Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 16:39:55 GMT
I can't believe they have actually press released this rubbish. In fact, like the Lib Dems in Eastleigh, Labour would be well advised to get on with this by-election and hold it at the earliest possible date, otherwise they might get a shock. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 16:43:29 GMT
The ERS do have a point, but they've not perhaps gone the right way round in putting it across.
"Safe seats" are as hideous to the notion of democracy as uncontested wards...
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Mar 27, 2013 16:46:41 GMT
I feel like buying a custard pie and pushing it into Darren Hughes's face after reading that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 27, 2013 16:48:02 GMT
Safe seats are safe because a majority of the electorate have a preference for one party or another. Unless this is due to very creative line-drawing, there's nothing undemocratic about it. In fact it's considerably more democratic than seats where a party can win on 30% of the vote.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 27, 2013 16:49:11 GMT
I can't believe they have actually press released this rubbish. In fact, like the Lib Dems in Eastleigh, Labour would be well advised to get on with this by-election and hold it at the earliest possible date, otherwise they might get a shock. OK, I will bite - if UKIP couldn't beat Labour in the almost freakishly favourable circumstances at Rotherham, why should they now?? (that isn't meant to appear complacent, but some people need to get things into perspective a bit) |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Mar 27, 2013 16:54:59 GMT
The Electoral Reform Society obviously has contempt for the electorate in the 232 seats which haven't changed hands since 1945. What they need to understand is that the only reason those seats are safe is because the voters in those constituencies have deemed them to be so by voting in the way they chose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 16:55:47 GMT
I can't believe they have actually press released this rubbish. In fact, like the Lib Dems in Eastleigh, Labour would be well advised to get on with this by-election and hold it at the earliest possible date, otherwise they might get a shock. OK, I will bite - if UKIP couldn't beat Labour in the almost freakishly favourable circumstances at Rotherham, why should they now?? (that isn't meant to appear complacent, but some people need to get things into perspective a bit) Who said anything about UKIP? All by-elections have the capacity to deliver unexpected results, from Hamilton 1967 to Bradford West 2012, the landscape post-result looked very different from that when the seat first fell vacant. That's all I mean, and to argue otherwise in my opinion WOULD be complacent. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 27, 2013 16:59:26 GMT
Well, who apart from UKIP are going to "give Labour a shock"?? The coalition parties certainly aren't, and this is an almost "all-white" seat.....
Maybe some "Independent"?!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Mar 27, 2013 17:05:51 GMT
Well, who apart from UKIP are going to "give Labour a shock"?? The coalition parties certainly aren't, and this is an almost "all-white" seat..... Maybe some "Independent"?!?! There are certainly a couple of local Independents who could poll reasonably well but perhaps the person who ran The Monkey Blog will come out from anonymity and stand . Still I don't think Labour will be challenged closely enough for them to have to destroy opponent's postal votes . |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 27, 2013 17:19:10 GMT
Well, who apart from UKIP are going to "give Labour a shock"?? The coalition parties certainly aren't, and this is an almost "all-white" seat..... Maybe some "Independent"?!?! There are certainly a couple of local Independents who could poll reasonably well but perhaps the person who ran The Monkey Blog will come out from anonymity and stand . Still I don't think Labour will be challenged closely enough for them to have to destroy opponent's postal votes . Erm, wot?? |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Mar 27, 2013 17:23:33 GMT
There are certainly a couple of local Independents who could poll reasonably well but perhaps the person who ran The Monkey Blog will come out from anonymity and stand . Still I don't think Labour will be challenged closely enough for them to have to destroy opponent's postal votes . Erm, wot?? You can still read the story on The Monkey Blog . There are people in South Shields Labour Party who will acknowledge that the story is true although it did hsppen some 13 years ago . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 17:25:51 GMT
Don't the Electoral Reform Society realise that even if we had D'Hondt as our voting system for general elections, there would still be safe seats (ie. for whoever tops the list for Labour in the North East and the Tories in the South East)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 17:46:47 GMT
Don't the Electoral Reform Society realise that even if we had D'Hondt as our voting system for general elections, there would still be safe seats (ie. for whoever tops the list for Labour in the North East and the Tories in the South East)? Well indeed, there is the fact that some boundaries can't be drawn to support one party over another, something our Labour colleagues may want to remember when yelling "ERMAGHAAD, JURRIMANDRIN!!" next time boundary review comes up.... |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,714
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Mar 27, 2013 17:56:26 GMT
Don't the Electoral Reform Society realise that even if we had D'Hondt as our voting system for general elections, there would still be safe seats (ie. for whoever tops the list for Labour in the North East and the Tories in the South East)? Not if you had open lists. It would be safe for Labour but not for any individual. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 27, 2013 18:05:35 GMT
Don't the Electoral Reform Society realise that even if we had D'Hondt as our voting system for general elections, there would still be safe seats (ie. for whoever tops the list for Labour in the North East and the Tories in the South East)? Well indeed, there is the fact that some boundaries can't be drawn to support one party over another, something our Labour colleagues may want to remember when yelling "ERMAGHAAD, JURRIMANDRIN!!" next time boundary review comes up.... Because of course the likes of South Shields were exactly what the Sixth Review was trying to do away with... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 18:09:23 GMT
Well indeed, there is the fact that some boundaries can't be drawn to support one party over another, something our Labour colleagues may want to remember when yelling "ERMAGHAAD, JURRIMANDRIN!!" next time boundary review comes up.... Because of course the likes of South Shields were exactly what the Sixth Review was trying to do away with... The Review was trying to get away with anything. It was launched to try to make constituencies of equal size, allowing every voter to have a vote of the same value. If you believe(d) that it was designed to specifically "do away" with seats, that's your paranoid issues, not mine! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 27, 2013 18:19:44 GMT
It proposed a reduction in the number of seats from 650 to 600. So in addition to your well-evidence paranoid issues, we can add innumeracy to the charge sheet, it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 27, 2013 20:14:56 GMT
His political talents have always been vastly overrated. especially by those on the right of politics Not sure how many of my Labour colleagues here saw him live at the hustings and frankly I saw very few people actually claim he was any good. In fact he was so poor that he got more votes from MPs and party members than any other candidate ....... |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 27, 2013 20:23:56 GMT
There have been three by-elections in the South Shields constituency before: in 1910, 1916 and 1918. On all three occasions the Liberal candidate was elected unopposed (it was a Coalition Liberal in 1918). That'll do nicely this time thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 27, 2013 20:30:57 GMT
I think its fair to say that the only way a Coalition Liberal will get elected this time is if they're unopposed
|
|
