voice of the party with a direct link into Government; if elected I would refuse a departmental portfolio. This is not an election to be Deputy Prime Minister, it is an election for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and that job should be honour enough.
One of the best pledges of all. How many other candidates are really and merely seeking to be Deputy Leader?

The party should not be seen as an inconvenience, best held in check and occasionally cajoled into knocking on doors and stuffing envelopes, but a real asset by which policy making is anchored in the day to day life experiences of millions of people.
...
We are constantly told there is widespread disillusionment and distrust with party politics. Turnout is plummeting, particularly in traditional Labour areas. But it does not have to be this way.

I aim to turn this decline around by getting real funding into local party organisation. I support the idea of constituency parties getting £3 per voter that will fund local organisers, boosting local activity.

I support capping party spending.

This will refocus political activity around the needs and aspirations of local communities, not politicians in Westminster.
Much of this is sounding encouraging. It's true that turnout is stronger in Conservative areas, but the decline all round is something that should worry all involved in politics. I would not be happy if the Conservatives win power merely because the party managed to benefit from plummeting turnout. Government needs to be for the all.

In my own borough [Barking & Dagenham] voters have turned to the racist BNP not because they are racist but out of fear and a sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Many are simply protesting against mainstream politics.
On an aside, I hope many anti-BNP campaigners pay serious attention to this. All too often they become seen as part of a "mainstream politics" conspiracy that wants to ignore the needs of voters and deny a voice to parties that are perceived as offering answers. Addressing the vulnerability, insecurity and disillusionment with mainstream politics is the way to fight them. Banning their voice and trying to encourage tactical votes against them does nothing to resolve these problems. It merely plays into the BNP's hands.

There is also little doubt that the centralisation of decision making and the outsourcing of services from democratically elected councils has taken power away from local people. Local communities and voters are feeling increasingly powerless.

Through this campaign I hope to bring people together to find radical new ways of engaging local communities and enhancing participatory democracy.
Of course one election for one position in one party isn't going to solve all this, but a start needs to be made. Each of the main parties has a crucial role to play in the political system (although I'd prefer it if Labour would play that role on the Opposition Benches!) and it cannot be good if any party sees its organisation collapse. I shall not comment on Cruddas's policies for the country (not least because he's not seeking a ministerial portfolio at all) but much of what he is saying about party organisation is highly encouraging and Conservatives would do well to study it.

The chances of my being a Labour member are about as likely as the chances of pigs flying, but I note that most of the Labour blogs I regularly read are backing Cruddas. And I wish him all the best of success!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...