Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[colhint]

Labour Goverment made the changes are you sure about that? where is your source.

Interesting very interesting, it looks you failed to mention that the boundary reforms made it a lot harder for Labour to win a majority.

Wasn't it the Boundary Commission that recommend boundary changes, Labour were actually adversely affected by those introduced for the 2010 GE.

Not only have you failed to grasp the other main factors,but you are completely wrong about the point you made - you must be a Tory.

Are you sure?

factcheck

Research by the independent House of Commons Library states: “Academics have noted for some time that the UK electoral system appears to have become biased against the Conservatives in the last couple of decades.” It’s all down to a mix of abstention, geography, constituencies of unequal size and competition from smaller parties.

The library however points to research by academics at the Universities of Plymouth and Bristol whose overall conclusion is that the creation of more equal constituencies would help with reducing the bias against the Tories but, crucially, “it would not assist with the other factors in play”.

uk polling report

Despite the boundary changes you will probably have noticed that the electoral boundaries continue to display a “bias” towards the Labour party. It is far easier for Labour to secure a majority in the House of Commons than it is for the Conservatives. If Labour lead in the vote they will secure an overall majority, if the parties are neck and neck then Labour will be by far the largest party. In contrast, depending on how well the Liberal Democrats do, the Conservatives need to be in the region of 9 or 10 percent ahead in the polls to secure an overall majorty.

[VILLAFC2000]

Oh dear oh dear you do make me laugh. In the grand scheme of things complaining that the electoral sysstem is unfair to the Tories is superb. First past the post unfair to the Toires...?!

Here it is in black and white.

2010 GE results:

Conservative 307 10,726,614 ( voters )

Liberal Democrat 57 6,836,824 ( voters)

From this we can clearly see that nearly 7 million people voted for the Fib-Dems yet their voters only got to see 57 of their MPs represented in Parliment

Compare that to the Tories.

10.7 Million voters 3 0 7 MPS in Parliament.

You have the arrogance and audacity to say thats its the Tories who are hard done by - classic.

Perhaps you might prefer a fairer form of Voting, maybe a more proportional representation voting system....??!!

[colhint]

Oh dear oh dear you do make me laugh. In the grand scheme of things complaining that the electoral sysstem is unfair to the Tories is superb. First past the post unfair to the Toires...?!

Here it is in black and white.

2010 GE results:

Conservative 307 10,726,614 ( voters )

Liberal Democrat 57 6,836,824 ( voters)

From this we can clearly see that nearly 7 million people voted for the Fib-Dems yet their voters only got to see 57 of their MPs represented in Parliment

Compare that to the Tories.

10.7 Million voters 3 0 7 MPS in Parliament.

You have the arrogance and audacity to say thats its the Tories who are hard done by - classic.

Perhaps you might prefer a fairer form of Voting, maybe a more proportional representation voting system....??!!

I don't know where to start with that.

Lets take my arrogance and audacity first.

Why on earth would you think I am either of the two when I just asked if you were sure of your facts. In fact the only 3 words I used were "are you sure". Could I ask how you think I was being arrogant or audacious?

It does bother me this point

Secondly I quoted and linked from independant sources who both stated that it is much easier for labour to win than Conservatives.

Thirdly I thought you were discussing boundary changes not PR, well I think you were when i read your post.

Fourth You challenged Richard on who made those changes and I pointed you in the direction of the UK polling report and factcheck, just so you could be certain.

Fifth, why did you bring the Lib Dems into this, when you were arguing who made changes the Tory or Labour?

sixth why, when presenting your case did you omit Labours statistics?

Just so we can have some balance in your post I will add the Labour figure as well.

Conservatives 10.7 m votes for 306 mp's which equates to 35000 votes for every MP

Labour 806m votes for 258 mp's which equates to 33300 votes for every mp.

Surely you can see the Conservatives need an extra 1700 votes per mp

[drat01]

Coll - what a flawed argument. You are using the rules of PR, something that the Tory party are very much against, as your base rule.

It's well known that the last set of boundary changes were actually in Tory party favour if people retained the same voting habits. The new boundary changes and the reductions in the number of MP's certainly favour the Tory party, hence their eagerness to go back on their previous statements about protection of civil liberties and parliamentary setup.

2010 changes

As we have the flawed system in the UK of the first past the post aggregate votes are meaningless

[snowychap]

Labour 806m votes...

That's some Russian level vote rigging going on there!

[Awol]

AWOL tried to imply that Union leaders were responsible for the Labour leader and Pete rightly pointed out that the Union vote was as a result of votes from within the Unions.

For clarity I am aware that individual members of unions vote, which is why I replied to Mr Bland by writing:

In theory, yes.

My point - as highlighted by the article linked to - was that the union leadership had a disproportionate influence on the outcome by the measures they took to restrict a 'fair' contest.

For example:

Nominations for the leadership were coordinated and streamlined by the trade unions in order to maximise support for Ed Miliband’s candidacy. A senior party official commented: ‘They clearly have a major say, the union leadership, over who they nominate.’

Unions shaped campaigning by restricting the availability of their membership lists to their nominee. One campaign team member said it was like ‘running a national election campaign with someone deciding who to give the electoral register to … you can’t [campaign], you have no list, you can’t tell, you have no access.’

Considerable union resources – not factored into the spending limits for the contest - were mobilised behind Ed Miliband. One campaigner argued: ‘It does make a mockery of expense limits…union spending is not monitored or detailed.’

So, whether or not Pete felt that undue influence on the outcome had been exercised by union leaders 'at the coal face', the larger picture (as described above) would suggest that it was by shaping the conditions in which the vote took place.

Given that the eventual outcome had EM beating his bro by less than 1%, it could be argued that the unions had a decisive impact on the outcome of the contest and therefore the direction the PLP will take - as the leader owes his position to a few individuals.

The big picture result of this is Labour being led by someone who makes the unions feel good about themselves, but not necessarily by the person who gives Labour the greatest chance of winning an election.

Would you argue that Miliband the elder would not be doing a better job of holding the government to account than little Ed?

[colhint]

Coll - what a flawed argument. You are using the rules of PR, something that the Tory party are very much against, as your base rule.

It's well known that the last set of boundary changes were actually in Tory party favour if people retained the same voting habits. The new boundary changes and the reductions in the number of MP's certainly favour the Tory party, hence their eagerness to go back on their previous statements about protection of civil liberties and parliamentary setup.

2010 changes

As we have the flawed system in the UK of the first past the post aggregate votes are meaningless

Ian i agree. The fptp system is wrong, I was trying to use something to balance the previous post.

[blandy]

Although, Awol, the Bristol Uni study also said

Most political commentators and scholars concluded that the introduction in 1993 of one member one vote (OMOV) fundamentally reduced the role of affiliates in Labour politics.

[Awol]

Although, Awol, the Bristol Uni study also said

Most political commentators and scholars concluded that the introduction in 1993 of one member one vote (OMOV) fundamentally reduced the role of affiliates in Labour politics.

Indeed, but if the assertions they made about how union leaders shaped the process are correct - and I don't know either way - then there may be some truth in their assertion that:

...having apparently been deprived of influence, trade union elites developed a strategy to re-establish their authority over the Labour Party.

Some on the left may not see that as a bad thing anyway after the Blair/Brown years, but historically a union dominated PLP doesn't have much appeal beyond its core support - hence the rightward shift after the death of John Smith to Blairism.

Either way I would argue that EM is a dud as Labour leader and I agree with Richard's original suggestion that increasing numbers in the Labour movement probably share that view.

[TrentVilla]

I completely agree with everything you have posted AWOL and that is coming from someone who while not a party member has always voted Labour and has actively worked in support of their campaigns in past.

While Pete is correct in what he says in relation to the part and the changes made in 1993 you are absolutely spot on (in my opinion) in regards the influence the unions had on the election of EM over DM.

While EM may sooth the Left following their discomfort through the Blair years many within Labour and many Labour voters, especially the younger less traditional voters simply don't identify with EM or support his union leanings.

I certainly don't as I consider myself very much New Labour and the more central line of Blair's politics, so despite having traditionally voted Labour I'm no longer sure I could vote Labour in its current guise. Although sadly none of the parties really represent my views at the moment, The Tories are far too far to the right for me and The Liberals well I can't contain my contempt for them.

As it stands Labour under EM have absolutely no chance of election because as you say EM simply isn't going to appeal to anyone other than the far left.

[bickster]

I do find the idea that Ed Milliband appeals to the "far left" as highly amusing.

[peterms]

So, what was the point of the thread, Richard?

Was it actually to discuss whether people think Miliband may not have much time as Labour leader and who might replace him if he were to stand down?

Or was it just as another vehicle for tribalistic commenting?

It's just following the line from tory central office, trying to direct attention towards Miliband and away from the desperate mess and bitter divisions at the heart of government.

See the recent article in the Torygraph by someone who proudly proclaims in his profile

Dan Hodges is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest.

Hodges' longing for the Labour party to move further to the right is his motivation for his article, and it suits the Torygaph's agenda very well.

[peterms]

I do find the idea that Ed Milliband appeals to the "far left" as highly amusing.

I suspect both Miliband and the far left would share your amusement.

[drat01]

I find it also very amusing the totally blinkered view that awol has on unions trying to backtrack on what he originally said which was that the leaders chose the labour leader. Also the ridiculous idea that in some way nions are bad while having a very convenient silence on the far more influential backers of the tory party the hedge fund people etc.

As many have pointed out there are numerous rules that unions are bound to follow but conveniently disregarded by tory supporters when try to spread bs about their influence. Also the idea that unions are bad. I wonder how many worker priveledges such as minimum wage etc would be in existence without the union movement. More and more we see tory supporters wanting a move to erosion of workers rights.

[Awol]

I find it also very amusing the totally blinkered view that awol has on unions trying to backtrack on what he originally said which was that the leaders chose the labour leader.

If you read the consecutive posts then that's clearly not the intent of what I posted at all, but if you'd rather post about me than the actual topic of the thread then that's up to you.

[blandy]

I completely agree with everything you have posted AWOL and that is coming from someone who while not a party member has always voted Labour and has actively worked in support of their campaigns in past.

While Pete is correct in what he says in relation to the part and the changes made in 1993 you are absolutely spot on (in my opinion) in regards the influence the unions had on the election of EM over DM.

While EM may sooth the Left following their discomfort through the Blair years many within Labour and many Labour voters, especially the younger less traditional voters simply don't identify with EM or support his union leanings.

.... sadly none of the parties really represent my views at the moment...

As it stands Labour under EM have absolutely no chance of election because as you say EM simply isn't going to appeal to anyone other than the far left.

I agree with most of that, Trent. Just for clarity, I haven't claimed that the Unions had no influence over the election of EM, they clearly did - my point is that it was the members of the Unions that voted which way their Unions statutory influence should be exercised, rather than it being just the leaders that decided. Awol may, or may not, be right in his view that the leaders are trying to manipulate the members to vote one way or t'other, but IMO, the whole thing is so tightly controlled that it's realistically not achievable for them, wholesale, I believe.

The Union members who pay their money to Labour via their Unions should have a vote and a say in who is leader of the Labour Party. My one little vote is inconsequential, but there are millions of Union members, and most pay the political levy, I believe. So we should have a say, certainly compared to shareholders in Companies that donate to Political parties we voluntarily donate. The shareholders are not offered a choice. We have to opt in to donate.

On voters in general, sure the country is pretty centre right and has been for a long time, so someone who stands up, to an extent for centre left issues, will, on those issues be at odds with much of the population, but even then, I guess it's how you phrase the issue.

If you ask the man in the street "should workers be banned from joining a union, or should they be allowed to join a Union?" the answer would be 90% in favour of letting people join - i.e. people don't think being in a Union is "bad".

If you ask "should people who pay towards the costs of a party be allowed to vote in that party's leadership election?" most people would say Yes, again.

If you ask the Daily Mail question - "should Union leaders be able to decide who is leader?" you'd get a resounding "No". But they don't decide (even if they'd like to, or as Awol claims, they try to). It's a spurious question. So many laws have been laid down to stop it.

Unions get a right slagging in the right wing press and that permeates many people's thinking, I feel. They think Unions = strikes, left wing firebrands, and lazy workers.

That image, that's been portrayed by the right wingers for many many years has sadly stuck. I'm not saying it's utterly untrue, but it's as untrue as saying "Tories are uncaring" - most aren't, but the odd nutter leaves a big impression for us all to point to.

So Unions and Tories both have image problems, and probably don't deserve those problems, but it's the way it is.

If EM stays on as leader, and the country continues to go down the pan, then he has every chance of being in Cameron's position in 3 years time - leader of a coalition Gov't.

If they change leader, to someone more media/viewer friendly, then they'll probably win outright next time.

[blandy]

I find it also very amusing the totally blinkered view that awol has on unions trying to backtrack on what he originally said which was that the leaders chose the labour leader.

If you read the consecutive posts then that's clearly not the intent of what I posted at all, but if you'd rather post about me than the actual topic of the thread then that's up to you.

Must admit, Awol, I thought you were implying the same thing as Drat thought

As long as the militant leaders of certain unions can decide the leadership election then labour will remain unelectable..

being the post that made me think that, and then a link to a study that gives context to your post.

If you don't think unions ... decide the leadership election, then what did you mean?

[Risso]

So we're really to believe that the average Labour voter considered Ed to be a better bet than David? Of course Ed is leader and not his brother because of the unions, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

[VILLAFC2000]

I don't know where to start with that.

Lets take my arrogance and audacity first.

Why on earth would you think I am either of the two when I just asked if you were sure of your facts. In fact the only 3 words I used were "are you sure". Could I ask how you think I was being arrogant or audacious?

It does bother me this point

Secondly I quoted and linked from independant sources who both stated that it is much easier for labour to win than Conservatives.

Thirdly I thought you were discussing boundary changes not PR, well I think you were when i read your post.

Fourth You challenged Richard on who made those changes and I pointed you in the direction of the UK polling report and factcheck, just so you could be certain.

Fifth, why did you bring the Lib Dems into this, when you were arguing who made changes the Tory or Labour?

sixth why, when presenting your case did you omit Labours statistics?

Just so we can have some balance in your post I will add the Labour figure as well.

Conservatives 10.7 m votes for 306 mp's which equates to 35000 votes for every MP

Labour 806m votes for 258 mp's which equates to 33300 votes for every mp.

Surely you can see the Conservatives need an extra 1700 votes per mp

I don't know where to start with that.

Lets take my arrogance and audacity first.

Why on earth would you think I am either of the two when I just asked if you were sure of your facts. In fact the only 3 words I used were "are you sure". Could I ask how you think I was being arrogant or audacious?

It does bother me this point

Arrogance – Well well well I am sorry that you feel upset by these comments take things I say with a pinch of sal, dont mean to upset anyone.

Lets take a look at the the electorate system shallus. If what I think is correct then you are trying to make the point that the Tories are hard done by the boundary changes.

Originally it was the Boundary commission who suggested to make the changes.

First I will discuss with you the boundary changes ,which you think the Tories were hard done by, when in fact Labour were also hard done by. The two cancel each other out.

Are you suggesting that the following : -

- 10 out of the 13 of the seats which were created would under the boundary changes would NOT have been won by Conservatives (2005 GE results)

- Labour would only have won one seat.

- Labour would NOT have lost 6 out of the 9 seats which were abolished.

Labour were clearly affected by these changes and lost out on many seats. So for you then to say that its the Tories and only the Tories who have been treated unfairly is laughable.

Secondly I quoted and linked from independent sources who both stated that it is much easier for labour to win than Conservatives.

You missied out a lot of other information to that the website states.

“Most political commentators and scholars concluded that the introduction in 1993 of one member one vote (OMOV) fundamentally reduced the role of affiliates in Labour politics”.

Thirdly I thought you were discussing boundary changes not PR, well I think you were when i read your post.

The two can be very much interlinked and often go hand in hand when it comes to voting. I could not open you first link. You also failes to mention this in there

Fourth You challenged Richard on who made those changes and I pointed you in the direction of the UK polling report and factcheck, just so you could be certain.

I will point you in the direction of this from oxford Journals

http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/1/4.full

Fifth, why did you bring the Lib Dems into this, when you were arguing who made changes the Tory or Labour?

Why Did I bring the Lib dems in to this?

In order to get things in to a scale of proportion, its easy to single out microscopic points but you have to look at the big picture. You made the point of the boundary changes being a distinct disadvantage to the Tories. When in actual fact they would have won 10 out of the new 13 seats and Labout would have only won 1 as well as loosing several

I was making the point that nearly 7million people voted for the Lib Dems and only won 57 seats. If thats not unfair then then I dont know what is and does not massivel favour the Tories and Labour then I dont know what is.You cant have your cake and eat it as they say...!

sixth why, when presenting your case did you omit Labours statistics?

Just so we can have some balance in your post I will add the Labour figure as well.

Conservatives 10.7 m votes for 306 mp's which equates to 35000 votes for every MP

Labour 806m votes for 258 mp's which equates to 33300 votes for every mp.

Surely you can see the Conservatives need an extra 1700 votes per mp

This is brilliant absolutely brilliant. You have criticised me for not having balance in my argument by omitting the Labour But then you omit the Liberal democrats from the figures. Classic. This is up there with one of my favourite quotes of the year.

Would it make you happy if I put them in with Labout stats...?! I will anyway for arguments sake

Conservatives 10.7 m votes for 30635000 votes for every MP

Labour 8.7M votes 258 33300 votes for every mp

Liberal Democrats 6.7 Million votes 57 seats. 119 000 Votes for every mp.

As other people have pointed out this is a totaly flawed argument, You are using the PR system to defend a Torie argument = Classic

The point is that the system massively favours the main parties and not smaller parties. So to use the FPFP results on a PR system to argue the point that it’s the Tories who are hard done by takes the biscuits, even if you were trying to balance your argument out.

To go back to the very original point I stated that Cameron should of won a majority:-

- Labour Were dead on their knees after 12 years of government.

- Brown was being hounded day after Day in the press.

- Scameron was the backing of the majority of the papers and Sky.

- Financial backing of years from the very riches in the game.

- On the back of the Iraq War.

The General Election was there on a plate for him. How on Earth did he not win a majority. He has even admitted taking responability for the results. The best excuse that I got on here was that it was all down to Boundary changes...! Incredible I have heard it all, even when it was proven that Labour lost more seats and won less seats.

It could be worse at least you’re a Villa fan....!

[Dale]

The General Election was there on a plate for him. How on Earth did he not win a majority. He has even admitted taking responability for the results. The best excuse that I got on here was that it was all down to Boundary changes...! Incredible I have heard it all, even when it was proven that Labour lost more seats and won less seats.

As a Liberal Democrat I agree, fricking useless. If only they'd have done the decent thing, or not won a little bit worse, it would all be very different from a selfish political point of view.