The Tory peeress Baroness Warsi, chairman of the Conservative Party and minister without portfolio, is alleging that electoral fraud cost the Tories three seats in the election. If, as she suggests, these three seats would have been won from Labour, that would have given Cameron 310 seats against Labour + LibDem combined of 312.
Twitter has Warsi trending (i.e. among the most numerous subjects). The commonest comment is on Warsi's unelected status, which is fair enough as incidental commentary, but does not address the substantial, serious allegations.
If there was fraud, it must be rooted out immediately, and the fraudsters, if convicted, must be given exemplary punishment. Also, electoral rules must be tightened to prevent such fraud.
I spoke to the Electoral Commission, and learned that they have no role to play. It would be a police matter, and Baroness Warsi should make her allegations to the police covering the areas where the fraud occurred.
So, next move is up to the Baroness.
Showing posts with label election2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election2010. Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
That's enough boring broadcaster Lib/Con split probing
Oh for goodness' sake, how long are the BBC and the media pack going to be asking LibDem and Tory politicians how they are going to work together? The marriage/divorce metaphor has been done to death. How long will they be trawling up the puerile ad hom insults that the politicians were peddling against each other during the election campaign? Do these journalists not realise that politics is a game of two halves - one half where they pretend that their party has all the answers, and the other party knows nothing (Nothing!) and another half where, in coalition, parties work together on policy, ostensibly for the good of the nation?
In modern democracies, where the will and the opinions of the people are represented by a sensible electoral system, coalitions are the norm, not the exception. When we get PR, which we will, coalitions will be the norm here too. Bloody Get Used To It. Are we going to have 5 years of endless probing for possible divergence of policy between LibDem and the Tory constituents of Government? The real splits will turn up soon enough.
This style of journalism, this obsessive probing for divergence, is a perverse form of activism. It is not objective reporting, it is a seeking to be the journalist who exposes the fatal flaw that causes the Government to fall. Is this what they want? There is a reflexivity in the process of reporting - every question is also a statement. If they insist on concentrating only on divergence, they are seeking the economic downfall of our country, since the markets would certainly sell sterling big time if we went into another election within months.
Journalism should be about helping the people to understand the key issues facing the UK, which are:
- How do we remedy the budget deficit without stalling the economy? See here.
- How do we bring about a more equal economy, and therefore a more cohesive society? Here.
- How do we decarbonise the economy? Here.
- How do we successfully get out of Afghanistan? Here.
- How do we reform the political system? Here.
And before anyone starts up, I am not a supporter of Clegg or of Cameron. I am not starry eyed about Government of any colour. We are badly governed, not just by the politicians, but also by an essentially conservative, sclerotic Civil Service. All I want is for journalists, especially the BBC journalists who are employed by us, the people, to set their minds to explaining policy dilemmas, and to quit their boring and predictable seeking after cracks in the LibCon Coalition Government.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A medley of semi-optimistic thoughts on the UK political situation.
Today's reading is taken from the Book of Proverbs, chapter 22, verse 11: As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
We have a Conservative Prime Minister again.
The family grouped around the TV held its collective head and moaned. But not me. Why not? Various reasons.
The most interesting (not to say edible) morsel that we can extract from this pile of spew is that despite having a 3:1 advantage in terms of newspaper support, the Tories failed to gain an outright majority. Which says a lot about the basic positioning of the British electorate. If we had a neutral, balanced press, the Tories would just be a minor party.
The media have a lot to be embarrassed about, if they had a conscience, but it would seem that there is a requirement to hand in your conscience on the first day of journalism school. They have spent the last 5 days presenting speculation as "news", interviewing each other, and bewailing the fact that politicians are having to negotiate with each other, as if this were the worst thing that could possibly happen. They hid the fact that this is the norm in modern democracies. Their time would have been better spent in explaining clearly the facts about th FPTP system, and how the various alternatives might work.
But they did not, and for this failure, the media do not earn respect. They do not convey news and understanding of news, they are propagandists. With a balanced media, the British electorate and government would be progressive.
That's the optimistic bit. Now for the pessimistic bit: a review of the Tories' four leading vices:
Our immediate task, as thinking and active people, is to work to win the referendum on Alternative Vote - indeed, to make sure it happens. Sure, AV is no better than FPTP, but it does lay the foundation for AV+, which would give us the proportional representation that we need.
Our second job is to rebalance the media. The only suggestion I have for starters is a law to require the proprietor of any newspaper to be published in the title banner, just as the proprietor of a pub has to be published over the door to the pub. I got this idea from Mark Thomas' manifesto, one of whose suggestions was that the Daily Mail should be required to print "The Paper that supported Hitler" on its banner.
So there we have it. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nous allons voir. Ici, c'est merde, oui, mais merde peut etre compostee.
We have a Conservative Prime Minister again.
The family grouped around the TV held its collective head and moaned. But not me. Why not? Various reasons.
- Son Joe had taken me up in his tandem paraglider, which had put my head in a good space.
- Been down so long it feels like up to me.
- NuLabour were a bitter disappointment and not much better than Tories ("Tony Blair a PM" = anagram on "I am Tory plan B").
- The Tories' cutting fanaticism might just possibly be to some slight degree moderated by LibDem fiscal moderation.
- Dave is a decent Tory, a man whose heart is in the right place, even though his ideology is in the wrong place, but then so is Labour's and the LibDems. They all base their economics on the manifest impossibility of infinite growth in a finite system, and seek to base our national security on the threat of total destruction of civilisation.
- Being in with the Tories may prove to be the kiss of death for the LibDems, and bring an influx of LibDems into the Green Party, to complement the recent influx of refugees from NuLabour.
- People may begin to distrust the media. Let me expand on this:
The most interesting (not to say edible) morsel that we can extract from this pile of spew is that despite having a 3:1 advantage in terms of newspaper support, the Tories failed to gain an outright majority. Which says a lot about the basic positioning of the British electorate. If we had a neutral, balanced press, the Tories would just be a minor party.
The media have a lot to be embarrassed about, if they had a conscience, but it would seem that there is a requirement to hand in your conscience on the first day of journalism school. They have spent the last 5 days presenting speculation as "news", interviewing each other, and bewailing the fact that politicians are having to negotiate with each other, as if this were the worst thing that could possibly happen. They hid the fact that this is the norm in modern democracies. Their time would have been better spent in explaining clearly the facts about th FPTP system, and how the various alternatives might work.
But they did not, and for this failure, the media do not earn respect. They do not convey news and understanding of news, they are propagandists. With a balanced media, the British electorate and government would be progressive.
That's the optimistic bit. Now for the pessimistic bit: a review of the Tories' four leading vices:
- They are infested with climate change deniers
- Their economic slash-and-burn policies will bring on a double dip recession
- They support the ridiculous FPTP system
- They would increase the Rich-Poor Gap.
Our immediate task, as thinking and active people, is to work to win the referendum on Alternative Vote - indeed, to make sure it happens. Sure, AV is no better than FPTP, but it does lay the foundation for AV+, which would give us the proportional representation that we need.
Our second job is to rebalance the media. The only suggestion I have for starters is a law to require the proprietor of any newspaper to be published in the title banner, just as the proprietor of a pub has to be published over the door to the pub. I got this idea from Mark Thomas' manifesto, one of whose suggestions was that the Daily Mail should be required to print "The Paper that supported Hitler" on its banner.
So there we have it. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nous allons voir. Ici, c'est merde, oui, mais merde peut etre compostee.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Progressive Majority Government: what should the Green MP do?
Nick Clegg has rightly rejected the Tories because of their intransigence over democratic reform of the voting system.
The second option is a Progressive Majority or Rainbow Government, formed of Labour, LibDems and 8 others. Is a problem. They can find their 8 from the SDLP of Northern Ireland (3 MPs), Plaid Cymru (3) and the SVP (6). The obvious other possibility is Caroline Lucas, our Green MP.
Should Caroline join a Progressive Coalition? It's a tough choice, and touch choices are what real politics is about.
In favour of joining is the fact that the alternative is a minority Tory Government. Which concentrates the mind wonderfully.
Against joining is that for the Greens to be catapulted straight into Government is a bit of a jump. Caroline has a decade of experience as an MEP, but the problem of being locked into a coalition is that you are bound to the Government line, and there are bound to be many decisions that will not be aligned to the green view. Our Irish Green sister party, Comhaontas Glas, has suffered greatly from dirty actions (notably in running a motorway through Tara) that they have been forced to take as a result in participating in a coalition with Fianna Fail. Admittedly, Fianna Fail is a conservative party, which makes for more difficulty, but the damage to credibility of the Irish Greens has been severe.
Absorption into Government would stifle the ability of Caroline to voice the unique Green point of view, its critique of conventional politics and its firm commitment to ecological economics. But on the other hand, it would bring that voice into the heart of Government.
What a dilemma. Do we just seek to luxuriate in being the voice of opposition? Are we forever the virgin thinkers, afraid to soil our hands on getting to pull at least one of the rusty levers of power?
Much depends on what the Progressive Majority actually means.
Caroline could do well by getting the various political minds focused on the definition of progressive, and the mission of this government. Otherwise it will be overwhelmed by the nuts and bolts of keeping itself together.
A progressive government in 2010, if it means anything, must aim to bring about :
The alternative to being part of a coalition is, as Rupert Read suggests, for Caroline to relate to a Progressive Majority Government on a "Confidence and Support" basis. Which would mean being free to criticise and comment on the Government's actions, but pledging to support it in a vote of no-confidence, and to support its budget proposals. This resolves the dilemma between being clapped in irons as a part of government, or of implicitly bringing about a dreaded Tory regime, with its threat of double dip recession, rule by the rich for the rich, and continuation of a broken political system.
The second option is a Progressive Majority or Rainbow Government, formed of Labour, LibDems and 8 others. Is a problem. They can find their 8 from the SDLP of Northern Ireland (3 MPs), Plaid Cymru (3) and the SVP (6). The obvious other possibility is Caroline Lucas, our Green MP.
Should Caroline join a Progressive Coalition? It's a tough choice, and touch choices are what real politics is about.
In favour of joining is the fact that the alternative is a minority Tory Government. Which concentrates the mind wonderfully.
Against joining is that for the Greens to be catapulted straight into Government is a bit of a jump. Caroline has a decade of experience as an MEP, but the problem of being locked into a coalition is that you are bound to the Government line, and there are bound to be many decisions that will not be aligned to the green view. Our Irish Green sister party, Comhaontas Glas, has suffered greatly from dirty actions (notably in running a motorway through Tara) that they have been forced to take as a result in participating in a coalition with Fianna Fail. Admittedly, Fianna Fail is a conservative party, which makes for more difficulty, but the damage to credibility of the Irish Greens has been severe.
Absorption into Government would stifle the ability of Caroline to voice the unique Green point of view, its critique of conventional politics and its firm commitment to ecological economics. But on the other hand, it would bring that voice into the heart of Government.
What a dilemma. Do we just seek to luxuriate in being the voice of opposition? Are we forever the virgin thinkers, afraid to soil our hands on getting to pull at least one of the rusty levers of power?
Much depends on what the Progressive Majority actually means.
Caroline could do well by getting the various political minds focused on the definition of progressive, and the mission of this government. Otherwise it will be overwhelmed by the nuts and bolts of keeping itself together.
A progressive government in 2010, if it means anything, must aim to bring about :
- Decarbonisation of our energy use
- Greater Equality, by reducing the RPG
- Financial stability, cutting the deficit without cutting core public services.
- Political reform, starting with abolition of the useless FPTP method
The alternative to being part of a coalition is, as Rupert Read suggests, for Caroline to relate to a Progressive Majority Government on a "Confidence and Support" basis. Which would mean being free to criticise and comment on the Government's actions, but pledging to support it in a vote of no-confidence, and to support its budget proposals. This resolves the dilemma between being clapped in irons as a part of government, or of implicitly bringing about a dreaded Tory regime, with its threat of double dip recession, rule by the rich for the rich, and continuation of a broken political system.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tory threat of Market Meltdown fizzles out.
We have been assured that the Markets are against a hung parliament, and that they demand a swift agreement on the next Government.
The Market is always prone to throw its toys out of the pram if the people have the effrontery to choose not to return a Tory Government. Threat of market disapproval is one of the instruments used by Tories to whip voters into line. It was used effectively by the Tory press to deflate the Clegg bubble.
So it gives me much pleasure to report that the Markets today are up on Friday.
"According to data compiled by Bloomberg, the pound is undervalued by 13 per cent against the euro and is viewed as in rude health when compared against the single currency".
Of course, much of the improvement is due to the Greek bailout, but even so, it just shows how inaccurate the threats of market meltdown from a hung Parliament were.
Truly, the preponderance of the Tory press (3:1 advantage over the progressive press - Guardian, Indie and Mirror amounts to a massive propaganda machine.
The Market is always prone to throw its toys out of the pram if the people have the effrontery to choose not to return a Tory Government. Threat of market disapproval is one of the instruments used by Tories to whip voters into line. It was used effectively by the Tory press to deflate the Clegg bubble.
So it gives me much pleasure to report that the Markets today are up on Friday.
"According to data compiled by Bloomberg, the pound is undervalued by 13 per cent against the euro and is viewed as in rude health when compared against the single currency".
Of course, much of the improvement is due to the Greek bailout, but even so, it just shows how inaccurate the threats of market meltdown from a hung Parliament were.
Truly, the preponderance of the Tory press (3:1 advantage over the progressive press - Guardian, Indie and Mirror amounts to a massive propaganda machine.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Hanging about waiting to hear the Clegg/Cameron decision
I might as well add my voice to the susurration of ignorant speculation about what Nick is agreeing with Dave.
My prediction is that Clegg will get some kind of milksop referendum on PR as a condition of sharing the poisoned chalice of power, and that the Tory press will spend the intervening months treating their readers with a barrage of anti-PR propaganda along the lines of “Do you want these shenanigans after every election?”.
I met a man in Plymouth who told me that 62% of peeps want PR at the moment. Murdoch should be able to get that down to 49% with one hand tied behind his back.
We need a good, clear web-based campaign to put the all facts of the case in front of the voters. The Guardian and Indie should at long last begin to provide the facts. Hopefully the Mirror may come onside. But Mordor still has 3 orc readers to every 1 progressive hobbit.
So we need to sweep the blogosphere with factual arguments.
PS I also predict that in years to come, Number 10 tour guides will draw attention to the still-visible marks of Gordon Brown's nails on the door of Number 10 Downing St.
My prediction is that Clegg will get some kind of milksop referendum on PR as a condition of sharing the poisoned chalice of power, and that the Tory press will spend the intervening months treating their readers with a barrage of anti-PR propaganda along the lines of “Do you want these shenanigans after every election?”.
I met a man in Plymouth who told me that 62% of peeps want PR at the moment. Murdoch should be able to get that down to 49% with one hand tied behind his back.
We need a good, clear web-based campaign to put the all facts of the case in front of the voters. The Guardian and Indie should at long last begin to provide the facts. Hopefully the Mirror may come onside. But Mordor still has 3 orc readers to every 1 progressive hobbit.
So we need to sweep the blogosphere with factual arguments.
PS I also predict that in years to come, Number 10 tour guides will draw attention to the still-visible marks of Gordon Brown's nails on the door of Number 10 Downing St.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Congratulations Caroline!!!
The Greens are the only party who have reason to cheer their result in the 2010 election. Caroline Lucas' team in Brighton have beaten the malodourous FPTP electoral system and made history by putting the first Green MP into the Mugger of Parliaments at Westminster.
This is going to have a huge effect on British politics as far as Green issues - global warming and the environment, and social equality - are concerned. An officer told me privately that the moment I was elected onto Woodspring District Council in 1986, the ruling Tories began to ask the officers how they could green their policies. Although we are publicly disdained, privately the other politicians seek to emulate the Green Party.
So we have a hung Parliament, though not as well hung (what happened to the LibDem vote?) as we would have wished. Will Nick Clegg's LibDems show backbone and insist on PR as their non-negotiable condition for any coalition?
Britain needs political reform, which must include reform over newspaper ownership. The readership of Tory-backing papers is three times that of the Mirror, Guardian and Independent. Given that huge propaganda advantage, Cameron's lead in MPs looks like a pretty hollow victory.
One of the most striking aspects of this election is what happens if people are given the opportunity to pick the policies that appeal to them, stripped of the context of commentary and personality. The Vote for Policies website final result on 288,142 votes is:
Greens 24%
Labour 20%
LibDems 18%
Cons 16%
UKIP 12%
BNP 10%
This is a survey of netizens, not a balanced social profile, but on the other hand, are we web dwellers so unbalanced? And 288k is a pretty hefty sample.
Finally, for today, before I go off line for a couple of days, a personal apology to my local party and potential Green voters in the Weston constituency for my ill-considered withdrawal of my own candidacy. John Penrose got in with an increased majority (congratulations, John) against Mike Bell, the LibDem (commiserations Mike). Undoubtedly the Green vote would have been squeezed, and I would have felt pretty uncomfortable in the heady days of the Cleggmania spike. But my initial assessment was right, and my unilateral withdrawal was a bum decision. On the other hand, if we go into another election under FPTP (gods forbid), I think that PR backing parties should have structured agreements.
Anyway. We have an MP in Westminster who understands the first rule of tree surgery: mankind must not saw away at the branch it that it is standing on.
[update] Here is one mock-up (incomplete results) of what Parliament would look like under PR.
[update2] Whatever else happens in this Parliament, if they have any sense at all they will put together some kind of cross-party Council of Fiscal Responsibility to guide financial decisions.
This is going to have a huge effect on British politics as far as Green issues - global warming and the environment, and social equality - are concerned. An officer told me privately that the moment I was elected onto Woodspring District Council in 1986, the ruling Tories began to ask the officers how they could green their policies. Although we are publicly disdained, privately the other politicians seek to emulate the Green Party.
So we have a hung Parliament, though not as well hung (what happened to the LibDem vote?) as we would have wished. Will Nick Clegg's LibDems show backbone and insist on PR as their non-negotiable condition for any coalition?
Britain needs political reform, which must include reform over newspaper ownership. The readership of Tory-backing papers is three times that of the Mirror, Guardian and Independent. Given that huge propaganda advantage, Cameron's lead in MPs looks like a pretty hollow victory.
One of the most striking aspects of this election is what happens if people are given the opportunity to pick the policies that appeal to them, stripped of the context of commentary and personality. The Vote for Policies website final result on 288,142 votes is:
Greens 24%
Labour 20%
LibDems 18%
Cons 16%
UKIP 12%
BNP 10%
This is a survey of netizens, not a balanced social profile, but on the other hand, are we web dwellers so unbalanced? And 288k is a pretty hefty sample.
Finally, for today, before I go off line for a couple of days, a personal apology to my local party and potential Green voters in the Weston constituency for my ill-considered withdrawal of my own candidacy. John Penrose got in with an increased majority (congratulations, John) against Mike Bell, the LibDem (commiserations Mike). Undoubtedly the Green vote would have been squeezed, and I would have felt pretty uncomfortable in the heady days of the Cleggmania spike. But my initial assessment was right, and my unilateral withdrawal was a bum decision. On the other hand, if we go into another election under FPTP (gods forbid), I think that PR backing parties should have structured agreements.
Anyway. We have an MP in Westminster who understands the first rule of tree surgery: mankind must not saw away at the branch it that it is standing on.
[update] Here is one mock-up (incomplete results) of what Parliament would look like under PR.
[update2] Whatever else happens in this Parliament, if they have any sense at all they will put together some kind of cross-party Council of Fiscal Responsibility to guide financial decisions.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Praying and voting for real democracy in the UK
O God O God O God. Please let it be a balanced Parliament that delivers PR.
Thank you.
I'm off to vote now. For the candidate that supports Proportional Representation.
Thank you.
I'm off to vote now. For the candidate that supports Proportional Representation.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
How to Vote : advice for the swing voter (3)
An amazing 40% of voters have yet to decide what to do with their vote.
Allow me to help.
The wise voter needs first of all to find out if the seat is "safe".
Find out here.
If it is a safe seat, all votes apart from those for the incumbent are "wasted" in the sense that they do not get any representation in Parliament. There's our First Past the Post system (FPTP) for you. It is a crap system, and it has to go.
In a safe seat, then you might as well vote for your principles.The best signal to send is with a Green Party vote, because it signals your wish for radical reform of our political and economic system, reform that means your children and grandchildren will have a decent life. In other words, you get more bangs for your ballot with a Green vote.
If on the other hand you are in a marginal constituency, then I as a Green would strongly urge you to vote Green, if that option is open, since your vote will lever the winner to be more green in Parliament so as to win your vote back.
But I recognise that tactical voting is very appealing in a marginal seat, and here surely any thinking voter will wish to vote ABT (Anything But Tory) for the following reasons:
If you have a choice between Labour and LibDem, then back the LibDem in the hope of getting a well-hung Parliament, with Vince Cable in the Treasury, and Proportional Representation well and truly on the menu.
All voters who care about democracy and political reform are recommended to murmur the words "First Past the Post Has Got To Go" to the clerks as they hand you your precious polling form.
I hope this is helpful.
Allow me to help.
The wise voter needs first of all to find out if the seat is "safe".
Find out here.
If it is a safe seat, all votes apart from those for the incumbent are "wasted" in the sense that they do not get any representation in Parliament. There's our First Past the Post system (FPTP) for you. It is a crap system, and it has to go.
In a safe seat, then you might as well vote for your principles.The best signal to send is with a Green Party vote, because it signals your wish for radical reform of our political and economic system, reform that means your children and grandchildren will have a decent life. In other words, you get more bangs for your ballot with a Green vote.
If on the other hand you are in a marginal constituency, then I as a Green would strongly urge you to vote Green, if that option is open, since your vote will lever the winner to be more green in Parliament so as to win your vote back.
But I recognise that tactical voting is very appealing in a marginal seat, and here surely any thinking voter will wish to vote ABT (Anything But Tory) for the following reasons:
- They are infested with climate change deniers
- Their economic slash-and-burn policies will bring on a double dip recession
- They support the ridiculous FPTP system
- They would increase the Rich-Poor Gap.
If you have a choice between Labour and LibDem, then back the LibDem in the hope of getting a well-hung Parliament, with Vince Cable in the Treasury, and Proportional Representation well and truly on the menu.
All voters who care about democracy and political reform are recommended to murmur the words "First Past the Post Has Got To Go" to the clerks as they hand you your precious polling form.
I hope this is helpful.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Green Party Immigration policy
The Green Party 2010 manifesto takes a balanced view of immigration. We recognise that immigration is a fact of life, we recognise that it has some positive economic effects, but that it can also create tension in the host population if housing, jobs and services are in short supply. (Which is another reason to supply social housing, end unemployment, and provide adequate public services).
We are concerned that asylum seekers, for whom we have legal obligations, should be able to avoid destitution while their claim is being processed.
We support an amnesty for migrants "We would open up ways for existing illegal migrants who have been here for three years to become legal." The amnesty has been hotly challenged by the commentariat, but it makes perfect sense - the alternative is to have a shadowy underclass of stateless persons in our society, fodder for criminal gangs. It is in short a no-brainer, and critics of the amnesty show themselves to be short of brains.
We would end the detention of children, and look to their welfare.
Trafficked people can choose to stay if they wish.
Most importantly, we look to the causes of migration - wars, political oppression, and world poverty.
Migration is another social challenge brought on by inequality - this time by global inequality.
The bottom line is that green global policies for peace, international cooperation, Index of Human Rights, and renewable energy (which will make hot countries net energy exporters) are the only effective and humane way of ending such problems that immigration represents.
See also http://t.co/Lw6M3bCudm
We are concerned that asylum seekers, for whom we have legal obligations, should be able to avoid destitution while their claim is being processed.
We support an amnesty for migrants "We would open up ways for existing illegal migrants who have been here for three years to become legal." The amnesty has been hotly challenged by the commentariat, but it makes perfect sense - the alternative is to have a shadowy underclass of stateless persons in our society, fodder for criminal gangs. It is in short a no-brainer, and critics of the amnesty show themselves to be short of brains.
We would end the detention of children, and look to their welfare.
Trafficked people can choose to stay if they wish.
Most importantly, we look to the causes of migration - wars, political oppression, and world poverty.
Migration is another social challenge brought on by inequality - this time by global inequality.
The bottom line is that green global policies for peace, international cooperation, Index of Human Rights, and renewable energy (which will make hot countries net energy exporters) are the only effective and humane way of ending such problems that immigration represents.
See also http://t.co/Lw6M3bCudm
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Items not mentioned in the UK Election
It is impossible for all topics of interest to all people to be carried in election, but still, it is interesting to note what subjects have not figured significantly in this election, in the sense of being debated, rather than mentioned.
- The electoral system
- Global Warming
- Energy security
- Equality
- Immigration
- The deficit
- The UK's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
YouGov tries to close Craig Murray's blog. Let's go for another Streisand effect.
YouGov are trying to use the libel laws to close down Craig Murray's excellent blog because he uncovered some dodgy practices in their polling of the last leadership debate.
Here you can see the letter her received from the libel lawyers, which is Not for Publication. If it gets taken down, ask me for a copy. It helpfully carries all of Craig's postings.
So in case the thought police do succeed in stifling free speech over on Craig's blog, I copy and paste a three of the offending pages:
______________________________________________
Michael Crick has revealed how YouGove fixed the instant poll after the last leaders' debate. This was an internet poll taken between just 9.27pm and 9.31 pm. Which means that, voting opened immediately after David Cameron finished his closing statement without waiting for the other candidates' closing statements. Voting closed just after Nick Clegg's closing statement got started.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html
This poll enabled YouGove's main customer Murdoch's Sky News to shrill an instant victory for Cameron, ignoring all the other Clegg victory polls that were taken after he had had a chance to give his closing speech.
YouGove is a disgrace.
_________________________________________________
Sun_Election Tonight’s Sun/YouGov poll reveals that Nick Clegg has failed to repeat his poll surge after the second leaders debate…
The anti-Lib Dem campaigning by Murdoch is so blatant it is really not funny. Now when they release the figures for their daily poll, the LibDems are the only party who have increased their vote share on the day before.
Tory 34, LD 29 (up 1), New Labour 29
This was the first opinion poll taken after the hounds of hell of the entire Tory media were released on Nick Clegg yesterday. How Murdoch must be frustrated at the loss of his iron grip on British public opinion. Expect new heights of hysterical Tory attack in the week ahead.
I now have a source within YouGove who tells me that in fact the poll showed the LibDems in the lead and Con on 30, but that was before "adjustment".
YouGove, you have some disgruntled employees. Again if you want to deny this, I will publish your denial. There have been visits to this site from the YouGove server all day.
A roundup of some brilliant dissections of media bias here.
http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/04/23/friday-links-23410-the-arseoisie/#comments
I didn't realise it was the great Justin who invented #nickcleggsfault.
____________________________________________________
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html
Where did they publish their denial? Conservative Home!!!!! Entirely appropriate, in fact.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/the-shakespeare-report-message-testing-v-push-polling.html
Here is what Mr Shakespeare, Chief Executive of YouGov, says:
__________________________________________
One interesting feature of the YouGov poll was its use of push-polling, where they put a series of leading points to the pollee. Here is YouGov's page of biasing questions:
Click the image if it is too small. Not everyone polled got this page.
________________________________________________
Here you can see the letter her received from the libel lawyers, which is Not for Publication. If it gets taken down, ask me for a copy. It helpfully carries all of Craig's postings.
So in case the thought police do succeed in stifling free speech over on Craig's blog, I copy and paste a three of the offending pages:
______________________________________________
April 24, 2010
How YouGove Fixed Debate Poll
I have been unmasking the sleazy Murdoch propaganda vehicle that is YouGove, founded by the current Tory candidate for St Albans, and whose Chief Executive Officer is "Sleazy Stephan" Shakespeare, close friend and former PR adviser of Jeffrey Archer, failed Tory parliamentary candidate in Colchester (where he was unexpectedly beaten by the Lib Dem, explaining his huge bitterness towards them), and co-founder of Conservative Home website.Michael Crick has revealed how YouGove fixed the instant poll after the last leaders' debate. This was an internet poll taken between just 9.27pm and 9.31 pm. Which means that, voting opened immediately after David Cameron finished his closing statement without waiting for the other candidates' closing statements. Voting closed just after Nick Clegg's closing statement got started.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html
This poll enabled YouGove's main customer Murdoch's Sky News to shrill an instant victory for Cameron, ignoring all the other Clegg victory polls that were taken after he had had a chance to give his closing speech.
YouGove is a disgrace.
_________________________________________________
April 23, 2010
A tweet from the Sun:Sun_Election Tonight’s Sun/YouGov poll reveals that Nick Clegg has failed to repeat his poll surge after the second leaders debate…
The anti-Lib Dem campaigning by Murdoch is so blatant it is really not funny. Now when they release the figures for their daily poll, the LibDems are the only party who have increased their vote share on the day before.
Tory 34, LD 29 (up 1), New Labour 29
This was the first opinion poll taken after the hounds of hell of the entire Tory media were released on Nick Clegg yesterday. How Murdoch must be frustrated at the loss of his iron grip on British public opinion. Expect new heights of hysterical Tory attack in the week ahead.
I now have a source within YouGove who tells me that in fact the poll showed the LibDems in the lead and Con on 30, but that was before "adjustment".
YouGove, you have some disgruntled employees. Again if you want to deny this, I will publish your denial. There have been visits to this site from the YouGove server all day.
A roundup of some brilliant dissections of media bias here.
http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/04/23/friday-links-23410-the-arseoisie/#comments
I didn't realise it was the great Justin who invented #nickcleggsfault.
____________________________________________________
YouGov Push Polling
YouGov spluttered and denied push polling in response to my exposure of their push polling.http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html
Where did they publish their denial? Conservative Home!!!!! Entirely appropriate, in fact.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/the-shakespeare-report-message-testing-v-push-polling.html
Here is what Mr Shakespeare, Chief Executive of YouGov, says:
Push-polling is a very different beast. Push-polling is unethical. Push-polling is conducting a poll to influence a respondent for some particular purpose. Mainly it is when people are pretending to conduct a poll, but actually they are contacting hundreds of thousands of people to repeat attack lines – it’s campaigning masquerading as polling, and in New Hampshire it’s even illegal (and quite right too). Another variant of push-polling (at least that’s how the phrase is often used) is when you ask ‘questions’ designed to influence the outcome of a poll. For example, if I ask you to choose which you like best from a list of positive attributes about a candidate and then ask you who you would want to vote for.Have a close look at Stephan Shakespeare
Message testing is an extremely valuable and reasonable form of research. Push-polling of any kind is plain wrong. YouGov, like all members of the British Polling Council, does lots of message-testing, and zero push-polling.
I hope that’s clear.
__________________________________________
One interesting feature of the YouGov poll was its use of push-polling, where they put a series of leading points to the pollee. Here is YouGov's page of biasing questions:
Click the image if it is too small. Not everyone polled got this page.
________________________________________________
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Gordon and Mrs Duffy - did he mishear?
- I've just been looking at the video of Poor Gordons encounter with Mrs Duffy. Go here, third vid down for the whole thing. It is worth a look. She is a smart woman, articulate and confident, community minded, a good citizen (worked for the Rochedale Council for 30 years). She covers a lot of ground, tax on 66-year olds, Government debt, Education, Health services and fraudulent claimants, before moving on to Eastern Europeans.
What is noticeable is that Gordon keeps interrupting her.
She says, "These Eastern Europeans, where are they all flocking from?"
Maybe she thought she said "focking". That would explain why he thought she was a "bigot".
I'm trying to be helpful here.
A hung Parliament is what the UK needs
John Major has added his alto to the Tory choir warning of the business risks of a hung or balanced Parliament. The Tories would have us believe that it would be bad for the Pound. They point to the worries in the City last week. However, we are told that the City looks ahead, and last week's wobble has now been corrected. Any "hung Parliament" effect is vastly overshadowed by the plunge caused by the dire news from Greece.
In any case, elections are about the will of the people, not the political preference of the City of London.
A Government which includes more than one party is the norm in most other modern democracies. Democracy means that the will of the people is the ultimate source of power, and the will of the people is diverse, not monolithic. Government formed of two or more parties reflects this reality.
Wikipedia lists 79 countries using some form of PR. It is absurd to argue that these countries suffer economically because they routinely have mixed Governments.
In fact a hung Parliament would probably mean Vince Cable in the Treasury, if not as Chancellor, which would boost popular confidence at least, since he is regarded as the least untrustworthy in economic matters.
Nick Clegg was perfectly reasonable to argue that he should be guided by the size of the popular vote, not by the number of MPs, given the perverse results that FPTP throws up. The downside to this principle is that it would put the country at risk of a Cameroonian Government. So he offset that by setting PR as a precondition of his cooperation. That's politics.
The Conservatives scream that Clegg wants electoral reform just to benefit the LibDems. Although it is true that the LibDem preference is STV, which is not strictly proportional, it would be an improvement on what we now have. Best outcome would be AV+, based on AV which is the direction in which the Government supertanker is steering, with a top-up from party lists to ensure proportionality.
Electoral reform is not an end in itself, it is a precondition of a root-and-branch political and constitutional reform.
This stuff is not rocket science. Why to the media have so much trouble explaining it to the public? The net effect of most media reports is obfuscation and confusion, not clarity and enlightenment.
In any case, elections are about the will of the people, not the political preference of the City of London.
A Government which includes more than one party is the norm in most other modern democracies. Democracy means that the will of the people is the ultimate source of power, and the will of the people is diverse, not monolithic. Government formed of two or more parties reflects this reality.
Wikipedia lists 79 countries using some form of PR. It is absurd to argue that these countries suffer economically because they routinely have mixed Governments.
In fact a hung Parliament would probably mean Vince Cable in the Treasury, if not as Chancellor, which would boost popular confidence at least, since he is regarded as the least untrustworthy in economic matters.
Nick Clegg was perfectly reasonable to argue that he should be guided by the size of the popular vote, not by the number of MPs, given the perverse results that FPTP throws up. The downside to this principle is that it would put the country at risk of a Cameroonian Government. So he offset that by setting PR as a precondition of his cooperation. That's politics.
The Conservatives scream that Clegg wants electoral reform just to benefit the LibDems. Although it is true that the LibDem preference is STV, which is not strictly proportional, it would be an improvement on what we now have. Best outcome would be AV+, based on AV which is the direction in which the Government supertanker is steering, with a top-up from party lists to ensure proportionality.
Electoral reform is not an end in itself, it is a precondition of a root-and-branch political and constitutional reform.
This stuff is not rocket science. Why to the media have so much trouble explaining it to the public? The net effect of most media reports is obfuscation and confusion, not clarity and enlightenment.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Green Candidates out front in support for Equality Trust
Nine days to go until election, and the most important, crystal clear issue has yet to be reach the surface of the stagnant pool that is the arena of public debate: the issue of equality.
The clearest part of this election is the question of "fairness": more equal distribution of wealth. The Greens, LibDems and Labour all have the word "fair" in their election slogan. This remarkable commonality must surely be due to the work of the Equality Trust, whose work demonstrates that more equal societies do better in terms of just about any measure of social cohesion and harmony that you care to study.
So the question that we should be putting to politicians for the next Leaders' Debate is - "Do you intend to work for a fairer society and economy, and if so how do you intend to bring this about?"
You can push this question up the agenda by going here. Please please do, if that is the only thing you do this day.
This question will sort out the men from the boy Cameron, who alone of all the major parties eschews greater equality, relying instead on vacuous promises of change and unfunded burblings about his Big Society based on unpaid work by volunteers.
If Cameron wants a Big Society, he has to go for greater economic equality. But we may doubt that his economic policies are exactly geared up for life in the Sherwood Forest.
And it shows. The Equality Trust has a page here showing which Parliamentary Candidates have signed up to the Equality Pledge: "Compelling new evidence presented by The Equality Trust shows that more equal societies - those with a narrower gap between rich and poor – are more cohesive, healthier, suffer fewer social problems and are more environmentally sustainable. In view of these findings I am committed to making the UK a more equal society as the most effective means of building a better society. I will therefore actively support the case for policies designed to narrow the gap between rich and poor; and engage with the debate on which measures should be implemented to achieve that aim."
Restuts so far (26th April):
Greens 141
LibDems 120
Labour 81
Conservatives 26
So there we have it. Commitment by candidates to Equality and therefore social harmony in a nutshell. Remember also that Greens are a small party, unfunded by corporate donations, legal or otherwise, and massively outnumbered by the LibLabCon axis.
The amazing thing is not that the Cons are bottom of the table, but that poor oldDobbin Labour is second from bottom.
Remember too that people back Green Policies when presented blind.
The clearest part of this election is the question of "fairness": more equal distribution of wealth. The Greens, LibDems and Labour all have the word "fair" in their election slogan. This remarkable commonality must surely be due to the work of the Equality Trust, whose work demonstrates that more equal societies do better in terms of just about any measure of social cohesion and harmony that you care to study.
So the question that we should be putting to politicians for the next Leaders' Debate is - "Do you intend to work for a fairer society and economy, and if so how do you intend to bring this about?"
You can push this question up the agenda by going here. Please please do, if that is the only thing you do this day.
This question will sort out the men from the boy Cameron, who alone of all the major parties eschews greater equality, relying instead on vacuous promises of change and unfunded burblings about his Big Society based on unpaid work by volunteers.
If Cameron wants a Big Society, he has to go for greater economic equality. But we may doubt that his economic policies are exactly geared up for life in the Sherwood Forest.
And it shows. The Equality Trust has a page here showing which Parliamentary Candidates have signed up to the Equality Pledge: "Compelling new evidence presented by The Equality Trust shows that more equal societies - those with a narrower gap between rich and poor – are more cohesive, healthier, suffer fewer social problems and are more environmentally sustainable. In view of these findings I am committed to making the UK a more equal society as the most effective means of building a better society. I will therefore actively support the case for policies designed to narrow the gap between rich and poor; and engage with the debate on which measures should be implemented to achieve that aim."
Restuts so far (26th April):
Greens 141
LibDems 120
Labour 81
Conservatives 26
So there we have it. Commitment by candidates to Equality and therefore social harmony in a nutshell. Remember also that Greens are a small party, unfunded by corporate donations, legal or otherwise, and massively outnumbered by the LibLabCon axis.
The amazing thing is not that the Cons are bottom of the table, but that poor old
Remember too that people back Green Policies when presented blind.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Tory Propaganda machine moves to Get Clegg
The Conservative news machine is in a frenzied attack on Nick Clegg today. The Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express and Times have a combined readership of 18 million, which is 10 (ten) times the combined readership of the Guardian and the Independent. This is an indictment of the obscene political imbalance in the UK media scene. It will be interesting to see whether this massive propaganda offensive wave can dent the Clegg Surge in the polls. Fair play to the electorate if they can maintain their intent to align themselves with the LibDems, and even more fair play to them if they can exercise enough analysis of the local situation to use tactical voting effectively.
The media approach is not only grotesquely imbalanced politically, and constitutionally blind to the real questions, but also neurotic.
By neurotic, I mean that they think in absolute categories like right-wrong, right-left and good-bad. Nick Clegg is either Saint Nicholas, coming down the political chimney to give all good children a present, or Old Nick, a demonic figure who will cause the British economy to collapse and require the attentions of the IMF.
So far the main substance of the attack has been on some payments into a private account, which were declared, and the fact that he is a career politician. Big Deal. The LibDem figures on the economy are said not to add up, which is a bit rich coming from journalists whose favoured party has not published any meaningful figures about the economic plans, but who are majoring instead on apple-pie chunterings about a Big Society plan which is doomed by their ideological commitment to ever-increasing economic divergence.
Waiting round the corner are accusations that by blocking our Trident WMD (see left) he will let the
Reality is not found in the simple binary analysis of Conservative media machine. Reality is a complex system of gradations between effective and ineffective activities.
I am not starry-eyed about Nick Clegg and the LibDems. I have criticised them on this blog here and here and here and here.
They tend to fight dirty in elections, the result no doubt of 100 years of being held back by the dysfunctional FPTP system.
In spite of all their failings (and no political party is without flaws, including my own Green party), the point about the LibDems is that they do stand for electoral reform. Yes, the STV form that they advocate is designed to benefit the LibDems and not the Greens, being a weak form of Proportional Representation, which is a drawback, but at least it is a weak form of Proportional Representation, which is an advantage. And in fact, the framework being set leans towards AV+ (building on Labour's pusillanimous suggestion of AV), and AV+ would be acceptable.
So PR is the main reason to seek a hung Parliament. That and Vince. Here again, Vince is not infallible, but his grasp on economics is clearly and definitely better than that of Labour or the Tories.
So the message to the electorate is - Hold your line, Defy the Murdoch/Tory press, and use your vote to bring about real political change. And the message to the Tory Media is - Grow Up.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Green Policies are most popular with voters on web survey of 144,000
It is good to see that when people vote blind for the policies on offer, without knowing which party the policies belong to, there is still a majority in favour of the Green Party.
The Vote for Policies site http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ shows (rounded up to whole numbers:
Greens 25%
LibDems 18%
Labour 18%
Tories 17%
UKIP 11%
BNP 10%
The sample size is 144,000, so these results are pretty robust.
The Vote for Policies site http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ shows (rounded up to whole numbers:
Greens 25%
LibDems 18%
Labour 18%
Tories 17%
UKIP 11%
BNP 10%
The sample size is 144,000, so these results are pretty robust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
