Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 27, 2017 17:03:46 GMT
I saw the name Lufthur Rahman mentioned on the blog post above. I presume (hope) that is entirely coincidental? Yes; a different Lutfur Rahman. City Councillor. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Feb 27, 2017 17:13:19 GMT
RIP Sir Gerald.
I have some sympathy with the view that we are diving straight into the subject of the inevitable by-election too hastily. I would have personally held off from going into electoral analysis so soon, however I don't feel I can stop people discussing it and I don't intend to do so.
It is also worth mentioning that it seems to have always been our practice to notify the sad deaths of elected representatives in by-election threads, simply as a notification. This is perfectly okay in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 27, 2017 17:15:36 GMT
RIP Sir Gerald. A lifetime of public service has to be acknowledged and appreciated before we look at the by-election, although I can't help thinking it would have been in everyone's interests had he stood down a few months ago. Is it something like 8 months since he voted in Westminster? I'm sure he was hoping to recover but he should have been able to retire with dignity, receive the recognition his service deserved, and allow a new representative to be put in place. Moving forward, I think the Lib Dems have to go hard on this one. The only other big remain seat that has come up so far is Richmond Park, and like that seat there is plenty of Lib Dem history. I'm sure the Greens will also want a good showing given the 2015 result, but think they will be outgunned - the Lib Dems can bring operations from Cheadle, Hazel Grove, and Withington into Gorton without too much difficulty. I believe the 2015 Green result was largely due to Lib Dem splintering and these are exactly the votes the Lib Dems need to bring back. Should be a safe Labour seat, but if the speculation about a centrally-imposed candidate who isn't popular locally is true, who knows? Also a rather fractious, dysfunctional local party ... who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 27, 2017 17:19:03 GMT
I know it's standard practice when somebody dies, but I'm beginning to think there must have been two Kaufmans - the one who has died, and the one we have all heard about in recent years. Are you saying this is another politician who might receive unfsvourable coverage now he is dead and the newspapers can become emboldened? No. I'm making the point that he seems to have been a rather waspish character, not universally liked. The moment he dies he becomes a saint. "Never speak ill of the dead" and all that, but this taste (in most cases) to instantly canonise at death seems a tad hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 27, 2017 17:22:14 GMT
I think Manchester Gorton CLP has spent more time suspended than not in the past 40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 27, 2017 17:31:29 GMT
Are you saying this is another politician who might receive unfsvourable coverage now he is dead and the newspapers can become emboldened? No. I'm making the point that he seems to have been a rather waspish character, not universally liked. The moment he dies he becomes a saint. "Never speak ill of the dead" and all that, but this taste (in most cases) to instantly canonise at death seems a tad hypocritical. none of the obituaries I've seen have treated him like a saint. some of the tweets from MPs (esp the Tories) have been a bit gushing but i suppose they don't want to risk being seen as ungracious. understandably really. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 27, 2017 17:43:55 GMT
I fancy a Tory win here. Everything is a marginal under Jezzer  If he promised to nationalise their cars and crush them to protect the environment, and make the silly twats catch the bus, they would still vote Labour I would say the majority in this sort of urban seat use the bus and would welcome greater investment in public transport..... |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 27, 2017 17:44:25 GMT
I saw the name Lufthur Rahman mentioned on the blog post above. I presume (hope) that is entirely coincidental? It's is! He isn't the same one..... |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 27, 2017 17:47:12 GMT
Does Labour support electoral reform ? In my experience the vast majority of party members do (both pro & anti Corbyn) and would vote for it. Something seems to happen however when party members become MPs that puts most of them of the idea. I personally support PR but ONLY if the system used was STV as the constituency link is very important imo. STV tends to mean large unwieldy multi member seats. I prefer an AMS type system with an element of both constituencies and list and I think that's the only one Labour would sign up to. I don't like preference systems. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 27, 2017 18:37:47 GMT
STV tends to mean large unwieldy multi member seats. I prefer an AMS type system with an element of both constituencies and list and I think that's the only one Labour would sign up to. I don't like preference systems. I don't acept that it leads to large parliamentary seats, if you combine the seats of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Colne valley that is still an area smaller than some county council wards. Originally Parliament used to have large city and county size seats before they were divided up. AMS creates 2 classes of MP and involves the list system which is inherently flawed and even undemocratic. Go Benji!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 27, 2017 18:41:57 GMT
STV tends to mean large unwieldy multi member seats. I prefer an AMS type system with an element of both constituencies and list and I think that's the only one Labour would sign up to. I don't like preference systems. I don't acept that it leads to large parliamentary seats, if you combine the seats of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Colne valley that is still an area smaller than some county council wards. Originally Parliament used to have large city and county size seats before they were divided up. AMS creates 2 classes of MP and involves the list system which is inherently flawed and even undemocratic. I agree re. STV, but 3 members is too small. What you want is for all the parties to put up at least two candidates so the electorate have to choose between them..STV should be about choosing people not parties. I don't think the constituency link is broken. MPs who are well rooted in the community will get more votes and people will have a much better chance to have an MP who represents their views ( I have never had that in my lifetime). So I would add Batley and Spen plus one or two Calderdale seats to that list.. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 27, 2017 18:48:46 GMT
STV tends to mean large unwieldy multi member seats. I prefer an AMS type system with an element of both constituencies and list and I think that's the only one Labour would sign up to. I don't like preference systems. I don't acept that it leads to large parliamentary seats, if you combine the seats of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Colne valley that is still an area smaller than some county council wards. Geographically, that may well be true. But taking a predominantly urban area as a typical example of how big STV seats would be is somewhat disingenuous. Any guesses at how big an STV seat with just three MPs (the absolute minimum needed to make STV vaguely proportional) which covered the Scottish Highlands would be, even if STV didn't go hand-in-hand with a reduction in the number of MPs? If your guess was "bigger than most or all English county councils", then it's in the right ballpark. STV is also inherently flawed, even if the Electoral Reform Society refuse to admit it. And I don't see any reason why the list system would be considered undemocratic. If you define a system's democracy by how well the distribution of seats matches the distribution of votes, AMS is almost always more democratic than STV (the exception would be situations like the Welsh Assembly where only a very small proportion of representatives are elected via the list). |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 18:49:28 GMT
STV tends to mean large unwieldy multi member seats. I prefer an AMS type system with an element of both constituencies and list and I think that's the only one Labour would sign up to. I don't like preference systems. I don't acept that it leads to large parliamentary seats, if you combine the seats of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Colne valley that is still an area smaller than some county council wards. Originally Parliament used to have large city and county size seats before they were divided up. AMS creates 2 classes of MP and involves the list system which is inherently flawed and even undemocratic. Are we talking Closed Lists or Open Lists? I'd concur that Closed Lists are inherently undemocratic, but Open Lists grant the voter a greater degree of control. As for the two classes of MP arguement, I don't agree with that at all, really what the case is more than anything, is that our political culture is currently unused to dealing with PR systems; as a counter example, as far as I can tell, voters in Germany don't seem to have any issue with a mix of list and constituency MPs. The issue with STV is not the possibility that the seats will cover a large geographical area, but rather it's the size of the electorate that's the unwieldy part. Works well enough in Ireland, I daresay, but I have serious doubts about its practicability with an electorate the size of ours. Personally my preferred method would be a mixed-member system utilising preferential voting for the contituencies (and open lists). The individual components of such a system are rountinely used elsewhere, it's just that particular combination hasn't been tried. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 27, 2017 19:22:52 GMT
I fancy a Tory win here. Everything is a marginal under Jezzer If he promised to nationalise their cars and crush them to protect the environment, and make the silly twats catch the bus, they would still vote Labour I would say the majority in this sort of urban seat use the bus and would welcome greater investment in public transport..... Busiest bus route in Europe at one point. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 27, 2017 19:25:45 GMT
I would say the majority in this sort of urban seat use the bus and would welcome greater investment in public transport..... Busiest bus route in Europe at one point. during the Manchester derby? you can't tantalise this forum with a bus fact like that and then not...... |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 27, 2017 19:26:20 GMT
I'd happily just import Germany's system, with 5% thresholds in a set of areas defined by the Boundary Commission.
I.e. if you got 4% of the vote in Cheshire, you'd not be entitled to representation from there but if you got 5.1% in London you would from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 27, 2017 19:33:07 GMT
FTFY - before anyone else does and yes, he did. the mind boggles. You missed one |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 19:38:02 GMT
I'd happily just import Germany's system, with 5% thresholds in a set of areas defined by the Boundary Commission. I.e. if you got 4% of the vote in Cheshire, you'd not be entitled to representation from there but if you got 5.1% in London you would from there. Whilst I quite happily endorse Mixed-Member systems, could we not go with a carbon copy of the German system, with its myriad of extra rules and "features" (which until recently, led to the unseemly phenomenon of "negative vote weight*"). And let's avoid any statutory thresholds. I also find the use of Sainte-Laguë slightly objectionable too (favours smaller parties a bit too much, IMO, I prefer d'Hondt, which favours larger parties). Overhang seats, I can take them or leave them. So in other words, I prefer an implementation of Mixed-Member that's not too dissimilar to the form used in Scotland (and Wales)...  * Normally in a proportional system, more votes means more seats. I think you can guess what "negative vote weight" implies- what I could never figure out though is the exact steps that lead to such a phenomenon occuring... |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 27, 2017 19:38:17 GMT
Busiest bus route in Europe at one point. during the Manchester derby? you can't tantalise this forum with a bus fact like that and then not...... 192? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 27, 2017 19:40:03 GMT
I'd happily just import Germany's system, with 5% thresholds in a set of areas defined by the Boundary Commission. I.e. if you got 4% of the vote in Cheshire, you'd not be entitled to representation from there but if you got 5.1% in London you would from there. Are you a German? Oh god no the party leaders would just choose whom was near the top of the list based on loyalty, it would discourage rebelliousness and mean that only a few MPs were in danger of loosing their seats. The German system takes the worst bit of FPTP (safe seats) and combines it with the worst bit of PR (unstable government) Once again, have you even heard of Open Lists? |
|
