Brown Bottles It

[matgb]

So, El Gordo has chickened out and is 'treating people as fools', almost certainly as a result of this News of the World poll. He's attempted to defend the decision but I concur with the Observer, this has sparked a Crisis for Brown as election ruled out. All of this leads me to this YouTube vid by Will/whoukmy friend Mr Pack^[1]:

Scary analysis of it from the perspective of the Tories:

A poll to be published by Sunday's News of the World puts the Tories ahead by 6% in marginal seats, with the party overall at 44% against Labour's 38%.

Translated into a general election, it would mean a hung Parliament with Labour holding 306 seats and the Tories 246.

They'd win 6% more votes, but 60 less seats according to the analysis. Can we have STV now PLZKTHX. Oh wait, that sort of forward thinking is beyond the Stupid Party isn't it.

The real question I guess is has this damaged Brown more for the obvious reasons, or has he hurt the Cameron Project by forcing Davy to tack to the right and go for a core votes strategy?

---

Crossposted on my journal and to ukpolitics here

[1] Message from Mark: Will's work, but I put it all down to the management, so amended accordingly

Comments

[andrewducker]

It's beyond every party. The same thing happened at the last election - the ratios were completely screwed.

You want to give the Scottish system a go - local candidates _and_ PR.

[matgb]

Dislike the Scottish system, better than the UK system but it's party based, and it's "PR", not "STV". STV is the Irish system, designed for Westminster, proposed by a Speakers Conference and never implemented.

I like it because it returns real choice to local people (it's what Scotland is using for the locals now, but it'll take a few elections to bed in effectively).

[andrewducker]

Why would STV get around the current off-ratio between local votes and overall population? Unless you changed the boundaries constantly you'd still have the problem of local numbers skewing one way or the other.

I'm totally in favour of STV when you're voting for the entire lot of people, i.e. voting for the membership of a council, but I'm not at all convinced by it when voting for a single representitive to go forward to a larger body. I'd like the larger body to represent everyone, not just the people who were individually lucky enough to get local representation.

[matgb]

STV requires larger constituencies, which would still need boundary shifting but less drastically, you'd have between 3 and 7 MPs per district depending on population density.

It works well for parliamentary systems because it gives voters real control, they can vote out an individual politician while supporting the part, etc.

I wrote a more detailed implementation post this time last year:
http://voting.taktix.org/2006/09/24/stv-how-it-could-work-in-britain/
that might help explain my thoughts better. You'll have to excuse the template, I plan to relaunch the site and have been playing around.

STV done properly would give a more representative Parliament than any other system, in my view, not least because candidate diversity would be to the electoral advantage of each party locally, etc.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

As Mat says, basically you don't get one MP. But then you don't in the Scottish system either. You get one local MSP, and a bunch of regional MSPs who are also yours. Once you (the general you) get beyond the "70,000 people must have ONLY ONE person represent them, even if that person only represents 30% of them", things get much easier.

The reason why STV is much nicer than the Scottish/Welsh system is also why it's so much harder to get politicians to agree to it. It takes power away from the party. Examples:

- people no longer get forced to vote "Labour", even if the person is a complete donkey, because they get two, three, four, five different Labour candidates on the ballot. So they can vote "Jenny Smith", the local campaigning mother and nurse and "Joe Brown", the noted local academic who writes for the local paper and has campaigned for the local sixth form colleges and University. But they can but pass over "John Price", the parachutee from head office.

- as above, it's much harder to parachute someone into a "safe" seat, because people don't have to vote for them.

- local parties get the flexibility to put up a slate representing a broader cross spectrum of people - say, a tax-the-rich socialist, a union rep, a Brownite, an ultra-Blairite - particularly if their candidate selections are also held under STV. And no party lists means that they don't get to put the ultra-Blairite first, so if an area *wants* a left-winger, it gets a left-winger.

- people will vote for people who "can't win" now. Looking at your ballot and thinking a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote? Okay, vote Greens first, then vote for the candidates you like who might still win second, third, fourth etc. You get much less of the "A vote for the Lib Dems will help the Conservatives get in" stuff.

- constituencies which are now ultra-safe (e.g. my former Birmingham constituency, a 50%+ Tory seat, and which will return Tories until the Apocalypse) get joined up with other local constituencies. And suddenly the 40% voting for other parties might get to get someone elected, which can do funny things to turnout. Why would an avid-but-lazy Tory bother to turn out in a seat where you could pin a ribbon on a rock and Labour would win the seat? Suddenly, the rich minority can get an MP because they're 25% of the vote, or those who lean to the Greens in a big 7 constituency seat might actually get a Green MP. And so on.


As a result, many politicians hate this sort of thing, because the Parliamentary party+(shadow) Government doesn't get to... not exactly impose its will, but bend things to suit it a bit. Instead, the local parties and the electorate generally stand a much better chance (still not perfect!) of modifying the composition Parliamentary party in line with their views.

[andrewducker]

Oh, and who cares if Brown has a crisis now? There's no general election in the near future, so he can have all the crises he likes.

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. He had a choice between A and B, he waited until he had firm figures, and then chose B. Why is this considered anything other than sensible?

[matgb]

From a purely partizan perspective, I suspect overall Brown will recover, but it does look as if he dithered a lot. I've edited in the last paragraph from my cross post now:

The real question I guess is has this damaged Brown more for the obvious reasons, or has he hurt the Cameron Project by forcing Davy to tack to the right and go for a core votes strategy?

I think part of it was to put off Davy a lot, he was forced to tack right to mobilise the base, and now will have to recover a bit having played up the Nasty Party image too much.

I thought Cameron was wrong to call for an election in the way he did, and Campbell was only slightly better calling for it based on the manifesto pledges Labour went to the polls on. Constitutional illiteracy &c. Brown should've killed the rumours and speculation dead, by failing to do so early he damages the process of politics.

[andrewducker]

Oh don't get me wrong - by playing with the dates Brown has been actively "political" with the system, which is a problem.

As for dithering - I'm totally in favour of delayed decision making. If you don't have the figures _now_ then saying "I won't make a decision until I'm happy I know the answer." is entirely the right thing to do, and damn "Looking Strong".

[fearmeforiampink]

Part of the problem, from my reading of the situation anyway, is that he's tried to make it look like a moral choice rather than one based on his chances of getting in.

He's said that the reason for making the decision is so that people can judge him on full governing, rather than just disaster management.

If that was really his reason, then he should have said so as soon as the debate about it started. As is, looks like he was going "Ooh-err, can I win it... not good enough chance, I'll wait", and then bullshitting to that up.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

One day, good sir, one day we will have STV.

In the meantime, I'm kinda glad there's no election, albeit for purely selfish reasons; I've got loads to do already this month, and an Election might just have tipped me over the edge. Plus it means I can have Christmas Eve off work ;-)

[matgb]

Aye, it does settle things for a bit and let us plan properly for the next one—I've been doing lots of silly things to try to get ready for it. Still, at least you're not now putting your name on the national ballot for a few more years, gives you time to build up.

[burkesworks.livejournal.com]

So, if Gord's now opted for the long game - and do you blame him - do you think we're best sticking with Mince or giving him the cyanide-flavoured Werther's Originals and getting Clegg (or better still, the return of Kennedy) in place by the next general election, given that we're still haemorrhaging at the opinion polls?

Still, one bit of good news - the return of Michael Meadowcroft from the wilderness. A proper left-liberal and a very useful man to have back on board; I'd like to see him chosen in Leeds West against that vapid woman who finished fourth in Bromley and Chislehurst.

[matgb]

On the latter point, agreed, didn't know much about him but did some reading and liked what I saw, shame he stayed out for so long really.

On the former point, opinion remains that unless Ming steps down on ill-health grounds another leadership contest would do more damage than keeping him in, and that he's in a good position to negotiate post-election. It's just the run up to that causes the issues.

Structurally, the party is better off than it was under the Kennedy neglect, and I genuinely don't think Clegg's ready. Let Campbell lead, with help, into the next General, and see how we do.

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

I'm happy because I'm off to tour Houses of Parliament with the Insurance Institute of Bristol on Tuesday. Had an election been called, it would immediately have been closed down and the trip would have been cancelled. Brown certainly would have lost my vote for that.

[matgb]

Actually, HoC would've been open tomorrow (assuming that's when you meant), because they have a week to finish off business after they dissolve (something like that anyway), hence the brought forward announcements and similar.

But still, have fun, it really is an impressive building, now I can get in there when I feel like it (but rarely do) it still impresses me each time.

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

Hmm, we were told it would be off if an election were called. Anyway, not a worry any more.
Even better, my boss unexpectedly said I should take it as a training day and also claim it as an expense. My opinion of my job just went up.

[doccy.livejournal.com]

See, I just think it's hilarious because his is excuse for not having the election is he doesn't want to be judged on competency.

So... He believes he's incompetent?

[matgb]

Hmm, good point.

One I might use at some point.

[getawaywithit.livejournal.com]

I have seen Tories recently complaining about the electoral system and how it affects their chances, but I've suckered in by that one before, only to discover their remedy is something utterly bizarre and anti-democratic. A year or so ago, someone - IIRC, Iain Dale - was proposing that the Boundary Commission should take account of past turnout as well as population when determining electoral boundaries...

And even though the system punches them in the face on a regular basis, they still cling to it because it's their only hope of absolute power, rather than a system where they might have to *gasp* share power, compromise and negotiate.

[matgb]

My line, and general approach, is to persuade them of the merits of STV as a specific, point out it works well in Westminster system democracies, point out it was designed for Britain, and point out that single-member constituencies are a reasonably new invention in British politics (well, '51 IIRC).

There are Tories who are genuinely interested in an update, but they have to be sold it as an update within the traditions of, etc.

"no safe seats" is best sold as "no rotten boroughs", etc. But I've only thus far persuaded three people. It's better than zero, but it's not that good an approach.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

"has this damaged Brown"?

Matthew Bannister, or perhaps one of the Beeb's political correspondents (or maybe even Armando Ianucci, who was reviewing the papers for Broadcasting House), pointed that the real mistake Gordy has made is not to piss off the electorate with all this faffing about for the last two weeks, but to greatly piss off all the journalist and editors who have been lapping it up.

Perhaps rightly, Labour's campaign managers were described as feeling that the electorate will have forgotten about this in a couple of weeks; but all those editors won't.

Brown also comes across (to my eyes) as being rather dithering: his reorganisation of Parliamentary business may be in his gift, but to bring everything forward and then do nothing to fill the gap created is just foolish. Oh no, he has got something to put in its place - his agenda for change. Of course.

[matgb]

I think that'll be his big problem—he was riding a tide of good media relations, and Dave was low, but now Dave did well with his "not-that-hard-really" no autocue speech, and Gordon has pissed them all off something chronic.

I think the public will forget the issue itself, but I suspect he's damaged his 'clean-pair-of-hands' persona, and perception will be lower, even if they won't point at a specific issue.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

(Oops.. I missed a bit out last time, so I've rewritten it...)

I was tempted to say that we've had STV in Scotland for years.

But, of course, we do!

(Nah, it wasn't worth it first time, either...)

[matgb]

Yeah, um, see that joke?

It's bad. Really bad. I mean, it's just BAD.

(I did chuckle though)

[raksaksa.livejournal.com]

Never mind STV being beyond the Stupid Party...I can see it being cocked up horribly the first time we try to implement it!!

[matgb]

Oh, possibly, yes, and the media will blame it on the 'complicated system', etc. It's used effectively in Northern Ireland already (if you want to see some very good analysis of it sammymorse only usually posts when there's an election on—he's recently been appointed Director of the Alliance Party over there, top bloke), but whenever they encounter something that they can't guess the answer from the size of the vote piles they complain it's complex.

Favourite example of that currently is Equador—they used a list system, and 26 parties stood. This apparently made it 'complex', as opposed to 'confusing', which would at least be honest.

Surprisingly, all the fuss about electoral cock-ups in Scotland last May, the locals weren't effected, it was the (supposedly simpler) system being used for the Parliament that caused the issues, the locals, on sTV, went reasonably well (for a first time).

"marginal seats"

[mooism.livejournal.com]

I read "marginal seats" as meaning "seats which were marginal in 2005", not "seats the Tories don't hold which they need to win in order to gain a majority". Am I wrong?

Re: "marginal seats"

[matgb]

You're not, the poll is defined somewhere, it's seats where the Tory/Labour vote diufferential is below 4%, so it includes Labour targets as well.

Re: "marginal seats"

[mooism.livejournal.com]

So, the Tories have a 6% lead over Labour in these seats specifically, which lean more to the Tories / away from Labour than is average for the country overall.

The Tories would NOT have a 6% lead over Labour in the country overall.

So it would be unreasonable to demand that the Tories win more seats than Labour in the country overall based on these figures. Reasonable to expect them to win about ¾ of these specific seats, but that's not the same thing.

Re: "marginal seats"

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Ugh, “all of these seats and a few more Labour held seats to boot”, not only ¾ of them.

But my main point stands.

Re: "marginal seats"

[matgb]

Ah, see what you mean, yes.

Although IIRC, the system will still be biased against them anyway, hence Dale's call for boundaries to be drawn partially on turnout, etc.

(it makes a good point, stop ruining it with Actual Real Facts you)

Re: "marginal seats"

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Oh, they will still find the system unfair, it’s just that these figures aren’t ones that show it.