91Èȱ¬

Am really pleased that it got such good support - hope they roll it out for all 'safe' seats.

Mr Crick as always allows his left wing sentiments get in the way of the facts:

22% of the possible electorate in the Totnes ward took the effort to vote, I would have thought that that was the main story, not some pathetic attempt to deflect democracy in action with such an obvious red herring.

The costs of this attmept to engage the public by the Conservatives could easily be carried out for approx 15,000 pounds.

But back to the real story, 22% of the voters in Totnes felt that it was worthwhile to respond to the Conservative inititive, that figure on its own tells you that unlike the Labour party, the Conservatives are getting their message across, and that the Conservatives seem to be on track for a massive landslide victory come the next General Election.

Talking of costs I read today that the government has paid 1.6 million pounds to three so called independent think tanks (although all three think tanks have incestuous relationships with Labour), that is 1.6 million pounds more than they paid to all the other think tanks which do not have a left-wing view. This is an abuse of public money but I doubt that we will be hearing about it on Newsnight anytime soon.

You could infer all sorts of things from this result and we all know you can statistics say more or less what you want them to. However, if you take the response figure (in effect, 'virtual' turnout) of 22%, then you factor in that the Tory share of the vote in 2005 was 41.7%, you come up with quite an interesting possibility. If the people who did 'turn out' are likely Tory supporters (on the basis that other parties' supporters are unlikely to care about a candidate they are not going to vote for)this gives an astonishing notional turnout of 52.8%. That seems to me to be quite a coup.

THE SPOIL PARTY GAMES FACTOR

Surely this is a fatuous piece of theatre? As party candidates are pre-picked by the machine to suit party before people, pre-picking three, or any number, does not alter the underlying dilution of democracy.

This is just another game we must not be taken in by.

SPOIL PARTY GAMES.

BLESS!

I have just noticed that, while waiting for the Blogdog to stir, one's post-position is now held with: "YOU wrote" in place of "barriesingleton wrote". Oh dear. I have always loathed the childish phrase: "where you are" - now this.

SPOIL 91Èȱ¬ GAMES.

A turnout of 22% in any election is pathetic. I can see why no one cares though. I have been sorely tempted to turn to extremist parties to undermine election results, such is my dissatisfation with the two main troupes of public schoolboys we get to choose from.

It's a sad case that I care more now about election results in Iran, the US, even North Korea ;) than I do about them in the UK. I have taken to turning up and spoining my paper by writing 'no suitable candidate' in the last two local elections, and fear this may continue unless there is a seachange away from a bipartisan system.

So it comes as no surprise that this could be won on about 10% of people actually caring enough to vote!

5. At 11:17am on 05 Aug 2009, barriesingleton

They know who YOU are, and where YOU live. Don't ever forget that:) A vital enhancement and well worth the downtime, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, back at debating stuff in the spirit of free speech...

I have noted some other commentators across the MSM getting kickers mildy wrinkly (not here I must say..kudos) as it still has pre-selection.

But it’s simply a fact of life, as there seems no ‘better’ way: the gatekeepers control the game because they own the pitch and the ball.

The players may change a tad, and the scores may vary, but running the game and its rewards is still theirs.

It’s true from anything from local awards juries to debating panel selections (though I think George Galloway is off the 91Èȱ¬ booker's speed-dial until things 'subside' - I am sure Kevin Maguire is ready to fill the void a tad more)… to how ‘we’ get to ‘choose’ our leaders.

But, I have to say, this seems a tad better than before, and hence a direction to be applauded and supported.

I smiled though at this in a major paper: ‘…The career politicians out there should take note.’ as the author wandered off into areas only a hack with Parliamentary-subsidised access flowing through their bowels could.

Because I could give a rat’s pitootie for what an MP gets up to so long as it's legal, decent honest and truthful, and they are paying or being paid for it ethically whilst doing the job they are meant to do, and well.

Hence, WUVI-journos, of all hues, also take note. I can reassign my vote. One day I might have full ability to opt for what 'news' I pay for too. And objective facts score high over 'narrative-enhancing' and 'events interpreting', especially by small numbers of carefully-selected guests, when I am deciding.

ps: But, if you complain enough, it seems you can regain YOUR name.

/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2009/07/hold_on_rudy_its_not_as_bad_as.html

Well, elsewhere at least.

I have a sense that, as our political establishment is off on extended leave for the school hols, so are most in their... er... the unique pubic broadcasting system, too.

Would the last one leaving please switch out the lights. Do not pick up £3.5B, though. Bonus time will soon return, along with the market rate talents and their senior handlers:)

#5 - barriesingleton

Actually, it is quite worrying. If, instead of using my stage name, they want to use my usual moniker, I am generally refered to a 'Oi You', not just plain old 'You'.

tengearbatbike wrote:
A turnout of 22% in any election is pathetic

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is totally missing the point, the fact that 24% of the possible voters bothered to respond to this exercise was above everyones expectations, as Mr Crick himself mentioned in his previous blog the Conservatives were expecting about 15% of the voters to respond, so for 24% to respond is a superb result, and disproves your claim entirely that people do not care.

I do however agree that the main parties are not engaging enough with the electorate, this is clearly shown in the decline in voting for all the main parties.


However, to show you one of the reasons for this is shown by the fact that More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour in the 2005 British General Election - but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England.

Also this set of statistics also show why people cannot be bothered to vote:

There was an overall turnout of 61% - up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so. More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%).


Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%.


Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast

The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast

The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast.

So, in finishing, Labour received 2% less votes in the General Election of 2005 then people who responded to the Conservatives inititive in Totnes, make of all that what you will.

The cost is minor compared to all the other amounts of public money wasted on MPs currently.
I doubt if turnout would be much reduced even if voters were required to pay for their own stamp on the envelope ( or hand -deliver to say any public library ).
It is absolutely the way to go forward in pre-selection of Candidates for the major Parties. Given the choice between some 20-something Westminster - Village PPE graduate and a forty or fifty -something person who has done a serious job of work outside politics ( whether it be as a GP or as a bricklayer ) I know which the general electorate is going to prefer ( and rightly so ).
If this mechanism were followed in all seats which have yet to select candidates for the next General Election then there could be quite a substantial improvement in the quality of MPs.
The sooner this takes off as the norm the better.
I predict that once it does get going as the norm, and more people understand that it is a genuine process, then turnout will be far far higher than 20-something percent.
People do want to choose their MP - it's just that for the last 30 or more years there has been a conspiracy of mediocrity and professional politicians who have captured the political process for their own selfish ends.

The Real News re Totnes was the wonderful stage management of this, the beginning of the tory campaign in that newly redrawn seat.

Of 100 wannabes for the ballot the public saw someone selected the Mayor of one and the Tory Leader of another of the two Councils the seat straddles, and a lady GP, who, in a time of virulent anti-politics, who says she is fairly a-political. Harpo Marx could have beaten the council dignitories, the campaign began when they put these three to the electorate.

The seat includes parts of Torbay, which had the highest UKIP share of the vote in the Euro-elections, and part of E hams which was not far behind. In the former Totnes parliamentary Constitutiency the Lib-Dems were not far behind the tories last time . . .

It is hard NOT to see the hands of Lord Ashcroft's Tory Central Office staff on this . . .

"Open" Primary . . .?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.