carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,896 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 5, 2024 20:44:05 GMT
I think she'll get 3,000 - 6,000. I wonder if after all the Independents standing, and even lots of minor party candidates having to pay their own way, our lovely new Labour govt will increase the deposit in elections from £500, to say £2,000. Regrettably I very much doubt it. I would increase the deposit to at least £10,000 in order to get rid of as many timewasters as possible, especially those whose insufficient means make them entirely unsuitable to be members of Parliament. That would be the better part of £6M for all the parties putting up a national slate. Would you accept those parties presenting a Bond until the result is known? Then only being called on that bond for the short list of seats where they lost a deposit? Ort, perhaps being waived loss of deposit if the total vote is more than say 1M and or they win more than 50 seats? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 5, 2024 20:55:56 GMT
Regrettably I very much doubt it. I would increase the deposit to at least £10,000 in order to get rid of as many timewasters as possible, especially those whose insufficient means make them entirely unsuitable to be members of Parliament. That would be the better part of £6M for all the parties putting up a national slate. Would you accept those parties presenting a Bond until the result is known? Then only being called on that bond for the short list of seats where they lost a deposit? Ort, perhaps being waived loss of deposit if the total vote is more than say 1M and or they win more than 50 seats? Or the approach I have long advocated of a sliding scale of forfeiture of deposit - all back if you get 5% (or whatever figure is chosen), nothing back if it's 0.1% or lower. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 5, 2024 21:31:04 GMT
I think she'll get 3,000 - 6,000. I wonder if after all the Independents standing, and even lots of minor party candidates having to pay their own way, our lovely new Labour govt will increase the deposit in elections from £500, to say £2,000. Also increase number of nominations needed from ten to say 200. In Hungary you need 5,000 nominations! I think we should abandon the absurdity of nominations altogether. They serve no structural purpose at all and are maintained for the benefit of the big parties to cause difficulties for new parties, small parties, unfunded parties and Independents. Do away with them. Do you mean that candidates should only have to pay a deposit? Like £100,000 or something? Along with a minimum voting age of 40, no salary for MPs, and compulsory voluntary death penalty for all long-haired pink-haired students? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,896
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 5, 2024 21:55:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Jun 5, 2024 23:45:32 GMT
Regrettably I very much doubt it. I would increase the deposit to at least £10,000 in order to get rid of as many timewasters as possible, especially those whose insufficient means make them entirely unsuitable to be members of Parliament. That would be the better part of £6M for all the parties putting up a national slate. Would you accept those parties presenting a Bond until the result is known? Then only being called on that bond for the short list of seats where they lost a deposit? Ort, perhaps being waived loss of deposit if the total vote is more than say 1M and or they win more than 50 seats? Absolutely not. This would entirely defeat the purpose of a reasonably high deposit. Furthermore I would happily change the deposit to a non-refundable fee. Finally I strongly disapprove of candidates who need their party to pay the deposit for them. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jun 6, 2024 4:35:19 GMT
The increase in the black population has actually been bigger than the Muslim one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2024 5:02:37 GMT
The increase in the black population has actually been bigger than the Muslim one. The figures are from 2021. I reckon it's more like (assuming trends continue at the rate they did from 2011 to 2021): 58% white, 16% Asian, 13% Black. It could be 15% Muslim now. Remember, the Muslim figure almost doubled between 2011 and 2021. The white percentage probably isn't far off the London average now. If IDS does hold on due to Shaheen taking a large share of the Asian Muslim vote, I suspect this could be the last Tory victory in this constituency. It all feels a bit like Edmonton, Hayes & Harlington, Luton South or Slough in 1992. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,896
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 6, 2024 7:34:07 GMT
That would be the better part of £6M for all the parties putting up a national slate. Would you accept those parties presenting a Bond until the result is known? Then only being called on that bond for the short list of seats where they lost a deposit? Ort, perhaps being waived loss of deposit if the total vote is more than say 1M and or they win more than 50 seats? Absolutely not. This would entirely defeat the purpose of a reasonably high deposit. Furthermore I would happily change the deposit to a non-refundable fee. Finally I strongly disapprove of candidates who need their party to pay the deposit for them. We have often seen matters in very much the same light and from a similar world view, but here there in an interesting degree of real difference. The views you are espousing were far stronger when I was a young conservative but even then I doubt that they were majoritarian. I can remember listening to arguments between old school party elders who desired candidates to have substantial private means and the ability to fund the full costs of the election and of a subsequent staffed constituency office and an agent as well as their own private secretary. I then felt that to be far too narrow but that it was necessary for them to have substantial private means so as to be independent economically and not in thrall to party, electorate or a career for their own economic support. The immediate post-WW2 Maxwell Fyfe proposals made major alterations to this form of thinking as well as proposing formal training for constituency agents, a core of regional agents, the setting up of the Conservative Political Centre, the Young Conservatives and a formalized Research Department at Central Office with a salaried staff. It was closely studied by people like me and warmly embraced. My own take on HOC candidacy is to maintain distance from electorate, party HQ and need to do anything like the level of constituency work. This should not be seen as 'A Job', nor a resource for the constituents, nor that the MP owes the electorate anything other than duty and diligence in examining all legislation and the conduct of the Government on behalf of the electorate. I see no need for the MP to live in the constituency, to come from it in earlier life or even to have any association to it. In fact I would prefer them to have that fresh enquiring eye of the 'outsider'. I do expect them to get to know the seat and the essentials of what makes it tick emotionally, economically, politically and socially and to conform and to support those biases and aspirations rather than to impose his own or those of his party. I see no need for the archaic concept of nominations. Now we are an educated and fairly mobile electorate and fairly literate we may acquaint ourselves as to the qualities (or lack of) of candidates, and we have a vast resource of means of enquiry. We don't need the validation and proof of identity associated with nominations. That nomination procedure is a meaningless ritual hurdle that wastes time and money and causes distress over timings and nit-picking nonsense with rejection from insubstantial minor imperfections that are meaningless twaddle. Ditch it completely. I would be happy to see a vetting procedure of candidates to ensure they are literate, numerate, solvent, British citizens, with intelligible spoken english, no criminal convictions, not undischarged bankrupts, illegal immigrants, dependent on benefits or with discoverable 'baggage' that could be an impediment. This structure to be funded by say a £2000 non-returnable fee. The Deposit concept is a guard against most grandstanders, advertisers, single issue monomaniacs, religious nutters and similar undesirables. This process is to find and elect suitable representatives for the seat. It is not about individuals aspirations at all but the needs of the electorate. So I prefer a few proper national parties and the occasional well-known charismatic local independent. all other types should be discouraged by hard financial penalties. So a notional deposit of £10,000 seems very appropriate as long as the parties do not have to find it all at the outset. If the candidates are all bonded to pay the sum of £10,000 if they fail to show that the candidature was serious and carried genuine local support. So a hurdle of at least a need for 5% of the vote is very necessary. That to be an on-off switch. If you reach it there is no penalty at all. If you fall short by even one vote you pay £10,000 or the authorities have recourse to the bond issuer who will then pursue the candidate in the civil courts. So don't stand out of inflated hubris or vanity unless you can personally afford to. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Jun 6, 2024 12:39:44 GMT
Absolutely not. This would entirely defeat the purpose of a reasonably high deposit. Furthermore I would happily change the deposit to a non-refundable fee. Finally I strongly disapprove of candidates who need their party to pay the deposit for them. We have often seen matters in very much the same light and from a similar world view, but here there in an interesting degree of real difference. The views you are espousing were far stronger when I was a young conservative but even then I doubt that they were majoritarian. I can remember listening to arguments between old school party elders who desired candidates to have substantial private means and the ability to fund the full costs of the election and of a subsequent staffed constituency office and an agent as well as their own private secretary. I then felt that to be far too narrow but that it was necessary for them to have substantial private means so as to be independent economically and not in thrall to party, electorate or a career for their own economic support. The immediate post-WW2 Maxwell Fyfe proposals made major alterations to this form of thinking as well as proposing formal training for constituency agents, a core of regional agents, the setting up of the Conservative Political Centre, the Young Conservatives and a formalized Research Department at Central Office with a salaried staff. It was closely studied by people like me and warmly embraced. My own take on HOC candidacy is to maintain distance from electorate, party HQ and need to do anything like the level of constituency work. This should not be seen as 'A Job', nor a resource for the constituents, nor that the MP owes the electorate anything other than duty and diligence in examining all legislation and the conduct of the Government on behalf of the electorate. I see no need for the MP to live in the constituency, to come from it in earlier life or even to have any association to it. In fact I would prefer them to have that fresh enquiring eye of the 'outsider'. I do expect them to get to know the seat and the essentials of what makes it tick emotionally, economically, politically and socially and to conform and to support those biases and aspirations rather than to impose his own or those of his party. I see no need for the archaic concept of nominations. Now we are an educated and fairly mobile electorate and fairly literate we may acquaint ourselves as to the qualities (or lack of) of candidates, and we have a vast resource of means of enquiry. We don't need the validation and proof of identity associated with nominations. That nomination procedure is a meaningless ritual hurdle that wastes time and money and causes distress over timings and nit-picking nonsense with rejection from insubstantial minor imperfections that are meaningless twaddle. Ditch it completely. I would be happy to see a vetting procedure of candidates to ensure they are literate, numerate, solvent, British citizens, with intelligible spoken english, no criminal convictions, not undischarged bankrupts, illegal immigrants, dependent on benefits or with discoverable 'baggage' that could be an impediment. This structure to be funded by say a £2000 non-returnable fee. The Deposit concept is a guard against most grandstanders, advertisers, single issue monomaniacs, religious nutters and similar undesirables. This process is to find and elect suitable representatives for the seat. It is not about individuals aspirations at all but the needs of the electorate. So I prefer a few proper national parties and the occasional well-known charismatic local independent. all other types should be discouraged by hard financial penalties. So a notional deposit of £10,000 seems very appropriate as long as the parties do not have to find it all at the outset. If the candidates are all bonded to pay the sum of £10,000 if they fail to show that the candidature was serious and carried genuine local support. So a hurdle of at least a need for 5% of the vote is very necessary. That to be an on-off switch. If you reach it there is no penalty at all. If you fall short by even one vote you pay £10,000 or the authorities have recourse to the bond issuer who will then pursue the candidate in the civil courts. So don't stand out of inflated hubris or vanity unless you can personally afford to. Our differences here are fairly small and largely matters of practicality and not of principle. I entirely agree with you on the role of an MP. On the one point you raise I don't expect the candidates to pay the full cost of the campaign but I do expect them to pay their own deposit. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by right on Jun 6, 2024 13:03:47 GMT
Guido reporting that Galloway's Workers Party is standing down in Faiza's favour |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 6, 2024 13:04:55 GMT
Presume you mean 'Faiza'.
Tells you a lot about her politics.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by right on Jun 6, 2024 13:08:21 GMT
Presume you mean 'Faiza'. Tells you a lot about her politics. Thanks, corrected |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jun 6, 2024 13:26:11 GMT
I wonder whether Corbyn will campaign for her.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,375
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 6, 2024 13:30:40 GMT
I wonder whether Corbyn will campaign for her. He has his own independent campaign to worry about without going down that road |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jun 6, 2024 13:40:19 GMT
I wonder whether Corbyn will campaign for her. He has his own independent campaign to worry about without going down that road It depends how confident he feels in his own seat. Were he to address a mass rally in her support, it might make quite an impact. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,375
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 6, 2024 13:47:05 GMT
He has his own independent campaign to worry about without going down that road It depends how confident he feels in his own seat. Were he to address a mass rally in her support, it might make quite an impact. Its an independent campaign in a system that rarely elects them, even if he’s confident it can hardly be taken for granted Anyway would he really want to burn further bridges with Labour by interfering in other seats in addition to standing against them in his own? That would be a further escalation |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by right on Jun 6, 2024 13:54:16 GMT
It depends how confident he feels in his own seat. Were he to address a mass rally in her support, it might make quite an impact. Its an independent campaign in a system that rarely elects them, even if he’s confident it can hardly be taken for granted Anyway would he really want to burn further bridges with Labour by interfering in other seats in addition to standing against them in his own? That would be a further escalation If he gets elected they won't have him back unless there's a tiny or non existent majority - and they'd have him back any way in that case. If he doesn't get elected would he want to be back? It's hard to see what Labour can escalate to |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Jun 6, 2024 13:56:21 GMT
It depends how confident he feels in his own seat. Were he to address a mass rally in her support, it might make quite an impact. Its an independent campaign in a system that rarely elects them, even if he’s confident it can hardly be taken for granted Anyway would he really want to burn further bridges with Labour by interfering in other seats in addition to standing against them in his own? That would be a further escalation He might feel a loyalty to someone who has supported him and shared the experience of how he has been treated by Starmer and his henchmen. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,375
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 6, 2024 13:56:26 GMT
Its an independent campaign in a system that rarely elects them, even if he’s confident it can hardly be taken for granted Anyway would he really want to burn further bridges with Labour by interfering in other seats in addition to standing against them in his own? That would be a further escalation If he gets elected they won't have him back unless there's a tiny or non existent majority - and they'd have him back any way in that case. If he doesn't get elected would he want to be back? It's hard to see what Labour can escalate to Its not so much about him getting back in but he was in the party for a very long time and will still have friends within it. I might be wrong of course but Corbyn doesn’t strike me as wanting to go down the George Galloway route of becoming a full blown enemy of Labour |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,375
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 6, 2024 13:59:56 GMT
Its an independent campaign in a system that rarely elects them, even if he’s confident it can hardly be taken for granted Anyway would he really want to burn further bridges with Labour by interfering in other seats in addition to standing against them in his own? That would be a further escalation He might feel a loyalty to someone who has supported him and shared the experience of how he has been treated by Starmer and his henchmen. Whether she’s been treated fairly or not I don’t think Faiza Shaheen is really as important a figure in the world of left wing politics as she seems to believe she is |
|
