|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 14, 2014 0:04:19 GMT
Probably better quality than the third raters at Clacton and Heywood, but nothing to act as any form of draw. What is the matter with the Conservatives? Don't they want to try and win these seats? I hope it is Kelly as she seems to have a bit of opposition for her local record. Is it thought that female candidates might help to draw off the Conservative women who are deemed less likely to go UKIP in any event? My casual unscientific observations over a lifetime has been that Conservative female activists tend to prefer male candidates and so do female Conservative voters but to a slightly lesser extent. But, knowing the modernized Conservatives, having two women is probably a policy decision to promote more women MPs. Hope it damages them? Looks like a solid Reckless hold to me.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,791
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 14, 2014 8:59:57 GMT
Writ expected to be moved this morning for a 20th Nov election.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 14, 2014 10:51:10 GMT
Not really sure what the point of having an "open primary" is when you short list when you only short list two candidates who have fairly similar backgrounds. People aren't stupid, they will see that they aren't been given a real choice.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,469
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 14, 2014 11:19:45 GMT
Primaries - or rather, "primaries" - are the sort of empty gimmick that the Cameroon tendency in the Tories love, tbh.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 14, 2014 11:32:04 GMT
Primaries - or rather, "primaries" - are the sort of empty gimmick that the Cameroon tendency in the Tories love, tbh. The thing is that they don't have to be an empty gimmick. They can be meaningful but only if the party implementing them is willing to cede total control of the process and give people a real choice.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 14, 2014 12:40:52 GMT
Primaries - or rather, "primaries" - are the sort of empty gimmick that the Cameroon tendency in the Tories love, tbh. I used to be in favour, until I had to deal with a candidate selected under one. He was a nightmare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 14:33:15 GMT
Primaries - or rather, "primaries" - are the sort of empty gimmick that the Cameroon tendency in the Tories love, tbh. The thing is that they don't have to be an empty gimmick. They can be meaningful but only if the party implementing them is willing to cede total control of the process and give people a real choice. I agree, and am disappointed that the Conservatives have gone for another primary with just two candidates, having done with the same for Clacton. I know there must be administrative and etc. reasons for not having four+ names on the list, but just two? Smacks of gimmickery, and primary systems are a good enough step to real reform that need using seriously.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 14, 2014 14:45:05 GMT
The thing is that they don't have to be an empty gimmick. They can be meaningful but only if the party implementing them is willing to cede total control of the process and give people a real choice. I agree, and am disappointed that the Conservatives have gone for another primary with just two candidates, having done with the same for Clacton. I know there must be administrative and etc. reasons for not having four+ names on the list, but just two? Smacks of gimmickery, and primary systems are a good enough step to real reform that need using seriously. The numbers don't really matter. You could have 6 candidates and they would still be a carefully screened list of acceptable candidates. For primaries to be meaningful you need a far wider base of potential candidates than just those who are on the approved candidates list. If you don't want to open things up that much then you might as well not bother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 14:47:14 GMT
I agree, and am disappointed that the Conservatives have gone for another primary with just two candidates, having done with the same for Clacton. I know there must be administrative and etc. reasons for not having four+ names on the list, but just two? Smacks of gimmickery, and primary systems are a good enough step to real reform that need using seriously. The numbers don't really matter. You could have 6 candidates and they would still be a carefully screened list of acceptable candidates. For primaries to be meaningful you need a far wider base of potential candidates than just those who are on the approved candidates list. If you don't want to open things up that much then you might as well not bother. Fair and accurate point RA.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 14, 2014 17:45:29 GMT
I agree, and am disappointed that the Conservatives have gone for another primary with just two candidates, having done with the same for Clacton. I know there must be administrative and etc. reasons for not having four+ names on the list, but just two? Smacks of gimmickery, and primary systems are a good enough step to real reform that need using seriously. The numbers don't really matter. You could have 6 candidates and they would still be a carefully screened list of acceptable candidates. For primaries to be meaningful you need a far wider base of potential candidates than just those who are on the approved candidates list. If you don't want to open things up that much then you might as well not bother. I still think that if we are to have political parties, choosing your candidate is something which is a reason to join. If we shifted to the more nebulous registration model where you don't 'join' as such it would be different
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 14, 2014 23:55:12 GMT
The numbers don't really matter. You could have 6 candidates and they would still be a carefully screened list of acceptable candidates. For primaries to be meaningful you need a far wider base of potential candidates than just those who are on the approved candidates list. If you don't want to open things up that much then you might as well not bother. I still think that if we are to have political parties, choosing your candidate is something which is a reason to join. If we shifted to the more nebulous registration model where you don't 'join' as such it would be different Absolutely. Primaries work in the US because they have a vastly different political system, they don't work in the current UK political system. I am neither pro nor anti their introduction here but if you want to bring them in then do it properly. The current efforts are completely pointless. NB: Several US states do not have political registration so it is not a requirement for a primary unless you want to have a closed primary.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,832
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 15, 2014 0:06:11 GMT
Its questionable whether they 'work' in the US. I'm not antiamerican by any means, but I don't get the enthusiasm some people have for importing aspects of its spectacularly dysfunctional political system here...
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 15, 2014 0:17:36 GMT
Primaries - or rather, "primaries" - are the sort of empty gimmick that the Cameroon tendency in the Tories love, tbh. I used to be in favour, until I had to deal with a candidate selected under one. He was a nightmare. But enough about Sarah Woolaston, eh.
|
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Oct 15, 2014 8:35:53 GMT
I think it's interesting that early comments indicated at least 3 names would be included, and that only 2 eventually have come forward. Raises the question were there enough quality candidates interested?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 15, 2014 8:40:20 GMT
I used to be in favour, until I had to deal with a candidate selected under one. He was a nightmare. But enough about Sarah Woolaston, eh. Sarah Woolaston must be the best argument against open primaries
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 16, 2014 22:39:16 GMT
According to The Times the Tories had originally hoped to hold the by election later than 20 November but ended up moving the writ this week to avoid Douglass Carswell attempting to move the writ himself.
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Oct 18, 2014 17:03:38 GMT
The Conservative party are (and, for the foreseeable future, will remain) the only party who can afford to hold primaries, so it seems a pointless exercise. It's also strange to see David Cameron saying 'vote for .... whoever you choose to be our candidate'.
However, are UKIP right? Have the Tories found a loophole in the law to allow them to spend limitless amounts of cash because they haven't yet got a candidate?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 18, 2014 18:10:19 GMT
Its questionable whether they 'work' in the US. I'm not antiamerican by any means, but I don't get the enthusiasm some people have for importing aspects of its spectacularly dysfunctional political system here... I think it is pretty clear that they do work in the US, whether or not they are a good way of doing things is another question.
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 18, 2014 18:21:37 GMT
Picture of a Rochester Conservative Primary ballot paper (I think this is what they call a spoilt ballot)
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 18, 2014 18:30:01 GMT
Hard to say if that is someone trying to make a point or just a very stupid voter.
|
|