?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
The morning after the day before - Hwaet!
No, give me a minute. I can get this.
mraltariel
mraltariel
The morning after the day before
I think that in what is one of the most interesting and complex elections for a generation,  the BBC have severely let themselves (and therefore us) down with their coverage. Frivolous, inaccurate, overblown, inconsistent and uncoordinated (website and TV calling some seats in different directions!) Andrew Neil wasted on a D-list celebrity barge. Graphics that would have been rejected as too ludicrous by The Day Today. 

There were, however, a few highspots. First, David Owen taking Paxman to task for this frivolity, and making the first grown-up assessment of the situation without mindless spouting of a party line. Of course, they cut away from this.

Second, David Butler. (Who was sadly inaudible owing to the BBC's Sky feed being all buggered up this morning. I'm now watching on the internet.)

On the political front, I'd shout out to Margaret Hodge. Well done to her for taking on and thoroughly defeating the odious Griffin, and addressing this in her speech.  While I'm congratulating people who wear the other coloured rosettes, I was also pleased to see Rushanara Ali win in Bethnal Green and Bow. In blue, Chloe Smith, Justine Greening and Priti Patel are my top wins. All three of these will be in ministerial jobs very soon, if everything works out as I hope that they will.

Looking forward, I reckon a reformed second chamber, elected on some form of PR, a reduction of the number of MPs and a consequent package of boundary change are the likely consequence of the current situation - maybe even a PR option, with a referendum ultimately wrapping up the whole reform package. But this is likely to take several days (if not longer) to resolve. The Turnip Taliban will kick and scream about this, I have no doubt, but I think the centrists will carry the day. Expect much hyperbole and blood letting from has-beens and no-hopers in all parties trying to drag themselves into the limelight at this time. The role of the Orange Book LDs will be critical, and how they relate to the (general much more left-ish) LD activists.

I also expect a lot of disgruntled activists from all parties complaining about how the *national* campaigns were run. I don't think this is fair to any of the party leaderships. Personally I think that Labour's national campaign (I speak not at all of the local activists) was very nasty, but actually quite effective in protecting 10-15 key seats. The Tories did not "throw away" the lead during the campaign - the drift had happened from Christmas to March, and we actually gained ground during the campaign. The LDs never had the breakthrough they trumpeted, and suffered the classic squeeze - only marginally improving their vote share; but their campaign actually prevented a total meltdown which was certainly on the cards. It is only the difference between expectation and reality that makes this seem so disappointing for them. 

And still the local elections to come!
23 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: mrazalais Date: May 7th, 2010 02:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

Cameron speech

Cameron's play for the LibDems very interesting. Can't believe Clegg will go for another "committee to investigate PR" without concrete deadlines for decisions & referenda though.

Fraser Nelson (he of the Spectator) is already foaming at the mouth about the even the hint of a possibility of compromise over PR from Cameron on Twitter.

Personally, I'd be very happy with a Lib/Con coalition government. Interesting times ahead!
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 7th, 2010 04:51 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

Bear in mind that this is the start line for Cameron's negotations, not the end point...
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 7th, 2010 04:51 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

Argh. Typng no wrko tdyoa.
From: mrazalais Date: May 8th, 2010 08:33 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

Indeed: this is clearly merely the initial probe to see whether the LibDem leadership would go for cabinet posts instead of electoral reform. Personally, I don't think that's going to fly with the LibDem rank & file, who are likely to stiffen the spines of the leadership & demand electoral reform.

Indeed, under PR (of some sort) I look forward to a lovely new political grouping around the Orange Book LibDems & the socially liberal left wing of the Tory which I might actually be able to vote for! The far right of the Tories knows that under PR they're finished, which is why they rage against it.

One possible outcome might be a fully proportional elected second chamber: I think both sides might be able to sell that to their respective constituencies.
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 8th, 2010 10:11 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

Altariel also floated the idea of introducing PR in the locals.
From: mrazalais Date: May 11th, 2010 08:53 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

The Times is claiming that the Tories have offered AV with fixed size constituencies for the Commons, with full PR for all new members of the Lords in exchange for a coalition government (cabinet posts for LidDem MPs, LibDem £10,000 limit on income tax intoduced as well supposedlly). Frankly that seems to me to be a very generous offer.

If the LibDems get into bed with Labour now I'll be very disappointed indeed.
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 11th, 2010 02:16 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

Not just generous - but more or less exactly what I first suggested :-)

The 10k thing is doable, but, I suspect, will involve it being taken away again by other means (VAT or similar).
From: mrazalais Date: May 11th, 2010 02:51 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Cameron speech

I'll be happy to break out the bubbly if we get a Lib/Con coalition government tonight!
azalaisdep From: azalaisdep Date: May 7th, 2010 03:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
On the political front, I'd shout out to Margaret Hodge. Well done to her for taking on and thoroughly defeating the odious Griffin, and addressing this in her speech.

Hear, hear to that one. Delighted with the BNP no-show everywhere I've seen, in fact - but yes, Hodge had I think had enough of a shock from the BNP threat to realise that the lofty strategy of all the national parties till very recently (of trying to pretend immigration was a non-issue with the electorate on the ground because they have been frightened of losing votes by making a positive case for why it's not generally a problem) had failed. She took Griffin on head on and demonstrated that the electorate are neither nor as stupid nor as prejudiced as Griffin pretends, and she deserves the result.
azalaisdep From: azalaisdep Date: May 7th, 2010 03:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh and re the coverage - I agree that by BBC standards the flying paving stones and the swinging graphics (which made me seasick!) were madly irritating; but it's worth remembering that from the viewpoints of many other countries our coverage still looks witty, insightful and agreeably irreverent...
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 7th, 2010 05:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
:-) S'funny old world.
toft_froggy From: toft_froggy Date: May 7th, 2010 03:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ah, I was hoping you'd have written something, it is always good to hear your analyses, what with how you have nolij.

On the political front, I'd shout out to Margaret Hodge. Well done to her for taking on and thoroughly defeating the odious Griffin, and addressing this in her speech.

Yes! I was very happy about that.

Looking forward, I reckon a reformed second chamber, elected on some form of PR, a reduction of the number of MPs and a consequent package of boundary change are the likely consequence of the current situation - maybe even a PR option, with a referendum ultimately wrapping up the whole reform package.

I hope you're right! That sounds okay.
toft_froggy From: toft_froggy Date: May 7th, 2010 03:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
PS - one of the nice things about following from Canada was I did it entirely via the Guardian liveblog, which I have decided is great, and almost entirely avoided fucking Jeremy Paxman.
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 7th, 2010 05:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
That was definitely the way to go!

I apologize for the next part of this post in advance, but I couldn't keep it in.

NoPaxman = GoodPaxman (1)

If you divide equation (1) through by Paxman, you'll see that

No = Good (2)

Since

No =/= Good, we can't divide by Paxman, so I guess that means that

Paxman = 0 (3)

This is a bad maths joke.
toft_froggy From: toft_froggy Date: May 7th, 2010 07:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
Lol.
hafren From: hafren Date: May 7th, 2010 08:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
almost entirely avoided fucking Jeremy Paxman.

I trust the only verb in that sentence is "avoided"!

Hope your optimism is justified but personally I'm terrified.
toft_froggy From: toft_froggy Date: May 8th, 2010 02:12 am (UTC) (Link)
Haha - yes, this was yet another year that I avoided both having sex with Jeremy Paxman and watching him on TV, or watching him have sex on TV. Win!
mraltariel From: mraltariel Date: May 7th, 2010 05:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think it quite likely. We've got a unique *political* opportunity to put together a package of constitutional reform.

In recent political history, it rarely happens when one side or the other has a thumping majority (c.f. 1997 and the botched Lords reform, and abandonment of the Jenkins committee once Blair got his landslide); this is the cliched-but-true Turkeys voting for Christmas effect.

As things are right now, the situation has a built-in demand for collaboration.

I am still concerned about a hung parliament collapsing into chaos and infighting, rather than realignment and renewal, but I think the chances are there, and that Clegg and Cameron (and hopefully, perhaps necessarily, whoever follows Brown) should be able to get this comprehensively right.
uitlander From: uitlander Date: May 7th, 2010 06:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have just seen your results. Overall that's a very respectable showing, for both of you, given the constituencies involved.
altariel From: altariel Date: May 8th, 2010 11:31 am (UTC) (Link)
Thank you. The other EC ward candidate is a smashing chap who deserves a stab at being a councillor.
katlinel From: katlinel Date: May 7th, 2010 08:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
One thing I would hope as a result of some kind of PR voting system is increased turnout. And I'd also hope that there'd be plenty of help for people to understand how the system worked so that wouldn't put them off voting.

Turnip Taliban? (I am slow too.)
From: mrazalais Date: May 8th, 2010 08:27 am (UTC) (Link)
Turnip Taliban == unreconstructed Tories living out towards Peterborough & other places in the east where there's nothing but turnips for miles. Generally opposed to the Cameroonites, where they see as an arriviste group which has executed a take-over of the levers of power within the Tory party.bv
vilakins From: vilakins Date: May 8th, 2010 01:14 am (UTC) (Link)
Our system works pretty well. We get two votes, one for a local candidate, one for a party. The winning candidates get in, then the rest of the seats are made up from party "list" candidates to match the proportions of the party votes. I think Germany has a more complex form where you can order the list candidates of your chosen party so they're in effect voted for.

It works well; we'd had a case before that where Labour got more than 50% of the votes, but National (our conservatives) got more seats. You're more likely to get coalition governments this way though as other parties get more seats. Still, it means that parties people like (Greens etc) get a say in government.
23 comments or Leave a comment