THE COALITION government suffered its biggest split so far as the Liberal Democrats helped defeat Conservative plans to redraw constituency boundaries before the 2015 general election.
A Lords amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which postpones the boundary revision until 2018, was favoured by 334 MPs to 292, a significant majority of 42.
All 57 Lib Dems entered the opposite lobby to their Tory colleagues, along with the 251 Labour MPs, six Scottish Nationalists, six Democratic Unionists, three Plaid Cymru, three Irish Nationalists.
Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, George Galloway of Respect and two independents also voted with Labour and the Lib Dems.
Notably, even four Conservative MPs - David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron - rebelled against party policy.
For the most part, though, the disdain from the Tory backbenches was unequivocal.
Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, even went as far as to call on the Lib Dem ministers to resign if they could not accept collective responsibility. "They're a disgrace and they should be over there," he said, pointing across the floor.
Mr Bone was joined by Penny Mordaunt, MP for Portsmouth North, who said the Lib Dems were motivated by "spite, pettiness and self-interest". Miss Mordaunt also accused them of making "flirtatious glances" to Labour as potential future coalition partners.
"The Liberals have exchanged their legendary sandals for flip-flops in
the hope that it will enable them to keep their options open," she added.
However, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg defended their position and described it as "perfectly reasonable". After all, the other part of this Bill was meant to bring about reform of the House of Lords, but that collapsed last summer due to opposition from Conservative backbenchers.
Indeed, some will consider this as the day Mr Clegg's party finally stood up to David Cameron's Tory bullies - and a more lusty blow they would have struggled to deliver.
For, now that the boundaries will remain untouched before 2015, the chances of a Conservative majority at the next general election are looking slim.
On his New Statesman blog, George Eaton has noted that the Tories require a lead of seven points to win an overall majority, compared to a
lead of four points under the new boundaries.
Labour, by contrast,
needs a lead of just one point to win a majority under the current
system, compared to a lead of three points under the proposed boundaries.
And so, the voting by the Labour, Lib Dem and other MPs was actually fundamentally undemocratic.
This was a point made by Leader of the House of Commons Andrew Lansley who described the Lords' amendment as a "democratic travesty" and an "abuse of parliamentary process".
However, there was little sympathy for Mr Cameron, and certainly none from the Lib Dem benches, following the failure in 2011 of Alternative Vote referendum.
The Conservatives claimed that simply just by holding the referendum, they had upheld their side of the deal.
But, while Mr Cameron was not directly involved, the Lib Dems were aghast that the No2AV campaign received strong support from the Tories and their well-oiled media machine.
After all, on constitutional matters, it is defeat in the AV vote which has caused the Lib Dems the most heartache, not their failure to reform the Lords.
Of course, it must be said that nothing has actually been decided in electoral terms by this decision in Parliament, and both main parties will feel that there is everything to play for.
Bullish Labour has already published a list of 106 target seats which, if successful, would give the party a working majority.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Home website has a running blog simply called "Majority", which is attempting to come up with a strategy of just how the party could win an overall majority for the first time since 1992.
On the political Right, though, the boundaries decision is killing off hope. Following the result, Daily Mail deputy political editor Tim Shipman declared on Twitter: "Labour cheers as they win the next election".
And, while it is difficult still at this stage to envisage the prospect of Ed Miliband as Prime Minister, his party certainly now justifies the shortening in their odds to triumph in 2015.
Showing posts with label yes to fairer votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yes to fairer votes. Show all posts
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Election 2011: analysis - UK rejects AV as Lib Dems crumble
2011 ELECTION RESULTS
*Results of the AV referendum, English local councils, mayoral elections and Leicester South by-election
*Results of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly
ANALYSIS
VOTERS overwhelmingly rejected the chance to change Westminster elections to the Alternative Vote system in the first UK-wide referendum since 1975.
The AV option received 31.6% of the votes against 68.3% who opted to keep the status quo, the First Past the Post system. Turnout was approximately 41%.
The referendum result was a further blow to the Liberal Democrats on a day in which their vote collapsed in the English council elections, and in the Scotland and Wales national elections.
However, the Lib Dems were not the only party suffering north of the border as Alec Salmond's Scottish Nationalists swept to an extraordinary majority at Holyrood.
The SNP will take 69 of the 129 seats in the new Parliament after routing Scottish Labour in its heartlands with five gains in Glasgow and five more in the Central belt among many, many others.
And, chastened by the heavy defeat, Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray announced that he will resign this coming Autumn.
Indeed, it was widely accepted that Mr Gray had run a totally ineffectual, negative campaign and he only just retained his own seat in East Lothian by 151 votes.
By contrast, Mr Salmond was able to announce that the result had given the SNP an historic mandate.
He said: "It is clear from the indications we have had so far that it is likely that the SNP has been bestowed trust by the people in a way that no party ever has before in a Scottish election."
Mr Salmond added that he would use his majority to increase the powers of the Scottish executive and to offer a referendum on full independence, even though this would most likely go the same way as the hopes for AV.
Meanwhile, Mr Gray blamed the collapse in the Lib Dem vote on the reason why the SNP gained so much ground but, while this was a contributory factor, Labour's vote share also fell.
There was better news for Labour in Wales as the party gained four seats to increase its representation in Cardiff to 30 Assembly Members.
However, as that number is exactly half the total membership, it means Labour has fallen once again just short of an overall majority and may need to work out a deal with another party.
The Conservatives also improved their standing in Wales, gaining but they surprisingly lost their Welsh leader Nick Bourne on the Mid and West Wales regional list.
Nevertheless, this was still a good day for Prime Minister David Cameron as, remarkably, the Tories not only held their own in the council elections but actually made some modest gains.
It did not seem to matter to the Conservatives that they were already starting from a high-point in defending their seats from 2007, nor did it matter that Labour had begun to make some advances in the south.
The reason, of course, is because the Lib Dems' vote collapsed so badly that the Tories could afford to give some ground to Labour.
Perhaps the most embarrassing results for the Lib Dems, though, came in their contests against Labour in the north.
The only thing that could really save the day for Nick Clegg was if the Yes campaign could pull off a stunning victory in the AV referendum.
It did not look likely with several polls in the run-up to polling day showing big leads for No2AV campaign and, in fact, avid AV supporter Chris Huhne conceded defeat before the votes were counted.
As it happens, the polls were correct - with this final effort from ICM proving particularly close.
Unsurprisingly, the convincing nature of the victory led immediately to suggestion from the likes of the former Home Secretary Lord John Reid that this was a resounding approval of the FPTP system.
But Lord Reid's assessment is not necessarily correct. How many 'no' voters rejected AV because it is not a proportional system? How many stayed at home because neither option was particularly desirable?
Well, the second of those questions can be partially answered at least by a pretty dreadful turnout which should come as no surprise, though, after a frankly pathetic campaign by both sides.
Of course, those who did not vote in the referendum - and, indeed, those who voted against AV because it was not a PR option - may have a long wait until the next chance to change the system.
The last UK-wide referendum before this one was back in 1975 on Britain's membership of the EEC and another hung parliament would be required to get anywhere near to forcing the issue of electoral reform again.
Such a situation does not look likely to happen again in an election under the retained FPTP system with the Lib Dems as a third-party collapsing in the north to Labour and in the south to the Tories.
But, while the return of two-party politics in England is a distinct possibility, the presence of the SNP in Scotland leaves Labour fighting on two fronts.
The heavy losses there mean that party leader Ed Miliband should not sleep too easily tonight even though his Scottish counterpart took the rap.
And, even in England, Labour's council gains and Leicester South by-election victory were the bare minimum expected of the sole main opposition party to a government cutting costs and services.
Key local election analysts Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher suggested before polling day that Labour should be aiming to gain about 1300 seats to recover the ground which was lost in 2003 and 2007 when the seats were last contested.
In actual fact, Labour only managed 800 gains in the council elections.
Allied to the dreadful collapse in Scotland and it is fairly clear that Mr Miliband is moving into a vital period in his leadership less than a year after being elected.
And so, while Scotland's continuing First Minister Mr Salmond can pour himself a generously large Scotch, the only Westminster leader cracking open the bubbly at these results will be Mr Cameron.
He will have to do it carefully, though, to avoid disturbing his punch-drunk coalition partner Mr Clegg.
All that the Lib Dem leader has to take from these results is an empty glass and the most stinking hangover his party has ever suffered.
*Results of the AV referendum, English local councils, mayoral elections and Leicester South by-election
*Results of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly
ANALYSIS
VOTERS overwhelmingly rejected the chance to change Westminster elections to the Alternative Vote system in the first UK-wide referendum since 1975.
The AV option received 31.6% of the votes against 68.3% who opted to keep the status quo, the First Past the Post system. Turnout was approximately 41%.
The referendum result was a further blow to the Liberal Democrats on a day in which their vote collapsed in the English council elections, and in the Scotland and Wales national elections.
However, the Lib Dems were not the only party suffering north of the border as Alec Salmond's Scottish Nationalists swept to an extraordinary majority at Holyrood.
The SNP will take 69 of the 129 seats in the new Parliament after routing Scottish Labour in its heartlands with five gains in Glasgow and five more in the Central belt among many, many others.
And, chastened by the heavy defeat, Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray announced that he will resign this coming Autumn.
Indeed, it was widely accepted that Mr Gray had run a totally ineffectual, negative campaign and he only just retained his own seat in East Lothian by 151 votes.
By contrast, Mr Salmond was able to announce that the result had given the SNP an historic mandate.
He said: "It is clear from the indications we have had so far that it is likely that the SNP has been bestowed trust by the people in a way that no party ever has before in a Scottish election."
Mr Salmond added that he would use his majority to increase the powers of the Scottish executive and to offer a referendum on full independence, even though this would most likely go the same way as the hopes for AV.
Meanwhile, Mr Gray blamed the collapse in the Lib Dem vote on the reason why the SNP gained so much ground but, while this was a contributory factor, Labour's vote share also fell.
There was better news for Labour in Wales as the party gained four seats to increase its representation in Cardiff to 30 Assembly Members.
However, as that number is exactly half the total membership, it means Labour has fallen once again just short of an overall majority and may need to work out a deal with another party.
The Conservatives also improved their standing in Wales, gaining but they surprisingly lost their Welsh leader Nick Bourne on the Mid and West Wales regional list.
Nevertheless, this was still a good day for Prime Minister David Cameron as, remarkably, the Tories not only held their own in the council elections but actually made some modest gains.
It did not seem to matter to the Conservatives that they were already starting from a high-point in defending their seats from 2007, nor did it matter that Labour had begun to make some advances in the south.
The reason, of course, is because the Lib Dems' vote collapsed so badly that the Tories could afford to give some ground to Labour.
Perhaps the most embarrassing results for the Lib Dems, though, came in their contests against Labour in the north.
The only thing that could really save the day for Nick Clegg was if the Yes campaign could pull off a stunning victory in the AV referendum.
It did not look likely with several polls in the run-up to polling day showing big leads for No2AV campaign and, in fact, avid AV supporter Chris Huhne conceded defeat before the votes were counted.
As it happens, the polls were correct - with this final effort from ICM proving particularly close.
Unsurprisingly, the convincing nature of the victory led immediately to suggestion from the likes of the former Home Secretary Lord John Reid that this was a resounding approval of the FPTP system.
But Lord Reid's assessment is not necessarily correct. How many 'no' voters rejected AV because it is not a proportional system? How many stayed at home because neither option was particularly desirable?
Well, the second of those questions can be partially answered at least by a pretty dreadful turnout which should come as no surprise, though, after a frankly pathetic campaign by both sides.
Of course, those who did not vote in the referendum - and, indeed, those who voted against AV because it was not a PR option - may have a long wait until the next chance to change the system.
The last UK-wide referendum before this one was back in 1975 on Britain's membership of the EEC and another hung parliament would be required to get anywhere near to forcing the issue of electoral reform again.
Such a situation does not look likely to happen again in an election under the retained FPTP system with the Lib Dems as a third-party collapsing in the north to Labour and in the south to the Tories.
But, while the return of two-party politics in England is a distinct possibility, the presence of the SNP in Scotland leaves Labour fighting on two fronts.
The heavy losses there mean that party leader Ed Miliband should not sleep too easily tonight even though his Scottish counterpart took the rap.
And, even in England, Labour's council gains and Leicester South by-election victory were the bare minimum expected of the sole main opposition party to a government cutting costs and services.
Key local election analysts Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher suggested before polling day that Labour should be aiming to gain about 1300 seats to recover the ground which was lost in 2003 and 2007 when the seats were last contested.
In actual fact, Labour only managed 800 gains in the council elections.
Allied to the dreadful collapse in Scotland and it is fairly clear that Mr Miliband is moving into a vital period in his leadership less than a year after being elected.
And so, while Scotland's continuing First Minister Mr Salmond can pour himself a generously large Scotch, the only Westminster leader cracking open the bubbly at these results will be Mr Cameron.
He will have to do it carefully, though, to avoid disturbing his punch-drunk coalition partner Mr Clegg.
All that the Lib Dem leader has to take from these results is an empty glass and the most stinking hangover his party has ever suffered.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Election 2011: the full results - AV referendum and English councils
AV REFERENDUM
(Result expected today at 8pm)
(Result expected today at 8pm)
Under First Past the Post, voters select their favoured candidate by marking [x] in the box next to his/her name. The candidate with the most votes wins even if this is not 50%.
In elections held under the Alternative Vote, voters rank the candidates in order of preference [1],[2],[3] etc. If a candidate has 50% of first-preference votes, then he/she is elected; if the 50% threshold is not reached, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second-preference votes distributed, and so on until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote or the preferences are exhausted.
Question: At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the Alternative Vote System be used instead?
YES 31.6% (5,863,819 votes)
NO 68.3% (12,640,417 votes)
439 of 440 districts declared.
ENGLISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS
ALL English Council elections are held under First Past the Post. Metropolitan Borough councils and Unitary authorities are responsible for all local government matters such as council tax collection, education, housing, planning applications, bin collections, social services, transport planning, and leisure and recreation.
District councils only deal with some areas such as council tax, housing, planning applications, bin collections, and leisure and recreation but not others such as education, social services or transport planning.
In some areas, the whole council is up for election while, in others, one-third of council members are up for election as the other two-thirds of members are only part of the way through their four-year terms.
OVERALL COMPOSITION
Councils
Conservatives 157 (+4)
Labour 57 (+26)
Liberal Democrats 10 (-10)
Other 1 (-2)
No overall control 54 (-18)
Councillors
Conservatives 4820 (+81)
Labour 2392 (+800)
Liberal Democrats 1056 (-695)
Other 761 (-199)
METROPOLITAN BOROUGH (one-third)
Conservatives
Dudley
Solihull - CON gain from NOC
Trafford
Labour
Barnsley
Bolton - LAB gain from NOC
Bury - LAB gain from NOC
Coventry
Doncaster
Gateshead
Knowsley
Leeds - LAB gain from NOC
Liverpool
Manchester
Newcastle upon Tyne - LAB gain from LD
North Tyneside - LAB gain from NOC
Oldham - LAB gain from NOC
Rotherham
St Helens
Salford
Sandwell
Sheffield - LAB gain from NOC
South Tyneside
Sunderland
Tameside
Wakefield
Wigan
Wolverhampton - LAB gain from NOC
No overall control
Birmingham
Bradford
Calderdale
Kirklees
Rochdale
Sefton
Walsall - NOC gain from Con
Wirral
UNITARY (whole)
Conservatives
Bournemouth
Bracknell Forest
Central Bedfordshire
Cheshire East
Cheshire West and Chester
East Riding of Yorkshire
Herefordshire
Medway
North Lincolnshire - CON gain from Lab
North Somerset
Rutland
Torbay
West Berkshire
Windsor and Maidenhead Royal
Labour
Blackpool - LAB gain from Con
Darlington
Leicester
Luton
Middlesbrough
Nottingham
Redcar and Cleveland - LAB gain from NOC
Stoke-on-Trent - LAB gain from NOC
Telford and Wrekin - LAB gain from NOC
York - LAB gain from NOC
No overall control
Bath and North East Somerset
Bedford
Brighton and Hove
Poole - NOC gain from Con
South Gloucestershire
Stockton-on-Tees
UNITARY (one-third)
Conservatives
Peterborough
Plymouth
Southampton
Southend-on-Sea
Swindon
Wokingham
Labour
Blackburn with Darwen - LAB gain from NOC
Halton
Hartlepool
Kingston upon Hull - LAB gain from LD
Slough
Warrington - LAB gain from NOC
Liberal Democrats
Portsmouth
No overall control
Bristol - NOC gain from LD
Derby
Milton Keynes
North East Lincolnshire
Reading
Thurrock
DISTRICTS (whole)
Conservatives
Arun
Ashford
Aylesbury Vale
Blaby
Boston - CON gain from Ind
Braintree
Breckland
Broadland
Bromsgrove
Canterbury
Charnwood
Chelmsford
Chichester
Chiltern
Christchurch
Cotswold
Dacorum
Dartford
Derbyshire Dales
Dover
East Cambridgeshire
East Devon
East Dorset
East Hampshire
East Hertfordshire
East Northamptonshire
East Staffordshire
Erewash
Fenland
Forest Heath
Fylde
Gedling
Guildford
Hambleton
Harborough
Horsham
Kettering
King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Lewes - CON gain from LD
Lichfield
Maldon
Malvern Hills
Melton
Mendip - CON gain from NOC
Mid Devon - CON gain from NOC
Mid Suffolk
Mid Sussex
New Forest
Northampton - CON gain from LDNorth Dorset
North Kesteven
North Norfolk - CON gain from LD
North West Leicestershire
Ribble Valley
Rother
Rushcliffe
Ryedale - CON gain from NOC
Sedgemoor
Selby
Sevenoaks
Shepway
South Buckinghamshire
South Derbyshire
South Hams
South Holland
South Kesteven
South Norfolk
South Northamptonshire
South Oxfordshire
South Ribble
South Staffordshire
Spelthorne
St Edmundsbury
Stafford
Suffolk Coastal
Surrey Heath
Swale
Teignbridge - CON gain from NOC
Tendring - CON gain from NOC
Test Valley
Tewkesbury - CON gain from NOC
Tonbridge and Malling
Uttlesford
Vale of White Horse - CON gain from LD
Warwick
Waverley
Wealdon
Wellingborough
West Devon - CON gain from NOC
West Dorset
West Somerset - CON gain from Ind
Wychavon
Wycombe
Wyre
Labour
Ashfield - LAB gain from NOC
Barrow-in-Furness - LAB gain from NOC
Bolsover
Chesterfield - LAB gain from LD
Copeland
Corby
Gravesham - LAB gain from Con
North East Derbyshire
North Warwickshire - LAB gain from Con
Liberal Democrats
Eastbourne
Hinckley and Bosworth
Oadby and Wigston
South Somerset
Other
Epsom and Ewell RA
No overall control
Allerdale
Barbergh
Broxtowe
East Lindsey
Eden
Forest of Dean
High Peak - NOC gain from Con
Lancaster
Newark and Sherwood - NOC gain from Con
North Devon - NOC gain from Con
Richmondshire
Scarborough
Staffordshire Moorlands - NOC gain from Con
Taunton Deane
Thanet - NOC gain from Con
Torridge
Waveney - NOC gain from Con
DISTRICTS (one-third)
Conservatives
Amber Valley
Basildon
Basingstoke and Deane
Brentwood
Broxbourne
Castle Point
Cherwell
Craven
Crawley
Daventry
Elmbridge
Epping Forest
Gloucester - CON gain from NOC
Great Yarmouth
Harlow
Harrogate - CON gain from NOC
Hart
Havant
Hertsmere
Huntingdonshire
Maidstone
North Hertfordshire
Redditch
Reigate and Banstead
Rochford
Rugby
Runnymede
Rushmoor
South Cambridgeshire
Stratford-on-Avon
Tamworth
Tandridge
Tunbridge Wells
Welwyn Hatfield
West Lancashire
West Lindsey
West Oxfordshire
Woking - CON gain from NOC
Worcester - CON gain from NOC
Worthing
Wyre Forest
Labour
Bassetlaw - LAB gain from NOC
Hyndburn - LAB gain from NOC
Ipswich - LAB gain from NOC
Lincoln - LAB gain from NOC
Preston - LAB gain from NOC
Stevenage
Liberal Democrats
Cambridge
Eastleigh
South Lakeland
Three Rivers
Watford
No overall control
Burnley
Cannock Chase
Carlisle
Chorley - NOC gain from Con
Colchester
Exeter
Mole Valley
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Norwich
Pendle
Purbeck
Rossendale - NOC gain from Con
St Albans - NOC gain from LD
Stroud - NOC gain from Con
Weymouth and Portland
Winchester
MAYORAL
Bedford
Leicester
Mansfield
Middlesbrough
Torbay
LEICESTER SOUTH BY-ELECTION Labour hold
John Ashworth Labour 19771 (57.8%, +12.2%)
Jane Hunt Conservatives 5169 (15.1%, -6.3%)
Zuffar Haq Liberal Democrats 7693 (22.5%, -4.4%)
Abhijit Pandya UKIP 994 (2.9%, +1.4%)
Howling Laud Hope MRLP 553 (1.6%)
Total votes 34180 Turnout: ? Majority 12078
Friday, 4 March 2011
Barnsley Central destroys last remnants of Clegg's credibility
Barnsley Central by-election result Lab hold
Dan Jarvis Labour 14724 (61%, +14)
Jane Collins UKIP 2953 (12%, +8)
James Hockley Conservatives 1999 (8%, -9)
Enis Dalton BNP 1463 (6%, -3)
Tony Devoy Independent 1266 (5%, +5)
Dominic Carman Lib Dems 1012 (4%, -13)
Other candidates 802 (3%)
Total votes: 24219 Turnout: 36.5% Majority 11771
THE LIBERAL Democrats hit a humiliating low last night after their candidate Dominic Carman finished in sixth place and lost his deposit.
Mr Carman, son of the late QC George Carman, mustered just 1012 votes (4%) to be beaten by the BNP and a local independent as well as the top-three Labour, UKIP and the Conservatives.
In this Labour heartland, Dan Jarvis won as easily as expected with almost 61% of the vote for a majority of 11771 over second-placed UKIP candidate Jane Collins.
And, given the sheer inevitability of the result, the big story became the pecking order of the candidates behind former Parachute Regiment officer Mr Jarvis.
On a bad night for the coalition government as a whole, Conservative prospect James Hockley polled 1999 votes (8%) to be beaten into third by UKIP.
But, the biggest downfall was reserved for the Lib Dems who had been placed in second in the 2010 General Election in May on 17%.
This time, they failed even to match the 1463 votes of Enis Dalton from the far-right BNP (6%) or the 1266 votes for local independent Tony Devoy (5%).
In truth, the result seems a little harsh on Mr Carman who "had a horrendous campaign, canvassing daily to repeated abuse and with virtually no senior figures to help him", according to Guardian journalist Martin Wainwright on Twitter.
And that lack of support belies the low confidence of leader Nick Clegg for whom this rout represents an indelible blot on the copybook.
For, until now, reports of a collapse in the Lib Dem support since the General Election existed only in the form of some woeful opinion polls.
At their first major test in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election in January, the Lib Dem escaped unscathed thanks to tactical voting from their Tory partners.
But, this time, UKIP provided the alternative for many Conservative voters after running a strong campaign.
Nigel Farage's Eurosceptic party appealed to a much wider demographic than usual, their single-issue politics of Europe expanded to include pension reform, weekly bin collections and student grants.
It should also be noted that UKIP did much better than the other parties to mobilise its vote on a dismal overall turnout of 36.5% on a drizzly day in south Yorkshire.
Of course, a Labour victory in Barnsley comes as no surprise whatsoever. Barnsley has elected a Labour MP in every election since 1935 and this is indeed territory in which the old joke about a donkey with a red rosette being elected actually applies.
But, while Barnsley Central is no bellwether of future political fortunes in UK elections, this could yet prove to be a watershed moment for the Lib Dems.
This morning, Nick Clegg appeared as defiant as ever, and said: ""I have no doubt people will try to use this single result to write off the Liberal Democrats.
"They have done it in the past and we have proved them wrong and we will prove them wrong again."
It is true that the Lib Dems suffered even worse results in their history before recovering steadily over the past two decades to become a party of government.
But those earlier embarrassments came in the party's infancy and grassroots supporters must be wondering what the value is of them being in government on days like this.
Mr Clegg would undoubtedly remind them of what they hope to achieve in government with 5th May and the referendum on the alternative vote now on the horizon.
However, even under AV, Labour would have won this seat in the first round of voting anyway, and that is the case for many deep-Red and true-Blue seats around the country.
By contrast, Lib Dem support seems a lot more susceptible to collapse and many party supporters fear a massacre at the local election polls on the same day as the referendum.
This week, Mr Clegg came under fire from the Telegraph for his dreadful handling of Prime Minister's Questions in David Cameron's absence. One Labour MP even felt compelled to ask: "What's the point of Nick Clegg?"
A political and electoral liability as he now is, perhaps it will not be long until Lib Dems are asking the same question themselves.
Dan Jarvis Labour 14724 (61%, +14)
Jane Collins UKIP 2953 (12%, +8)
James Hockley Conservatives 1999 (8%, -9)
Enis Dalton BNP 1463 (6%, -3)
Tony Devoy Independent 1266 (5%, +5)
Dominic Carman Lib Dems 1012 (4%, -13)
Other candidates 802 (3%)
Total votes: 24219 Turnout: 36.5% Majority 11771
THE LIBERAL Democrats hit a humiliating low last night after their candidate Dominic Carman finished in sixth place and lost his deposit.
Mr Carman, son of the late QC George Carman, mustered just 1012 votes (4%) to be beaten by the BNP and a local independent as well as the top-three Labour, UKIP and the Conservatives.
In this Labour heartland, Dan Jarvis won as easily as expected with almost 61% of the vote for a majority of 11771 over second-placed UKIP candidate Jane Collins.
And, given the sheer inevitability of the result, the big story became the pecking order of the candidates behind former Parachute Regiment officer Mr Jarvis.
On a bad night for the coalition government as a whole, Conservative prospect James Hockley polled 1999 votes (8%) to be beaten into third by UKIP.
But, the biggest downfall was reserved for the Lib Dems who had been placed in second in the 2010 General Election in May on 17%.
This time, they failed even to match the 1463 votes of Enis Dalton from the far-right BNP (6%) or the 1266 votes for local independent Tony Devoy (5%).
In truth, the result seems a little harsh on Mr Carman who "had a horrendous campaign, canvassing daily to repeated abuse and with virtually no senior figures to help him", according to Guardian journalist Martin Wainwright on Twitter.
And that lack of support belies the low confidence of leader Nick Clegg for whom this rout represents an indelible blot on the copybook.
For, until now, reports of a collapse in the Lib Dem support since the General Election existed only in the form of some woeful opinion polls.
At their first major test in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election in January, the Lib Dem escaped unscathed thanks to tactical voting from their Tory partners.
But, this time, UKIP provided the alternative for many Conservative voters after running a strong campaign.
Nigel Farage's Eurosceptic party appealed to a much wider demographic than usual, their single-issue politics of Europe expanded to include pension reform, weekly bin collections and student grants.
It should also be noted that UKIP did much better than the other parties to mobilise its vote on a dismal overall turnout of 36.5% on a drizzly day in south Yorkshire.
Of course, a Labour victory in Barnsley comes as no surprise whatsoever. Barnsley has elected a Labour MP in every election since 1935 and this is indeed territory in which the old joke about a donkey with a red rosette being elected actually applies.
But, while Barnsley Central is no bellwether of future political fortunes in UK elections, this could yet prove to be a watershed moment for the Lib Dems.
This morning, Nick Clegg appeared as defiant as ever, and said: ""I have no doubt people will try to use this single result to write off the Liberal Democrats.
"They have done it in the past and we have proved them wrong and we will prove them wrong again."
It is true that the Lib Dems suffered even worse results in their history before recovering steadily over the past two decades to become a party of government.
But those earlier embarrassments came in the party's infancy and grassroots supporters must be wondering what the value is of them being in government on days like this.
Mr Clegg would undoubtedly remind them of what they hope to achieve in government with 5th May and the referendum on the alternative vote now on the horizon.
However, even under AV, Labour would have won this seat in the first round of voting anyway, and that is the case for many deep-Red and true-Blue seats around the country.
By contrast, Lib Dem support seems a lot more susceptible to collapse and many party supporters fear a massacre at the local election polls on the same day as the referendum.
This week, Mr Clegg came under fire from the Telegraph for his dreadful handling of Prime Minister's Questions in David Cameron's absence. One Labour MP even felt compelled to ask: "What's the point of Nick Clegg?"
A political and electoral liability as he now is, perhaps it will not be long until Lib Dems are asking the same question themselves.
Monday, 21 February 2011
AV debate divides opinion
First Past the Post (FPTP): The current system.
Voters select their favoured candidate by marking [x] in the box next to his/her name. The candidate with the most votes wins even if this is not 50%.
Alternative Vote (AV): The system proposed in the referendum on 5 May.
Voters rank the candidates in order of preference [1],[2],[3] etc. Voters can use as many or as few preferences as they wish. If a candidate has 50% of first-preference votes, then he/she is elected; if the 50% threshold is not reached, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second-preference votes distributed, and so on until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.
THE ONLY thing that is certain about the current debate over whether to change the voting system is that no one knows what is going to happen in the referendum on 5 May.
Last week, the referendum bill was eventually passed by the House of Lords but there is a distinct lack of agreement on all sides.
This is evidently the case in the coalition government with Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron opposing the alternative vote (AV) while his deputy, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, favours a change.
A small minority of Tories - there were 10 rebels in the House of Commons vote - is backing AV though there is no such cross-over from the Lib Dems.
That should come as little surprise. Although the Lib Dems had a disappointing result at the last General Election under First Past the Post (FPTP), they still gained 1% more of the popular vote than in 2005 - only to end up with five fewer seats.
Meanwhile, the Labour ranks appear no more decisive. While leader Ed Miliband has gone on record to back a change to the alternative vote system, senior Labour figures from the recent past such as John Prescott, David Blunkett, Margaret Beckett and John Reid have all stated opposition to the proposals.
Moreover, the Labour peers in the House of Lords - including Lord Prescott - attempted to delay the referendum bill so that the vote could not be held on 5 May.
Labour figures were unhappy about other areas of the bill including the reduction of MPs to 600 and equalisation in the size of constituencies.
Unsurprisingly, this led to accusations that Mr Miliband could not keep his party under control.
But, while it is fair to say that a reduction in the number of MPs would be widely welcomed, the issue of equalising constituencies is rather trickier.
As part 2.1 of this report from the Electoral Calculus website points out, the deviation in the size of constituencies at the 2010 election was 12%, actually lower than at previous elections.
The referendum bill intends to impose a maximum deviation of 5% and increase the regularity of Boundary Reviews.
However, as the report explains (see 4.1), the 5% rule would cause over 400 seats to change their boundaries with the net effect on the result being small compared with just equalising the number of seats in the four nations of the UK.
Meanwhile, an increase in the frequency of boundary reviews (see 4.2) would undoubtedly cause confusion to voters dealing with a perpetual changing of their seat's boundaries and name.
The report concludes that while "the proposed reform is not 'gerrymandering', equally it is not clearly good administration".
Back to the bill itself, and there was a further hurdle in the House of Lords when peers from both the Labour and Conservative benches attempted to make it so that the referendum would only be binding if there was a 40% turnout.
This prompted former Lib Dem leader Lord Paddy Ashdown to accuse the Tories of a "betrayal" with him stating: "We have delivered, in full, our side of the deal. The Conservatives seem unable to deliver theirs."
It was all a rather unseemly mess but the process known as "ping-pong" finally ended when the Conservative Lords leader Lord Stratchclyde urged the House to back down, and they did.
To the relief of Westminster, the news channels have been devoting most of their time to events in North Africa and the Middle East and so much of the debate went unnoticed.
However, the lack of coverage so far means that many people outside of the Westminster bubble have been unable really to make an informed decision about AV.
This is demonstrated by opinion polls which have generally shown a lack of consensus and "soft" support on both sides of the argument with people liable to switch.
Immediately after the election, with the Lib Dems in government for the first time in 65 years, polls showed the public in favour of a change to AV.
But then further polls between September and February showed a clear preference for retaining the status quo.
Most recently, the majority of the polls have shown a further shift with FPTP and AV neck-and-neck - though the latest from YouGov now shows a seven-point lead for the No campaign.
Both No2AV and Yes to Fairer Votes have now launched their campaigns to firm up their support and help convince the undecided to vote for them.
The No2AV campaign has focused mainly on the cost of implementing the changes, arguing that, with such a shortage of public funds available, the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Mr Cameron has warned that the arrival of AV would cause more coalitions and less stable government - even though, this is not necessarily the case.
Australia has used the AV system in elections for the House of Representatives since 1918, and only had one hung parliament since then, in 1940.
But Mr Cameron's other point in the same speech was more accurate.
The Prime Minister argued that a change to the system would lead to many MPs being elected on second choice votes - i.e. they are elected on the strength of second preferences.
The Yes campaign opposes this view by pointing out the use of second preference votes means that fewer voters will have cast a "wasted" vote.
And the Yes camp also point out that under AV, a successful candidate will have received more than 50% backing of his or her constituents, meaning they will have to have had a broad appeal.
Of course, the argument against this is that it may mean parties and, indeed, individual candidates go for the common denominator even more so than at present.
But the main argument of the Yes camp is that the referendum offers a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make the electoral system better and "fairer".
For that reason, they argue, the money spent on it is worth it as it will make future government more relevant to its electorate.
However, like Mr Cameron's ill-informed claim that AV will result in more coalitions, this argument is a bit of a misnomer.
For a start, AV is not proportional - the number of seats won by a party in the Commons at an election will still be far from representative of the votes cast by the public.
More crucially, AV is not necessarily "fairer". As this report on Electoral Calculus points out, the concept of fairness - much like the concept of beauty - is in the eye of the beholder.
Part five of the report shows the votes-to-seats ratio for the Conservatives, already higher than for Labour under FPTP, would be even higher still under AV.
On that basis, it should really come as no surprise that Mr Cameron is no fan of AV.
However, personally, I would like at least to try a change from the current, tired FPTP system.
The tradition and simplicity of the system count for little when it can produce results which allow Labour to gain a majority of 67 on just over 35% of the vote, as in 2005. Or that the Lib Dems can gain 23% of the vote but only 8.8% of the seats, as in 2010.
The argument that FPTP produces stable government has long been a strong one but this is also not necessarily a good thing.
All it means is that successive governments with huge majorities can pass unpopular laws while a meek opposition can do little but sit idly by.
Having said that, the arguments in favour of AV have not convinced me that it would be much of an improvement, if it is an improvement at all. As such, I remain in the Don't Know (or still to be convinced) camp for now.
Basically, I would like a change from FPTP but it is fair to say that AV would not be my first preference.
Voters select their favoured candidate by marking [x] in the box next to his/her name. The candidate with the most votes wins even if this is not 50%.
Alternative Vote (AV): The system proposed in the referendum on 5 May.
Voters rank the candidates in order of preference [1],[2],[3] etc. Voters can use as many or as few preferences as they wish. If a candidate has 50% of first-preference votes, then he/she is elected; if the 50% threshold is not reached, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second-preference votes distributed, and so on until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.
THE ONLY thing that is certain about the current debate over whether to change the voting system is that no one knows what is going to happen in the referendum on 5 May.
Last week, the referendum bill was eventually passed by the House of Lords but there is a distinct lack of agreement on all sides.
This is evidently the case in the coalition government with Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron opposing the alternative vote (AV) while his deputy, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, favours a change.
A small minority of Tories - there were 10 rebels in the House of Commons vote - is backing AV though there is no such cross-over from the Lib Dems.
That should come as little surprise. Although the Lib Dems had a disappointing result at the last General Election under First Past the Post (FPTP), they still gained 1% more of the popular vote than in 2005 - only to end up with five fewer seats.
Meanwhile, the Labour ranks appear no more decisive. While leader Ed Miliband has gone on record to back a change to the alternative vote system, senior Labour figures from the recent past such as John Prescott, David Blunkett, Margaret Beckett and John Reid have all stated opposition to the proposals.
Moreover, the Labour peers in the House of Lords - including Lord Prescott - attempted to delay the referendum bill so that the vote could not be held on 5 May.
Labour figures were unhappy about other areas of the bill including the reduction of MPs to 600 and equalisation in the size of constituencies.
Unsurprisingly, this led to accusations that Mr Miliband could not keep his party under control.
But, while it is fair to say that a reduction in the number of MPs would be widely welcomed, the issue of equalising constituencies is rather trickier.
As part 2.1 of this report from the Electoral Calculus website points out, the deviation in the size of constituencies at the 2010 election was 12%, actually lower than at previous elections.
The referendum bill intends to impose a maximum deviation of 5% and increase the regularity of Boundary Reviews.
However, as the report explains (see 4.1), the 5% rule would cause over 400 seats to change their boundaries with the net effect on the result being small compared with just equalising the number of seats in the four nations of the UK.
Meanwhile, an increase in the frequency of boundary reviews (see 4.2) would undoubtedly cause confusion to voters dealing with a perpetual changing of their seat's boundaries and name.
The report concludes that while "the proposed reform is not 'gerrymandering', equally it is not clearly good administration".
Back to the bill itself, and there was a further hurdle in the House of Lords when peers from both the Labour and Conservative benches attempted to make it so that the referendum would only be binding if there was a 40% turnout.
This prompted former Lib Dem leader Lord Paddy Ashdown to accuse the Tories of a "betrayal" with him stating: "We have delivered, in full, our side of the deal. The Conservatives seem unable to deliver theirs."
It was all a rather unseemly mess but the process known as "ping-pong" finally ended when the Conservative Lords leader Lord Stratchclyde urged the House to back down, and they did.
To the relief of Westminster, the news channels have been devoting most of their time to events in North Africa and the Middle East and so much of the debate went unnoticed.
However, the lack of coverage so far means that many people outside of the Westminster bubble have been unable really to make an informed decision about AV.
This is demonstrated by opinion polls which have generally shown a lack of consensus and "soft" support on both sides of the argument with people liable to switch.
Immediately after the election, with the Lib Dems in government for the first time in 65 years, polls showed the public in favour of a change to AV.
But then further polls between September and February showed a clear preference for retaining the status quo.
Most recently, the majority of the polls have shown a further shift with FPTP and AV neck-and-neck - though the latest from YouGov now shows a seven-point lead for the No campaign.
Both No2AV and Yes to Fairer Votes have now launched their campaigns to firm up their support and help convince the undecided to vote for them.
The No2AV campaign has focused mainly on the cost of implementing the changes, arguing that, with such a shortage of public funds available, the money would be better spent elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Mr Cameron has warned that the arrival of AV would cause more coalitions and less stable government - even though, this is not necessarily the case.
Australia has used the AV system in elections for the House of Representatives since 1918, and only had one hung parliament since then, in 1940.
But Mr Cameron's other point in the same speech was more accurate.
The Prime Minister argued that a change to the system would lead to many MPs being elected on second choice votes - i.e. they are elected on the strength of second preferences.
The Yes campaign opposes this view by pointing out the use of second preference votes means that fewer voters will have cast a "wasted" vote.
And the Yes camp also point out that under AV, a successful candidate will have received more than 50% backing of his or her constituents, meaning they will have to have had a broad appeal.
Of course, the argument against this is that it may mean parties and, indeed, individual candidates go for the common denominator even more so than at present.
But the main argument of the Yes camp is that the referendum offers a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make the electoral system better and "fairer".
For that reason, they argue, the money spent on it is worth it as it will make future government more relevant to its electorate.
However, like Mr Cameron's ill-informed claim that AV will result in more coalitions, this argument is a bit of a misnomer.
For a start, AV is not proportional - the number of seats won by a party in the Commons at an election will still be far from representative of the votes cast by the public.
More crucially, AV is not necessarily "fairer". As this report on Electoral Calculus points out, the concept of fairness - much like the concept of beauty - is in the eye of the beholder.
Part five of the report shows the votes-to-seats ratio for the Conservatives, already higher than for Labour under FPTP, would be even higher still under AV.
On that basis, it should really come as no surprise that Mr Cameron is no fan of AV.
However, personally, I would like at least to try a change from the current, tired FPTP system.
The tradition and simplicity of the system count for little when it can produce results which allow Labour to gain a majority of 67 on just over 35% of the vote, as in 2005. Or that the Lib Dems can gain 23% of the vote but only 8.8% of the seats, as in 2010.
The argument that FPTP produces stable government has long been a strong one but this is also not necessarily a good thing.
All it means is that successive governments with huge majorities can pass unpopular laws while a meek opposition can do little but sit idly by.
Having said that, the arguments in favour of AV have not convinced me that it would be much of an improvement, if it is an improvement at all. As such, I remain in the Don't Know (or still to be convinced) camp for now.
Basically, I would like a change from FPTP but it is fair to say that AV would not be my first preference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)