Local By-elections, December 14th 2017

[andrew111]

Dec 9, 2017 19:33:41 GMT thetop said:

Dec 9, 2017 18:20:52 GMT markf said:

I should have known that one lol, being at local level a B.I.G. voter

Can you describe what BIG stand for, and what their grievances are with the Barnsley Labour group?

Here you are: www.barnsleyindependentgroup.co.uk/BIGDescr.htm

It sounds like they are against the many things that unchallenged Labour-run councils have been well-known for over the years...

[Deleted]

Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go

[Foggy]

Dec 9, 2017 23:10:22 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 22:40:09 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go

You realise this would lead to the destruction of Labour hegemony in many areas? Which would likely give our opponents a stepping stone to challenge us at a parliamentary level? Look at the SPD in Germany or the French Socialists, their demise has come about due to challenger parties whose very existence is due to PR. People long ago fought and fought to establish the Labour party’s dominance in our politics, so that the poorest would have a voice. I am not willing to give that up just so we can have a few Tory councillors shouting at the Labour group leader in Manchester or Liverpool.

Is it any wonder people make 'partisan digs' when they read hyper-partisan crap like this? Smacks of party over country.

Besides, French departmental councils are not elected proportionally at all, whilst the voting method used at municipal and regional level could be described as pseudoproportional at best.

Of course, the party system is very different in France and the one in reunified Germany was never a two-horse race to start with. I suggest you look at other reasons for the relative decline of the mainstream centre-left parties in those countries instead of using it as an excuse to oppose fair and equal votes in local government.

[Lord Twaddleford]

*sigh*

Yes, introducing a more proportional voting system would almost certainly put an end to 100% Labour councils*, but having a single party hold all the seats on a council is not a good thing. Quite frankly if we as a party cannot survive in an area unless the electoral system allows us to sustain an unchallenged hegmony, then maybe we don't deserve to survive. That said, I honestly don't think that a couple of Tories getting elected in places such as Manchester or Liverpool** is going to spell doom for the Labour party. Personally, I've always thought that a little opposition provides a good incentive to up one's game...


_{* On the flip side, it'd most probably put an end to 100% Conservative councils too.
** Though even with PR, I still wouldn't rate Conservative chances here...}

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 9, 2017 23:10:22 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 22:40:09 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go

You realise this would lead to the destruction of Labour hegemony in many areas? Which would likely give our opponents a stepping stone to challenge us at a parliamentary level? Look at the SPD in Germany or the French Socialists, their demise has come about due to challenger parties whose very existence is due to PR. People long ago fought and fought to establish the Labour party’s dominance in our politics, so that the poorest would have a voice. I am not willing to give that up just so we can have a few Tory councillors shouting at the Labour group leader in Manchester or Liverpool.

Yeah, how dare we have to actually campaign and get people to vote for us, we'll just rig the system to stop them challenging us.

[Pete Whitehead]

Dec 9, 2017 23:10:22 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 22:40:09 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go

You realise this would lead to the destruction of Labour hegemony in many areas?

It would lead to an end of Labour hegemony in any areas where they don't have the support of a majority of the electorate. I'm struggling to understand the democratic case against this.

[Deleted]

I'm with Lord on this. Yes it would mean that the Tories win seats in Barnsley but then perhaps Labour might get more than one councillor in Surrey. Also yes one party dominance on councils aren't healthy. I lived in Leicester for 5 years and to be honest with you I've seen Labour councils with smaller majorities like Plymouth and Preston do more for working communities. I perhaps think the demise of the french socislists might be their record low popularity rather than anything else.

[Deleted]

I also agree with Pete. Seems quite unfair that in many places a quarter of people vote for a party which get no representation.

[iain]

Dec 9, 2017 23:46:13 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I also agree with Pete. Seems quite unfair that in many places a quarter of people vote for a party which get no representation.

Or more - the worst example I can see (though I looked for all of 20 seconds) was Mid Sussex in 2015 - the Tories won every councillor on just 46% of the vote.

[Pete Whitehead]

Dec 10, 2017 0:13:33 GMT iain said:

Dec 9, 2017 23:46:13 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I also agree with Pete. Seems quite unfair that in many places a quarter of people vote for a party which get no representation.

Or more - the worst example I can see (though I looked for all of 20 seconds) was Mid Sussex in 2015 - the Tories won every councillor on just 46% of the vote.

Did they get 'just 46% of the vote' though? I ask this in light of the discussion on the previous weeks' by-election thread about how to treat multi-vacancy elections. A quick skim through some of the results there reveals quite a number of wards where the Conservatives had 2 or 3 candidates and where multiple other parties had one each. Counting all those parties separately would take them above 50% (and the Tories, perforce, below it) but if you express the Conservative vote as a proportion of ballot papers issued the result may be rather different
(which is not to say it is not still an egregious example)

[iain]

Dec 10, 2017 0:22:26 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Dec 10, 2017 0:13:33 GMT iain said:

Or more - the worst example I can see (though I looked for all of 20 seconds) was Mid Sussex in 2015 - the Tories won every councillor on just 46% of the vote.

Did they get 'just 46% of the vote' though? I ask this in light of the discussion on the previous weeks' by-election thread about how to treat multi-vacancy elections. A quick skim through some of the results there reveals quite a number of wards where the Conservatives had 2 or 3 candidates and where multiple other parties had one each. Counting all those parties separately would take them above 50% (and the Tories, perforce, below it) but if you express the Conservative vote as a proportion of ballot papers issued the result may be rather different
(which is not to say it is not still an egregious example)

Good point - I just looked at the totals on andrewteale’s site. The general point certainly still stands though!

[Foggy]

Dec 10, 2017 0:17:27 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 23:28:23 GMT Foggy said:

Is it any wonder people make 'partisan digs' when they read hyper-partisan crap like this? Smacks of party over country.

I am the antithesis of hyper-partisan, I get on very well will Tory and Labour friends alike. It’s not party over as I believe a strong Labour Party, sticking up for the workers, is what this country needs. I also understand how easy it is for such an advocate to be lost & value it’s contined existence over maximum democracy. Different goals not different motives.

Dec 9, 2017 23:28:23 GMT Foggy said:

Dec 9, 2017 23:28:23 GMT Foggy said:

Of course, the party system is very different in France and the one in reunified Germany was never a two-horse race to start with. I suggest you look at other reasons for the relative decline of the mainstream centre-left parties in those countries instead of using it as an excuse to oppose fair and equal votes in local government.

There may be more fundamental reasons why the SPD has collapsed in support amung voters. My point was it would likely not have happened under FPTP as viably alternative parties would not have gained a foothold in the first place.

Yes, you aren't normally as ultra-partisan as that post was, which is why it shocked me coming from you.

Your point was about PR in local government, though. Had Germany used FPTP since reunification then it's true that you'd basically have a two-party state with the PDS/Die Linke as possibly a very tiny third party. With the German electoral system as it actually is at the federal level and the modern media landscape, you don't even need a strong local government base to enter the Bundestag anyway. Not every local position in Germany is elected proportionally either.

Plus, on your general point, it's been pointed out in discussions here that you don't necessarily need councillors to be competitive in parliamentary constituencies. Certainly no party needs 100% of the seats on a local authority in order to have designs on Westminster.

[Pete Whitehead]

Dec 10, 2017 0:30:18 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 23:37:45 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

It would lead to an end of Labour hegemony in any areas where they don't have the support of a majority of the electorate. I'm struggling to understand the democratic case against this.

Stop struggling, there isn’t one. But is greater democracy, or fairness as @priceofdawn puts it, always the main goal?

It was a figure of speech - I wasn't actually looking for it and I know there wasn't one. I understand how it works this mentality - it's as old as Socialism. It's that you are the good guys and the other people are bad guys, you hold the moral high ground because *you care* (unlike those nasty Tories etc) so anything that puts you in power or keeps you there is justified because it's for the greater good and if people are too stupid to see that then democracy is too good for them. Yeah I know the 'main goal' of old benji - it's the thing that justified every fucking gulag and killing field in the last century. The best I can say is that unlike most in your party who share your view, at least you're honest about it

[Foggy]

Dec 10, 2017 0:37:10 GMT @benjl said:

True Foggy , but look where the liberals or the greens win seats. It’s where they have established themselves as a major player in local government, often with local candidates. The conservatives are very much the exception as there is not the possibility that they will win over parts of Labour’s solid core vote in heartland seats. 649 seats will never be won by the Tories, but 649 seat could be won by libs + Greens + Lib Dem + others

I long for that day!

The Greens have won a seat in the only local authority where they've ever been the largest party. I don't think you can begrudge them that. That constituency voted Conservative as recently as 1992 as well, so you can't entirely see it as depriving Labour of a seat.

There are some areas where the Lib Dems have a great record of running the council but remain utterly hopeless at House of Commons elections, such as Oadby & Wigston. Admittedly nowhere springs to mind where the LDs have won at parliamentary level where they're non-existent (Orkney & Shetland notwithstanding), but there are certainly places they've gained seats in the past with a fairly weak councillor base.

None of that is to my mind a good reason to defend distorted local election results and single-party councils, though.

[thetop]

Dec 9, 2017 23:10:22 GMT @benjl said:

Dec 9, 2017 22:40:09 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Less than subtle partisan dig there. Personally I'd rather see a change in the voting system to end unchallenged councils than set up anti party groups which have no policies than to challenge the council but there u go

You realise this would lead to the destruction of Labour hegemony in many areas? Which would likely give our opponents a stepping stone to challenge us at a parliamentary level? Look at the SPD in Germany or the French Socialists, their demise has come about due to challenger parties whose very existence is due to PR. People long ago fought and fought to establish the Labour party’s dominance in our politics, so that the poorest would have a voice. I am not willing to give that up just so we can have a few Tory councillors shouting at the Labour group leader in Manchester or Liverpool.

Challenger parties because their governments have been unpopular, and all you'd ensure by making them the only option available on the left is the right-wing win handily. Schröder's governments weren't particularly remembered as worker's governments.

There's nothing that says (as you used Germany as an example) that having Greens and Left splinters on the councils would spell the end of Labour dominance. If 55% Labour became 35% Labour, 10% Green & 10% Left under PR you'd likely have Labour led Left-bloc coalitions as seen in Scandinavia. That way if the Labour group are undertaking unpopular decisions you'd not only have their coalition partners holding them to account, but the threat that they could replace them as the majority within the coalition at the next election. In turn if those parties scupper a Labour council (that isn't unpopular) they'd be punished from those former Labour voters and collapse. One factor that could even help Labour is PR systems usually encourage higher-turnouts.

[thirdchill]

Dec 9, 2017 23:46:13 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I also agree with Pete. Seems quite unfair that in many places a quarter of people vote for a party which get no representation.

A lot of that depends on vote distribution. Am example of this is the Conservative vote in Warrington where they get very little from 25% of the vote at local level.

Whilst PR would certainly reduce or remove the huge majorities currently enjoyed by one party on a local council, they could potentially damage the main opposition on the council if that opposition party has in the past been very effective at squeezing votes from parties who stand little chance of winning any significant number of wards, or any at all. The lib Dems in particular may find that their vote in some councils where they are the main opposition could fall if the incentive to vote tactically is removed.

[thetop]

Dec 10, 2017 1:20:02 GMT thirdchill said:

Dec 9, 2017 23:46:13 GMT @priceofdawn said:

I also agree with Pete. Seems quite unfair that in many places a quarter of people vote for a party which get no representation.

A lot of that depends on vote distribution. Am example of this is the Conservative vote in Warrington where they get very little from 25% of the vote at local level.

Whilst PR would certainly reduce or remove the huge majorities currently enjoyed by one party on a local council, they could potentially damage the main opposition on the council if that opposition party has in the past been very effective at squeezing votes from parties who stand little chance of winning any significant number of wards, or any at all. The lib Dems in particular may find that their vote in some councils where they are the main opposition could fall if the incentive to vote tactically is removed.

That doesn't seem like a high price to pay? If those parties are only winning support because they're the only opposition vehicle in town and subsequently collapse to others - that's democracy. The net effect would be to still have the same amount of opposition seats more or less but with that opposition now actually reflective of voter's beliefs.

[thirdchill]

Dec 10, 2017 1:29:58 GMT thetop said:

Dec 10, 2017 1:20:02 GMT thirdchill said:

A lot of that depends on vote distribution. Am example of this is the Conservative vote in Warrington where they get very little from 25% of the vote at local level.

Whilst PR would certainly reduce or remove the huge majorities currently enjoyed by one party on a local council, they could potentially damage the main opposition on the council if that opposition party has in the past been very effective at squeezing votes from parties who stand little chance of winning any significant number of wards, or any at all. The lib Dems in particular may find that their vote in some councils where they are the main opposition could fall if the incentive to vote tactically is removed.

That doesn't seem like a high price to pay? If those parties are only winning support because they're the only opposition vehicle in town and subsequently collapse to others - that's democracy. The net effect would be to still have the same amount of opposition seats more or less but with that opposition now actually reflective of voter's beliefs.

I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing, quite the reverse for the reasons you describe.

It is more likely to happen with the Lib Dems though as they have been very good in taking away support from labour or the conservatives whenever one of those parties is in third place at a local level. Labour and the Conservatives do not tend to generate the same level of tactical votes as an opposition party on a council.

[mattb]

Dec 10, 2017 1:03:36 GMT @benjl said:

I just believe that too much democracy can be problematic. Remember this democracy stuff is fundamentally a liberal idea and thus based on the flawed idea that people are rational.

It's not often I read something on this forum that truly shocks me. I am stunned that seemingly well-intentioned people really think like this.

[yellowperil]

Dec 10, 2017 0:46:08 GMT Foggy said:

Dec 10, 2017 0:37:10 GMT @benjl said:

True Foggy , but look where the liberals or the greens win seats. It’s where they have established themselves as a major player in local government, often with local candidates. The conservatives are very much the exception as there is not the possibility that they will win over parts of Labour’s solid core vote in heartland seats. 649 seats will never be won by the Tories, but 649 seat could be won by libs + Greens + Lib Dem + others

I long for that day!

I don't!  I am a long time supporter of Lib Dems but do I want to see them in unchallenged power? no thanks- it wouldn't be pretty. No party should be in unchallenged power, ever, that is exactly the point.