|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 5, 2016 16:18:39 GMT
Peter Law (Blaenau Gwent) died just before his first anniversary in 2006, as did Judith Chaplin (Newbury) in 1993.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 16:55:29 GMT
When are the rumours about Katy Clark due to start? Not to mention a former Yorkshire MP, one Ed Balls. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 5, 2016 17:16:22 GMT
The electoral system serves the voters of this area perfectly well. A majority consistently decide that their interests are best served by the election of a Labour MP, and a Labour MP is what they get. The second placed vote has hovered around 22%-24% for decades, the Labour vote has hovered around 60%-75% for decades, only twice ever dropping below 50% (and that was 46.3% and 49.7%). It would need a 5-member seat for a non-Labour member to get in - so, essentially, the whole of the City of Sheffield as one seat. |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Feb 5, 2016 18:39:11 GMT
The electoral system serves the voters of this area perfectly well. A majority consistently decide that their interests are best served by the election of a Labour MP, and a Labour MP is what they get. The city of Sheffield tend to vote for one Lib Dem, one Conservative and three Labour MPs by proportion. That's not what they get though. |
|
|
|
Post by mick745 on Feb 5, 2016 19:31:31 GMT
Not likely to be of the more interesting by-elections. However, I do feel sorry for the electoral team at Sheffield City Council who are likely to have more than one by-election to arrange this parliament. Can the calendar work so that this is held on the first Thursday in May I wonder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 21:11:12 GMT
Not likely to be of the more interesting by-elections. What will be interesting to look out for here is a comparison with Oldham West and Royton with regards to the relative performance between Labour and UKIP. Labour's majority over UKIP in Oldham West & Royton was 34.2% in May. Here it was 34.6% - for some reason I had in my mind's eye I had thought it was more than that. There have been by-elections before in the old Sheffield Brightside constituency in its various forms (1886, 1892, 1897, 1930 and 1968). |
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Feb 5, 2016 23:14:39 GMT
I think the % majority could fall very slightly even if the % Labour vote is a smidgen higher e.g. Lab 59% UKIP 26%.
UKIP will presumably fight it hard with councillors next door in both Rotherham and Ecclesfield but the general election result in Rotherham shows what their ceiling is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 23:38:15 GMT
SB&H is one of those seats where the MP wins at the Labour selection meeting, not at the ballot box. We'll know who the next MP is just a week or so after the funeral. Yet another reason to reform the electoral system. Not really. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 23:48:19 GMT
Yet another reason to reform the electoral system. Not really. Yes really. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 5, 2016 23:59:50 GMT
No, seats where the winner gets only about 30% of the vote are the reason we need PR. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,534
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 6, 2016 0:04:06 GMT
SB&H is one of those seats where the MP wins at the Labour selection meeting, not at the ballot box. We'll know who the next MP is just a week or so after the funeral. Yet another reason to reform the electoral system. That sort of ridiculous non-sequitur is one of the reasons I left the Electoral Reform Society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 0:11:51 GMT
The benefits of Pr and Fptp are most subtle than is usually pointed out.
The great lie of Pr, and particularly STV is that it delivers a government the majority voted for.
Pr delivers a more democratic Parliament at the expense of a less democratic government.
The Lib Dems lost all credit on voting systems for me when they campaigned for a yes vote for the worst system going.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 6, 2016 1:35:26 GMT
The benefits of Pr and Fptp are most subtle than is usually pointed out. The great lie of Pr, and particularly STV is that it delivers a government the majority voted for. Pr delivers a more democratic Parliament at the expense of a less democratic government. The Lib Dems lost all credit on voting systems for me when they campaigned for a yes vote for the worst system going. I agree with most of that particularly the last point. I ave been an electoral reformer for years but voted against AV. To me the real problem with FPTP right now is majority government in 2005 and 2015 with 36% of the 65% who bothered to vote. I don't think tats very democratic |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 8:55:19 GMT
I favour closed list D'hondt Pr over Fptp over open list D'hondt over STV over AV.
No preferential voting for me is the biggest factor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 8:56:39 GMT
The benefits of Pr and Fptp are most subtle than is usually pointed out. The great lie of Pr, and particularly STV is that it delivers a government the majority voted for. Pr delivers a more democratic Parliament at the expense of a less democratic government. The Lib Dems lost all credit on voting systems for me when they campaigned for a yes vote for the worst system going. I agree with most of that particularly the last point. I ave been an electoral reformer for years but voted against AV. To me the real problem with FPTP right now is majority government in 2005 and 2015 with 36% of the 65% who bothered to vote. I don't think tats very democratic What government would be more democratic? What would even be feasible? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 6, 2016 10:19:07 GMT
The benefits of Pr and Fptp are most subtle than is usually pointed out. The great lie of Pr, and particularly STV is that it delivers a government the majority voted for. Pr delivers a more democratic Parliament at the expense of a less democratic government. The Lib Dems lost all credit on voting systems for me when they campaigned for a yes vote for the worst system going. Well this Lib Dem voted against AV. The factor I judge voting systems on is maximising the number of people who get their preferred candidate elected. AV is worse than FPTP in this respect. STV is a big improvement on FPTP - under FPTP about 50% of voters in Scottish council elections got their choice elected. This went up to about 75% after the switch to STV. This could be higher of course if there were bigger wards, but only 3 and 4 councillor wards are currently permitted. SNTV would be the ideal system from my point of view, but the problems it would cause for parties with expectations of getting 2 or more candidates elected in a ward/constituency makes it a tough ask to get implemented. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 6, 2016 10:30:54 GMT
I favour closed list D'hondt Pr over Fptp over open list D'hondt over STV over AV. No preferential voting for me is the biggest factor. We totally agree on the last point. I do not think the wishy washes should be rewarded for being everyone's second favourite I prefer AMS or the Scottish system - mixed closed top up lists and constituencies |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 6, 2016 12:45:17 GMT
I favour closed list D'hondt Pr over Fptp over open list D'hondt over STV over AV. No preferential voting for me is the biggest factor. We totally agree on the last point. I do not think the wishy washes should be rewarded for being everyone's second favourite I prefer AMS or the Scottish system - mixed closed top up lists and constituencies In my ward for about two decades the vote has been 45%-ish LD 42%-ish Lab. I want a system where that 3-member ward gets 2 LDs and 1 Lab instead of getting all 3 LDs. (In checking the figures for this posts I was amazed to discover I won back in 1999 with 55%) |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 6, 2016 12:47:03 GMT
Split the ward into three single member wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 6, 2016 13:45:05 GMT
We totally agree on the last point. I do not think the wishy washes should be rewarded for being everyone's second favourite I prefer AMS or the Scottish system - mixed closed top up lists and constituencies In my ward for about two decades the vote has been 45%-ish LD 42%-ish Lab. I want a system where that 3-member ward gets 2 LDs and 1 Lab instead of getting all 3 LDs. Ask people not to vote for you in the third year (you could put out a bar chart - We can;t win here, only Labour can beat the Tories etc) or better still decline to put up a candidate |
|
