|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 28, 2021 12:29:43 GMT
It's a mistake imo to view the SNPs popularity through the prism of independence. They achieved government 15 years ago, a full 7 years before the independence vote. They achieved a majority 10 years ago, 3 years before an independence vote. Lets not pretend it was independence that won them power, its probably generous to say a third of people wanted independence back then. The situation SNP imo is similar to the BQ in Canada. Much like the BQ it'll probably take 30 years to displace them. I'm not sure the comparison with Quebec is totally fair. The BQ has certainly had its issues and spent two federal elections in the wilderness (a lot of that FPTP induced), but managed almost half the seats in the last two elections. In the provincial assembly, voters still overwhelmingly choose a nationalist party.
The SNP achieved minority government 15 years ago. The arithmetic easily could have (and should have) meant a Labour + someone (LD/ Green/ (I'm a little scared to say this, but...) SNP) government. The election of a Conservative/ LD government is London should have been quite beneficial for Labour. For most of the 2011 campaign, it was; but a lackluster Labour campaign and strong Salmond one meant it wasn't the be.
Since the referendum, the polarisation between the two sides has been the defining issue of every election.
it was made very clear that the labour party would not govern if they did not win the most seats in 2007. The majority in 2011 was in part due to a poor Labour campaign and strong SNP/Salmond one but also the SNP ran a tight ship for four years. They were competent, they compromised to get business done and held it together. I think most people thought that a party that had never run anything more than a council would fall apart. They won over business and business leaders while convincing voters that they were the party of Scotland
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Dec 28, 2021 12:36:43 GMT
The SNP today is what Labour was before them and the Liberals before that;
The dominant party appealing to the same broad church and class base performing almost equally as strongly regardless of how it's perceived to perform and related to national psyche 'Whig/Lib/Lab/SNP v Tory England.'
It's not that complex an analysis.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 28, 2021 12:46:32 GMT
It may be that just as the salience of Brexit appears to have now declined sharply - as evidenced by North Shropshire and other by elections - that the same will happen to the Independence issue. Only a minority even on the Yes side are likely to be zealots really keen to revisit the issue. Re- the SNP vote in Scotland, I suspect that quite a bit of their support is 'soft' - as we saw in 2017 when their almost 50% share from 2015 fell back to 36% or so. I can well see that happening again if Labour is perceived to be in the ascendant - and Labour could then be close to 30% with the potential for quite substantial gains there. Whether we are beginning to see this happen is another matter. Zealots make up a small number on either side, but independence vs. union has been the core theme in every post referendum election. It suits the SNP and the Tories for this to be the case as they both benefit. Don't forget that no party goes on more about independence and referendums than the Conservatives.
The problem with your point is it is reliant on the SNP vote share falling. Opportunism is very important in politics, but I don't think Labour's plan should be to just wait it out. Scottish voters have more viable options than ever and without action there is no certainty that we would benefit.
Scottish Labour seems to have planted its flag fairly rigidly on the hard unionist side of the argument. Its relationship with the SNP seems pretty comparable to one the between the Tories and SNP. Is this the most sensible path for the party when so many of its former voters now vote SNP? My view is probably tainted by being from Wales, but it doesn't seem so to me.
The SNP vote did fall sharply in 2017. I see no reason why that cannot happen again - particularly if Labour appears in the ascendant across GB.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 28, 2021 14:14:10 GMT
Zealots make up a small number on either side, but independence vs. union has been the core theme in every post referendum election. It suits the SNP and the Tories for this to be the case as they both benefit. Don't forget that no party goes on more about independence and referendums than the Conservatives.
The problem with your point is it is reliant on the SNP vote share falling. Opportunism is very important in politics, but I don't think Labour's plan should be to just wait it out. Scottish voters have more viable options than ever and without action there is no certainty that we would benefit.
Scottish Labour seems to have planted its flag fairly rigidly on the hard unionist side of the argument. Its relationship with the SNP seems pretty comparable to one the between the Tories and SNP. Is this the most sensible path for the party when so many of its former voters now vote SNP? My view is probably tainted by being from Wales, but it doesn't seem so to me.
The SNP vote did fall sharply in 2017. I see no reason why that cannot happen again - particularly if Labour appears in the ascendant across GB. the SNP still held the pluarality of votes and seats. It's nice to see such optimism but it's like hope, it's not losing that kills you
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 28, 2021 15:05:03 GMT
The SNP vote did fall sharply in 2017. I see no reason why that cannot happen again - particularly if Labour appears in the ascendant across GB. the SNP still held the pluarality of votes and seats. It's nice to see such optimism but it's like hope, it's not losing that kills you I am not suggesting that Labour is likely to recover all the ground lost in 2015 - but winning back a third of those seats could happen and the Focadata MRP data has the party leading in 11 seats. Whilst I share some of the scepticism re- MRP methodology. Labour did exceed 27% in 2017 - with the Tories on 28.5%. A significantly weaker Tory share next time could push Labour up to circa 30%.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by johng on Dec 28, 2021 16:20:16 GMT
The SNP today is what Labour was before them and the Liberals before that; The dominant party appealing to the same broad church and class base performing almost equally as strongly regardless of how it's perceived to perform and related to national psyche 'Whig/Lib/Lab/SNP v Tory England.' It's not that complex an analysis. The SNP wins as it is dominant. The end.
A rather simplistic analysis, don't you think?
it was made very clear that the labour party would not govern if they did not win the most seats in 2007. The majority in 2011 was in part due to a poor Labour campaign and strong SNP/Salmond one but also the SNP ran a tight ship for four years. They were competent, they compromised to get business done and held it together. I think most people thought that a party that had never run anything more than a council would fall apart. They won over business and business leaders while convincing voters that they were the party of Scotland
I don't dispute the SNP ran a tight ship, but polls prior to the 2011 election had Labour in the lead right until the final few weeks of the campaign.
On 2007, Labour had one seat fewer than the SNP. 2007 is a bit before my time, but it seems like they had the view they'd throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get the most seats. On such a platform, they deserved to get beaten.
Surely SLab needs to operate as the grown up party in the room? The death spiral seems to have abated, but it doesn't change the hard fact that Labour has lost vote share and seats at every Scottish Parliament election since 1999 and we are firmly in third place (though creeping ahead of the Tories into second in recent polls). I am not sure the dogmatic Tory-lite approach taken has been sensible at all.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 28, 2021 20:56:50 GMT
The SNP today is what Labour was before them and the Liberals before that; The dominant party appealing to the same broad church and class base performing almost equally as strongly regardless of how it's perceived to perform and related to national psyche 'Whig/Lib/Lab/SNP v Tory England.' It's not that complex an analysis. The SNP wins as it is dominant. The end.
A rather simplistic analysis, don't you think?
it was made very clear that the labour party would not govern if they did not win the most seats in 2007. The majority in 2011 was in part due to a poor Labour campaign and strong SNP/Salmond one but also the SNP ran a tight ship for four years. They were competent, they compromised to get business done and held it together. I think most people thought that a party that had never run anything more than a council would fall apart. They won over business and business leaders while convincing voters that they were the party of Scotland
I don't dispute the SNP ran a tight ship, but polls prior to the 2011 election had Labour in the lead right until the final few weeks of the campaign.
On 2007, Labour had one seat fewer than the SNP. 2007 is a bit before my time, but it seems like they had the view they'd throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get the most seats. On such a platform, they deserved to get beaten.
Surely SLab needs to operate as the grown up party in the room? The death spiral seems to have abated, but it doesn't change the hard fact that Labour has lost vote share and seats at every Scottish Parliament election since 1999 and we are firmly in third place (though creeping ahead of the Tories into second in recent polls). I am not sure the dogmatic Tory-lite approach taken has been sensible at all.
I was fairly young at the time and my memory of politics of the time wasn't Scottish politics. What I know of it was upon reading in later years. The decision not to form government in 2007 was on principle not to do so without the confidence of the electorate. Was there an ulterior motive? That 4 years of the SNP might hurt the SNP? Probably, and in hindsight was a mistake given the SNP won a maj 4 years later
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Dec 28, 2021 23:24:50 GMT
I don't dispute the SNP ran a tight ship, but polls prior to the 2011 election had Labour in the lead right until the final few weeks of the campaign.
On 2007, Labour had one seat fewer than the SNP. 2007 is a bit before my time, but it seems like they had the view they'd throw their toys out of the pram if they didn't get the most seats. On such a platform, they deserved to get beaten.
Surely SLab needs to operate as the grown up party in the room? The death spiral seems to have abated, but it doesn't change the hard fact that Labour has lost vote share and seats at every Scottish Parliament election since 1999 and we are firmly in third place (though creeping ahead of the Tories into second in recent polls). I am not sure the dogmatic Tory-lite approach taken has been sensible at all. I was fairly young at the time and my memory of politics of the time wasn't Scottish politics. What I know of it was upon reading in later years. The decision not to form government in 2007 was on principle not to do so without the confidence of the electorate. Was there an ulterior motive? That 4 years of the SNP might hurt the SNP? Probably, and in hindsight was a mistake given the SNP won a maj 4 years later I'm a bit young to remember that period as well, but from what I've seen I think there were a number of factors as to why the SNP did as well as they did in 2011. The success of the minority government when compared to the Lab-Lib coalitions that came before. The SNP had managed to achieve success with a number of popular policies within the devolution framework, which won over a lot of people who maybe didn't support independence - particularly former Lib Dem voters and, to a less extent, 2003 SSP voters. This may have partly been a factor of having a Labour government at Westminster at the same time, which meant there wasn't any major differences in Labour's policy at Holyrood when compared to Westminster. Scottish Social Attitudes polling in the mid 2000s shows the lowest support for devolution (prior to 2016), when faced against independence and direct rule, which reached its peak in the high 50s/low 60s during the SNP minority government. Ironically, the minority SNP government decreased support for independence as people thought someone knows how to make devolution work as people though it would prior to 1999. I imagine a big fear of Labour at that time was an SNP government would increase support for independence and they wanted to do what they could to prevent that from happening. The early devolution years also saw most of the big Labour names remain at Westminster - Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander all spring to mind - while the big SNP figures were at Holyrood following the return of Alex Salmond as an MSP. Labour's framing of the 2011 election as who's going to stand up to the Tories backfired, largely because the figures best suited to that role weren't at Holyrood. When faced with Alex Salmond or Iain Gray - it wasn't much of a contest. The seat count in 2007 may have lead Labour to not want to prop up the SNP and the Lib Dems didn't want to go into a third consecutive coalition. The potential mess and gridlock caused by the 2007 result could've meant the SNP government would've been a complete failure and destroy the SNP's credibility completely. I've seen quotes from people in and around that SNP government and it suggests they didn't expect to last a full four year term. As it happened that period was arguably the best period in Holyrood's history for co-operation between parties and for getting meaningful legislation passed. On the credibility factor, the SNP have probably always been seen as much more of a threat to Labour than the Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru (in Wales) have - which would explain why Labour are more open to working with those parties. To recover, Labour probably have to move away from being Tory-lite in Scotland and offer a vision to the Scottish people. Labour aren't going to support independence, nor out-unionist the Conservatives, so Labour moving to support increased devolution may be the route to differentiate themselves from the Tories and make current SNP voters consider voting for them again.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Dec 28, 2021 23:36:18 GMT
Zealots make up a small number on either side, but independence vs. union has been the core theme in every post referendum election. It suits the SNP and the Tories for this to be the case as they both benefit. Don't forget that no party goes on more about independence and referendums than the Conservatives.
The problem with your point is it is reliant on the SNP vote share falling. Opportunism is very important in politics, but I don't think Labour's plan should be to just wait it out. Scottish voters have more viable options than ever and without action there is no certainty that we would benefit.
Scottish Labour seems to have planted its flag fairly rigidly on the hard unionist side of the argument. Its relationship with the SNP seems pretty comparable to one the between the Tories and SNP. Is this the most sensible path for the party when so many of its former voters now vote SNP? My view is probably tainted by being from Wales, but it doesn't seem so to me.
The SNP vote did fall sharply in 2017. I see no reason why that cannot happen again - particularly if Labour appears in the ascendant across GB. I think that was largely down to the SNP failing to offer a good reason for people to vote for them, rather than anything Labour did per se; losing votes to the Conservatives in strong unionist areas was almost inevitable. In 2015, the SNP built upon the independence referendum by campaigning for Full Fiscal Autonomy which helped keep Yes voters a cohesive bloc for longer than it otherwise would've been, whilst also being the 'second best' constitutional option for most independence supporters. In 2017, the SNP's policies were a complete vacuum in comparison, not helped by distancing themselves from independence mere months after requesting a Section 30 order in the naïve view seats in the North East could be saved by doing so. A sizable section of the former Labour voters who supported independence saw little reason to vote SNP if independence (or something of that nature) wasn't on the table, assisted with the policies of Jeremy Corbyn - who was a vote winner in a number of key seats across Scotland, imo (even though a large amount of his policies had already been achieved in Scotland via Holyrood).
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 29, 2021 0:17:00 GMT
I was fairly young at the time and my memory of politics of the time wasn't Scottish politics. What I know of it was upon reading in later years. The decision not to form government in 2007 was on principle not to do so without the confidence of the electorate. Was there an ulterior motive? That 4 years of the SNP might hurt the SNP? Probably, and in hindsight was a mistake given the SNP won a maj 4 years later I'm a bit young to remember that period as well, but from what I've seen I think there were a number of factors as to why the SNP did as well as they did in 2011. The success of the minority government when compared to the Lab-Lib coalitions that came before. The SNP had managed to achieve success with a number of popular policies within the devolution framework, which won over a lot of people who maybe didn't support independence - particularly former Lib Dem voters and, to a less extent, 2003 SSP voters. This may have partly been a factor of having a Labour government at Westminster at the same time, which meant there wasn't any major differences in Labour's policy at Holyrood when compared to Westminster. Scottish Social Attitudes polling in the mid 2000s shows the lowest support for devolution (prior to 2016), when faced against independence and direct rule, which reached its peak in the high 50s/low 60s during the SNP minority government. Ironically, the minority SNP government decreased support for independence as people thought someone knows how to make devolution work as people though it would prior to 1999. I imagine a big fear of Labour at that time was an SNP government would increase support for independence and they wanted to do what they could to prevent that from happening. The early devolution years also saw most of the big Labour names remain at Westminster - Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander all spring to mind - while the big SNP figures were at Holyrood following the return of Alex Salmond as an MSP. Labour's framing of the 2011 election as who's going to stand up to the Tories backfired, largely because the figures best suited to that role weren't at Holyrood. When faced with Alex Salmond or Iain Gray - it wasn't much of a contest. The seat count in 2007 may have lead Labour to not want to prop up the SNP and the Lib Dems didn't want to go into a third consecutive coalition. The potential mess and gridlock caused by the 2007 result could've meant the SNP government would've been a complete failure and destroy the SNP's credibility completely. I've seen quotes from people in and around that SNP government and it suggests they didn't expect to last a full four year term. As it happened that period was arguably the best period in Holyrood's history for co-operation between parties and for getting meaningful legislation passed. On the credibility factor, the SNP have probably always been seen as much more of a threat to Labour than the Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru (in Wales) have - which would explain why Labour are more open to working with those parties. To recover, Labour probably have to move away from being Tory-lite in Scotland and offer a vision to the Scottish people. Labour aren't going to support independence, nor out-unionist the Conservatives, so Labour moving to support increased devolution may be the route to differentiate themselves from the Tories and make current SNP voters consider voting for them again. I think you cover most it. The lack of talent is a big sticking point particularly in recent years as the labour party had a policy, though it was not legislated on as it is in wales, to stand on either the list or in a seat. I support it myself as I do think it's difficult to explain to people when they want rid of their MSP that they are still there because of the list. The decision to do it on principle though rather than legislate for it means it hurt Labour but no one else. While in Wales opposition parties have lost big beasts too. It also had the rather unintended consequence of basically a whole new Labour group in Scotland in one election. On the list, in 2011 the SNP used the list to their advantage winning a majority on the balance of list and constituencies. Now they have to do it on constituencies because they don't have many list seats because of AMS
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Dec 29, 2021 12:41:19 GMT
I'm a bit young to remember that period as well, but from what I've seen I think there were a number of factors as to why the SNP did as well as they did in 2011. The success of the minority government when compared to the Lab-Lib coalitions that came before. The SNP had managed to achieve success with a number of popular policies within the devolution framework, which won over a lot of people who maybe didn't support independence - particularly former Lib Dem voters and, to a less extent, 2003 SSP voters. This may have partly been a factor of having a Labour government at Westminster at the same time, which meant there wasn't any major differences in Labour's policy at Holyrood when compared to Westminster. Scottish Social Attitudes polling in the mid 2000s shows the lowest support for devolution (prior to 2016), when faced against independence and direct rule, which reached its peak in the high 50s/low 60s during the SNP minority government. Ironically, the minority SNP government decreased support for independence as people thought someone knows how to make devolution work as people though it would prior to 1999. I imagine a big fear of Labour at that time was an SNP government would increase support for independence and they wanted to do what they could to prevent that from happening. The early devolution years also saw most of the big Labour names remain at Westminster - Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander all spring to mind - while the big SNP figures were at Holyrood following the return of Alex Salmond as an MSP. Labour's framing of the 2011 election as who's going to stand up to the Tories backfired, largely because the figures best suited to that role weren't at Holyrood. When faced with Alex Salmond or Iain Gray - it wasn't much of a contest. The seat count in 2007 may have lead Labour to not want to prop up the SNP and the Lib Dems didn't want to go into a third consecutive coalition. The potential mess and gridlock caused by the 2007 result could've meant the SNP government would've been a complete failure and destroy the SNP's credibility completely. I've seen quotes from people in and around that SNP government and it suggests they didn't expect to last a full four year term. As it happened that period was arguably the best period in Holyrood's history for co-operation between parties and for getting meaningful legislation passed. On the credibility factor, the SNP have probably always been seen as much more of a threat to Labour than the Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru (in Wales) have - which would explain why Labour are more open to working with those parties. To recover, Labour probably have to move away from being Tory-lite in Scotland and offer a vision to the Scottish people. Labour aren't going to support independence, nor out-unionist the Conservatives, so Labour moving to support increased devolution may be the route to differentiate themselves from the Tories and make current SNP voters consider voting for them again. I think you cover most it. The lack of talent is a big sticking point particularly in recent years as the labour party had a policy, though it was not legislated on as it is in wales, to stand on either the list or in a seat. I support it myself as I do think it's difficult to explain to people when they want rid of their MSP that they are still there because of the list. The decision to do it on principle though rather than legislate for it means it hurt Labour but no one else. While in Wales opposition parties have lost big beasts too. It also had the rather unintended consequence of basically a whole new Labour group in Scotland in one election. On the list, in 2011 the SNP used the list to their advantage winning a majority on the balance of list and constituencies. Now they have to do it on constituencies because they don't have many list seats because of AMS The SNP had the vast majority of their MSPs from the list until 2011 and that involved them standing candidates in constituencies and the list at the same time. End of the day it’s meant to be a proportional system so someone being rejected in a first past the contest doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have enough support to be elected and that’s the point of tallying up party support
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 29, 2021 17:51:00 GMT
I think you cover most it. The lack of talent is a big sticking point particularly in recent years as the labour party had a policy, though it was not legislated on as it is in wales, to stand on either the list or in a seat. I support it myself as I do think it's difficult to explain to people when they want rid of their MSP that they are still there because of the list. The decision to do it on principle though rather than legislate for it means it hurt Labour but no one else. While in Wales opposition parties have lost big beasts too. It also had the rather unintended consequence of basically a whole new Labour group in Scotland in one election. On the list, in 2011 the SNP used the list to their advantage winning a majority on the balance of list and constituencies. Now they have to do it on constituencies because they don't have many list seats because of AMS The SNP had the vast majority of their MSPs from the list until 2011 and that involved them standing candidates in constituencies and the list at the same time. End of the day it’s meant to be a proportional system so someone being rejected in a first past the contest doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have enough support to be elected and that’s the point of tallying up party support I do sympathise with that point of view but its one of those things in a hybrid system that's difficult to explain to average voter
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Dec 30, 2021 19:29:16 GMT
The SNP had the vast majority of their MSPs from the list until 2011 and that involved them standing candidates in constituencies and the list at the same time. End of the day it’s meant to be a proportional system so someone being rejected in a first past the contest doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have enough support to be elected and that’s the point of tallying up party support I do sympathise with that point of view but its one of those things in a hybrid system that's difficult to explain to average voter You alluded to it yourself but Scottish Labour had an internal ban on sitting constituency MSPs also being on the list and they didn’t exactly end up rewarded by the electorate for the bravery, leading to potential leadership candidates being replaced by random councillors and party workers. On the other hand many of the SNP’s big players including Sturgeon herself had a couple or so terms as list MSPs after failing in constituencies at first, giving them exposure to boost their profile Fair enough if you think there’s a big moral case against it but I doubt it’s likely to influence the vast majority of voters, unless it’s a representative with a lot of bad personal publicity they're more likely to be turning against the party rather than them personally. Hybrid candidacies allows some kind of stability to be had and can provide a platform for future constituency contests
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 30, 2021 21:54:05 GMT
I do sympathise with that point of view but its one of those things in a hybrid system that's difficult to explain to average voter You alluded to it yourself but Scottish Labour had an internal ban on sitting constituency MSPs also being on the list and they didn’t exactly end up rewarded by the electorate for the bravery, leading to potential leadership candidates being replaced by random councillors and party workers. On the other hand many of the SNP’s big players including Sturgeon herself had a couple or so terms as list MSPs after failing in constituencies at first, giving them exposure to boost their profile Fair enough if you think there’s a big moral case against it but I doubt it’s likely to influence the vast majority of voters, unless it’s a representative with a lot of bad personal publicity they're more likely to be turning against the party rather than them personally. Hybrid candidacies allows some kind of stability to be had and can provide a platform for future constituency contests Which is why the internal ban like say was not really anything more than a moral argument that wasn't going to win hearts and minds while what the Senedd in actually banning candidates from the list and constituency avoided cutting the nose to spite the face while giving your opponents free reign. The number of candidates who are so unpopular people want rid of them aren't a significant number, at least nationally; Neil Hamilton is probably the only one I can really think of. You're final point is a fair one. There'll always be people excluded from the constituency section because, as you say, of the party rather themselves and the list balances that out. There's always the flip side that cutting the corner on the long old slog to be a constituency rep is taking the easy option, not having to do all the grassroots stuff and making the difficult decisions. That might be being unfair thougb as list reps probably do do a lot of case work and lots of local work
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Dec 30, 2021 22:06:32 GMT
You alluded to it yourself but Scottish Labour had an internal ban on sitting constituency MSPs also being on the list and they didn’t exactly end up rewarded by the electorate for the bravery, leading to potential leadership candidates being replaced by random councillors and party workers. On the other hand many of the SNP’s big players including Sturgeon herself had a couple or so terms as list MSPs after failing in constituencies at first, giving them exposure to boost their profile Fair enough if you think there’s a big moral case against it but I doubt it’s likely to influence the vast majority of voters, unless it’s a representative with a lot of bad personal publicity they're more likely to be turning against the party rather than them personally. Hybrid candidacies allows some kind of stability to be had and can provide a platform for future constituency contests Which is why the internal ban like say was not really anything more than a moral argument that wasn't going to win hearts and minds while what the Senedd in actually banning candidates from the list and constituency avoided cutting the nose to spite the face while giving your opponents free reign. The number of candidates who are so unpopular people want rid of them aren't a significant number, at least nationally; Neil Hamilton is probably the only one I can really think of. You're final point is a fair one. There'll always be people excluded from the constituency section because, as you say, of the party rather themselves and the list balances that out. There's always the flip side that cutting the corner on the long old slog to be a constituency rep is taking the easy option, not having to do all the grassroots stuff and making the difficult decisions. That might be being unfair thougb as list reps probably do do a lot of case work and lots of local work I can certainly see your arguments as well but I think any more proportional system ultimately has the issue of making it harder for some representatives to be kicked out than Westminster FPTP would. There will be a number of councillors who have been in for years only because of Scottish local elections changing to STV and countries that have always used PR probably don’t give it a second thought I know there’s an open list system used in some countries where parties don’t decide the rankings but again how many voters would heavily research that and not just go for whoever the party gives most campaign help?
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Dec 30, 2021 23:05:28 GMT
Which is why the internal ban like say was not really anything more than a moral argument that wasn't going to win hearts and minds while what the Senedd in actually banning candidates from the list and constituency avoided cutting the nose to spite the face while giving your opponents free reign. The number of candidates who are so unpopular people want rid of them aren't a significant number, at least nationally; Neil Hamilton is probably the only one I can really think of. You're final point is a fair one. There'll always be people excluded from the constituency section because, as you say, of the party rather themselves and the list balances that out. There's always the flip side that cutting the corner on the long old slog to be a constituency rep is taking the easy option, not having to do all the grassroots stuff and making the difficult decisions. That might be being unfair thougb as list reps probably do do a lot of case work and lots of local work I can certainly see your arguments as well but I think any more proportional system ultimately has the issue of making it harder for some representatives to be kicked out than Westminster FPTP would. There will be a number of councillors who have been in for years only because of Scottish local elections changing to STV and countries that have always used PR probably don’t give it a second thought I know there’s an open list system used in some countries where parties don’t decide the rankings but again how many voters would heavily research that and not just go for whoever the party gives most campaign help? isn't open list basically STV? Isn't this what Scottish councils use? While I do ironically prefer AMS or AV+ to a purely ranked proportional system, I can see it's appeal. You would still have candidates with personal appeal doing well. There's a really good pamphlet produced for the Scottish local elections based on studies of STV in Ireland. The pamphlet actually argues against ranking candidates in preference system as unless voters are dyed in wool they're unlikely to follow it. Though I know Lib Dems who use this strategy in multi member systems from polling district to polling district. Momentum also used it effectively in the NEC elections which are now STV
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 31, 2021 6:47:35 GMT
I can certainly see your arguments as well but I think any more proportional system ultimately has the issue of making it harder for some representatives to be kicked out than Westminster FPTP would. There will be a number of councillors who have been in for years only because of Scottish local elections changing to STV and countries that have always used PR probably don’t give it a second thought I know there’s an open list system used in some countries where parties don’t decide the rankings but again how many voters would heavily research that and not just go for whoever the party gives most campaign help? isn't open list basically STV? Isn't this what Scottish councils use? While I do ironically prefer AMS or AV+ to a purely ranked proportional system, I can see it's appeal. You would still have candidates with personal appeal doing well. There's a really good pamphlet produced for the Scottish local elections based on studies of STV in Ireland. The pamphlet actually argues against ranking candidates in preference system as unless voters are dyed in wool they're unlikely to follow it. Though I know Lib Dems who use this strategy in multi member systems from polling district to polling district. Momentum also used it effectively in the NEC elections which are now STV STV is constituency or ward based and allows ranking of candidates of all parties, not just your first choice. The Scottish AM top up is based on regional constituencies, but much larger than STV because the constituency members have already been chosen. I guess in theory voters could order the lists of all the parties but there is no way of transferring your vote from one party to another.
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 31, 2021 7:02:44 GMT
Which is why the internal ban like say was not really anything more than a moral argument that wasn't going to win hearts and minds while what the Senedd in actually banning candidates from the list and constituency avoided cutting the nose to spite the face while giving your opponents free reign. The number of candidates who are so unpopular people want rid of them aren't a significant number, at least nationally; Neil Hamilton is probably the only one I can really think of. You're final point is a fair one. There'll always be people excluded from the constituency section because, as you say, of the party rather themselves and the list balances that out. There's always the flip side that cutting the corner on the long old slog to be a constituency rep is taking the easy option, not having to do all the grassroots stuff and making the difficult decisions. That might be being unfair thougb as list reps probably do do a lot of case work and lots of local work I can certainly see your arguments as well but I think any more proportional system ultimately has the issue of making it harder for some representatives to be kicked out than Westminster FPTP would. There will be a number of councillors who have been in for years only because of Scottish local elections changing to STV and countries that have always used PR probably don’t give it a second thought I know there’s an open list system used in some countries where parties don’t decide the rankings but again how many voters would heavily research that and not just go for whoever the party gives most campaign help? In list systems voters do not have any practical choice over who is elected, and someone loved by the party leadership is likely to be elected again. The order of lists can be determined by members though. It is a complete fallacy to say that unpopular councillors are harder to get rid of under STV than FPTP. To get rid of someone under FPTP you have to suspend party preference and exactly the same opportunity is there under STV. But the dynamics are quite different and Scottish Council wards are too small for the choice within parties element to work properly since often only one candidate for each is offered.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,533
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Dec 31, 2021 11:12:35 GMT
Getting rid of anybody under any system requires voters to look past party allegiance to some extent. If a party wants to guarantee a representative gets back in under STV they can either informally give extra support or nominate cautiously and hope party strength does the rest (ie if you think you're guaranteed two seats and might challenge for a third, nominating two candidates gets both back in)
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by johng on Dec 31, 2021 11:59:57 GMT
I think you cover most it. The lack of talent is a big sticking point particularly in recent years as the labour party had a policy, though it was not legislated on as it is in wales, to stand on either the list or in a seat. I support it myself as I do think it's difficult to explain to people when they want rid of their MSP that they are still there because of the list. The decision to do it on principle though rather than legislate for it means it hurt Labour but no one else. While in Wales opposition parties have lost big beasts too. It also had the rather unintended consequence of basically a whole new Labour group in Scotland in one election. On the list, in 2011 the SNP used the list to their advantage winning a majority on the balance of list and constituencies. Now they have to do it on constituencies because they don't have many list seats because of AMS
AMS is an awful system. There are no ifs or buts about it. The ban on standing both in an constituency and on the list has its positives, but can have a lot of unintended consequences as we found out in Scotland.
The ban in Wales ended before the 2016 election. All opposition ''big beasts' lost have been due to their own foolishness.
I'll never understand why basically all of Scottish Labour's big names chose to stay in London rather than move to Holyrood. Even the first parliament had fairly significant powers.
|
|