Are the White House documents Hillary’s Pastor Wright?
March 20th, 2008
How will the release of her documents change the race?
After a very uncomfortable few days for Barack Obama the battle for the Democratic nomination has now moved on with the publication of thousands of documents from her White House years as first Lady from 1993 to 2001. These have been released under the freedom of information legislation and will be used to test her claims to “experience” and “being ready on Day One”.
The ABC news report featured above, sets the scene: “The release of 17,000 pages of then-first lady Hillary Clinton’s daily schedule in the White House has raised questions about her ability to answer the 3 a.m. phone call she talks about in her commercials…the daily schedules released..show many of her overseas trips to be the standard first lady tourist fare, hospital visits and blinis with caviar..On the day U.S. cruise missiles hit Serbia, the schedules show the former first lady was touring Egyptian ruins.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Insider site suggests that the real danger will be having “having journalists comb through the documents is that unpleasant memories of the Clinton years may soon be back in the headlines.” Thus one news report yesterday was noting “Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened….”
There are two problems for the Clinton campaign - after having put Obama through it over the Pastor Wright links the media seems to have decided that it is now Hillary’s turn. Secondly the next primary, in Pennsylvania, is five weeks off and there needs to be something that political journalists can focus on in the meantime. Those 17,000 pages might provide the fodder.
The nomination betting has hardly moved.
MessageSpace Advertising
An elected representative exaggerating the truth or even telling fibs? Couldn’t happen over here!
Sorry if I sound pious but can I make a plea for people to try to stick vaguely to politics and betting on this site?
The thread last night was like a rambling discussion between a mob of coked-up students: we had one person telling us about his mental problems; another discussing some random You Tube clip of a bull; and several normally sane posters raving on about buggery.
Was there a full moon by any chance?
Question is how will she react if she loses the nomination? will the Clinton machine support Obama? Her best hope then is for a McCain victory so she can run in four years. No Dem gets the chance to run twice if defeated. Would Clinton have her people dig up dirt behind the scenes, especially if she is passed over for Veep for Sibelius or Richardson?
This makes me think even more that McCain is going to win anyway; never mind that Hilllary isn’t going to get the nomination.
Pastor Lewis, Mike?
Maybe I am missing something here but thought the shouting man was Rev. Jeremiah Wright, formerly of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
I see HBOS has made the papers but can’t understand why. This is deramping and it goes on all the time although the BOE does not normally get involved.
A lot of people with long positions got hit for margin calls which is why it’s best to stick to traded options as your losses are limited to the premium on the option. Gold contintues to fall and I am still sitting on my short dated puts - spot price 938ish down from 1030 peak.
The feeling that a big bank will have to borrown from the BOE remains and if this happens will finish Brown who is already half sunk.
Moody’s has downgraded the long-term bank deposit and senior debt ratings of Bradford & Bingley PLC to ‘A2′ from ‘A1′ and affirmed the ‘P-1′ short-term debt and deposit’C+’.
re 5. corrected
5 - if you can’t see why somebody deliberately starting rumours that directly cause the shares one of the biggest banks in the country to fall 17%, whilst making hundreds of millions of pounds in the process, is a newsworthy story, then that says more about you than it does about the press. It may well happen all the time, but that is just an indication that it should make the papers more often, not that it shouldn’t be reported in this case.
The fact that there is a general feeling that a big bank will have to utilise the BoE, just makes the whole rumour more potent, and therefore dangerous.
This is one of the most surreal weeks in our countries recent economic history.
This weekend the entire UK press and media reported that the BOE was making £5 billion of emergency funding available to UK banks at risk of default. It was reported that these banks had in repsonse requested five times what offerred - they needed £25 billion rather than £5 billion.
Banks do not request emergency funding from the ‘lender of last resort’ unless they are certain to default on their liabilities and are technically insolvent.
Yesterday the BOE claims that HBOS is not one of the crisis hit UK banks. They fail to mention which ones are.
Today at 7.30 am the BOE is meeting the crisis hit UK banks - which ones are they meeting?
Is the BOE guilty of ramping UK banking stocks yesterday, through wrongly claiming that none of them require emergency funding, contradicting this weekends nationwide press reports and that a meeting is actually being held this morning?
We also discover this morning that Credit Suisse admits to ‘accounting errors’ which means that it faces huge losses.
Last week Bear Sterns strenuously denied it was insolvent, along with strenuous denials by the Federal Reserve. Both the Federal Reserve and Bear Sterns were proven to be lying, when on Friday the company declared bankruptcy and sold itself to JP Morgan for a tiny fraction of what it was worth two weeks before, losing shareholders that failed to sell, billions of dollars through their inaction.
Which banks are meeting the BOE at 7.30 am this morning? The UK public deserves to know.
“Which banks are meeting the BOE at 7.30 am this morning? The UK public deserves to know.”
I didn’t get the impression this was a secret. All of them, aren’t they?
7
Alex,
Try to be less personal in future.
Apologies, but if you start a comment with “I can’t understand…”, then i don’t see how it is possible to respond without being, to some extent, personal.
To do otherwise would be to attribute views to other people which may not exist.
13
Alex,
’says more about you than it does about the press.’
was a pointless dig, it informed nobody of anything worth knowing other than for some reason that you are angry.
This forum because a trollshouse after 10.00pm. Check back then when Patrick & co are in full swing.
because=becomes
14 - Well like i say, apologies if you took offence. I make no excuse for being angry about ramping or deramping, however commonplace it may be. As PtP is very happy to tell us at every opportunity, it’s bad enough in piddly little political betting markets, where the consequences are limited only to the individual who falls for it.
In the case of major stockmarket movements we are talking about the prosperity of the country.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/clinton54.htm
Another article why Clinton cannot make it too the Whitehouse.
The White House documents will be “problematic”, especially regarding NAFTA (where they suggest that the position which helped her win Ohio is, well, not the only one she has taken) . But they could prove most damaging if they lead to a head of steam demanding she releases her tax returns. Her reluctance suggests that there is something politically harmful - maybe even toxic - hidden within them.
Obama has had a tough week, but has stll come out if with two large plusses. Firstly, the “secret Muslim” whispering campaign is now dead on its arse (his Pastor may have been a loony pastor, but he was a Christian loony pastor). With the exception of crazies who he was never going to win over anyway, it has gone away as an issue in November.
Secondly, he has delivered a speech on race - which he wrote - that the main stream media has widely acknowledged (some through gritted teeth) was exceptional. Hillary’s “kitchen sink” strategy has hurt him - but has also allowed him to reveal his strengths. If that is the best shots she had in her locker, then it won’t be enough. Especially now the spotlight has moved onto her.
I remain firmly of the view that the only “inevitability” of her campaign is that she will inevitably lose the nomination. The only issue remains how much damage she inflicts on her party and how much (if any) dignity she retains for herself.
9.
OK.
It was Tony Blair and his cohorts at Goldman Sachs who started the rumour as they want to be able to buy HBOS for 21p.
Are you aware that Blair, Brown, HBOS and the Rothschilds are all Scottish? Never ever forget, current account debt was invented by the Scottish, as they refuse to spend real money. They also invented the television to spread disinformation and also modern capitalism and the Bank of England.
16
Apology accepted.
Anyway, back on topic, Hillary’s ‘experience’ as First Lady was always likely to cause her trouble at some point as soon as she started running with the 35 years of experience, or whatever it was.
Eight years in the Senate; fair enough. After that? First Ladies can certainly see a lot of what is going on and can be very influential in an informal way if they want to be and they are allowed to be - which was undoubtedly the case with Hillary at times. And that’s an important qualification. The things she was most concerned in during Bill’s time in the White House was Health Care Reform - probably the biggest failure of his first term. Either way, she’s on dodgy ground: if she can convince people that her experience as First Lady counts, then the most striking aspect of it was her failure; if she can’t convince people that it counts (because most of the time she was on ‘consort’ duties), then she’ll look like she is at best exaggerating the truth for personal gain - tricky ground.
To me, more interesting than the details of the story is the fact of the story. The media has moved on from Obama’s problems - that says that they feel they’ve let it run as far as it can and there’s little more to come out that moves things beyond what’s already known. For him, crisis over - and nomination much closer to being in the bag.
19 I think you forgot to add that they invented whisky - all the better to befuddle our better judgment…. Been on the single malt all night, have we?
2 LOL! Yes, I did find it rather hard to discern a point to last night’s discussion.
At last sounds as if we might get democracy in the UK. Proposals for a reformed second chamber sound good
“Batches of three or four senators would each represent 80 to 100 “multi-member” constituencies. Existing life peers would be gradually replaced as the senators are elected in stages every four or five years.
Each senator would serve for 12-15 years in three terms.” Todays FT
If we get a democratic 2nd chamber how long will the commons be able to hold out against PR.
The system could be based on a list or a single transferrable vote.
19 — does Tony Blair work for any other banks?
Slight confusion with my pasting The list or STV proposal was part of the original FT article re second chamber. (hope it isn’t a list!)
Thanks EDW, HBOS recovering slowly but steadily.
17. Obama is rightly the strong favourite, and at 0.39/1 with Betfair, I’d argue best value as well. Even so, what the article refers to as the ‘dead girl or live boy’ (i.e. a major scandal - though, fwiw, if one does blow up for him, I’d be surprised if it was a sex scandal - there are usually at least rustlings of that sort of thing well before the news breaks), is still Hillary’s best, and probably now only, shot of winning.
At this stage in the game, there are three electoral facts that need bearing in mind.
- Neither candidate can win outright on pledged delegates; there are too many Super Delegates in the way
- Super Delegates do not need to make their mind up before the convention, even if they have publicly announced their support for one candidate or the other
- The convention is still over five months away
Pelosi is probably right that the delegate count will be decisive in picking the candidate for the SDs, but would be wrong to infer that that is all that matters. Obama is in such a strong moral position not because he holds a lead in delegates but because of that AND the fact he holds a lead in votes case AND he generally performs better in head-to-heads with McCain. The three things are, of course, not unrelated. I would suggest, however, the SDs and party elders would be hedging their bets far more if the Head-to-heads were giving Hillary a decisive advantage. After all, one of the reasons they are in play is because of the possibility that something might happen to undermine a campaign after (a majority of) the primaries, when voters are unable to change their mind.
Five months is a long time, and while - as I imply at the beginning of the post - I’d rate the chances of Obama getting caught up in a scandal that would be fatal to his aspirations as some way under one in four that the odds currently suggest, the possibility shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.
24, one issue (amongst others) with an elected second chamber is that surely the primacy of the Commons would be thrown into question?
26.
My dear chap Icarus I am so sorry to read that you received a “pasting” and are “confused”
If you require assistance I am very well connected with present and past serving members of the special forces.
3. “No Dem gets the chance to run twice if defeated”. What, like Adlai Stevenson? Gore could also have run a second time had he wanted - the 2004 nomination was almost certainly his for the taking had he wanted it.
We are trying to create a system that holds the executive to account - The Commons has failed, they don’t deserve primacy.
31, soo…. would the Parliament Act become defunct? What if the upper house blocked the lower house’s manifesto commitments?
Dry questions perhaps but running into massive changes to the way we do things can lead to lopsided and unfair results (West Lothian Question anyone?)
We will not have Manifesto commitments with a balanced HoC will we!!!
I hope this not too long and boring regarding the “credit crunch”
In a recent Money Week article, Credit default swaps: how to spot the riskiest banks, James Furgeson tells us we can determine what banks think of banks from their credit default swaps. These show that of the Brit highstreet banks, HBOS is considered the riskiest, with banks demanding HBOS pay 0.78% above the 5-year gilt yield for funds.
Alarming ? Perhaps, until you realise the Irish banks all pay much more for their funds.
Alarming for Anglo Irish Depositors? Perhaps, until you realise that Alliance & Leicester pay 2% above 5 year gilt for its funds.
Alarming for A&L depositors? Perhaps until you realise IceSave’s owner, Landsbanki pays the credit markets 3.2% more than risk-free rates.
Alarming for Icesave depositors? Perhaps, until you realise that Icelandic bank Kaupthing (Kaput-thing?) pays a whopping 6% more than 5 year gilt for funds.
You have to ask who in this list is gonna fail first. Money needs a home. I’d be happier in HBOS than in Kaupthing, and yet UK depositors have shovelled money into that accident waiting to happen. Quite frankly they should withdraw it and use it to improve the position of proper UK banks.
Some CDS for your amusement, each figure represent the price you’d pay in basis points to insure a sum of funds, eg 133 means you pay £1.33 to insure £100 of funds leant to the bank in question:
1. Kaupthing 833.3
2. Kazkommerts 766.7
3. Glitnir Bank 757.5
X. Bear Stearns 720 (prior to crisis)
4. IKB 612.4
5. Landsbanki 604.6
6. Banca Italease 397.0
X. Alliance & Leicester 345
7. VTB Bank 332.5
8. Anglo Irish Bank 322.7
9. HBOS 236.7
10. Sberbank 221.3
11. West LB 212.5
12. UBS 209.0
13. Natixis 205.0
14. Bank of Ireland 202.5
15. Allied Irish Banks 195.8
16. Dexia 195.0
17. RBS 191.7
XX. Barclays 170
XX. HSBC 145
XX. Lloyds TSB 133
32. If the Upper House (Senate) is elected, then presumably they will have manifesto commitments of their own. The Commons only has primacy at the moment because it has long been accepted that it has greater legitimacy than the Lords. If a Senate had an electoral legitimacy similar or equal to that of the Commons, I can’t see why the Parliament Act should remain in force. At the very least, in those circumstances, there should be a move back the the 1911 Act, which retained greater powers for the Upper House.
20 14 13 12 11 8 7 5 EDW & Alex. Give over, EDW. You belittled the trolling, but IMHO your post wasn’t that far removed from one of those. Alex’s points are entirely valid and his manner of writing could be desscribed as only reflecting back to you your elevated opinion-making. Speaking of which…
I always thought that the concept of owning shares was to actually invest in a company to assist in its growth etc etc in the expectation of future profits. Your writing A lot of people with long positions got hit for margin calls which is why it’s best to stick to traded options as your losses are limited to the premium on the option. appears to imply, though of course I could be wrong, that that concept should be changed radically and finally adapted so that it complies fully with the rules of a casino.
I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but….it strikes me that the proliferation of people and organisations holding those views and putting them into play to the tune of in total a few trillion dollars is to a large part responsible for the financial mess that the planet is currently descending into.
35, hmm. I’m still uncomfortable with the idea of an elected second chamber. For all its flaws, the Lords is less prone to political arm-twisting than the Commons and is, at present, more independent. If you watch BBC Parliament, it seems that the Commons is like a Sixth Form Common Room, whereas the Lords is like the Staff Room.
I’m not sure I want to see the Lords turned into a careerist carbon copy of the Commons. Plus, what would happen to crossbenchers? Why shouldn’t experts by appointed, especially if they have no party political allegiance?
I see in the telegraph that MF Global margins are going up to 90% on CFDs - that’ll boost confidence, not!
The more the economy becomes a problem the more I think McCain will win in November which is fine by me because I make money whether it’s him or Obama; who is this Hillary person?
7. alex. Couldn’t agree with you more. There aren’t many stories that get me angry (perhaps the PR efforts of the ‘Birmingham Three’ bought lock stock and barrel by The Telegraph) but this latest one of city greed really does.
It’s appropriate that it follows so shortly after the Heather Mills story because it’s also about insatiable greed and ’snouts in troughs’. It gives the whole financial sector a really bad smell. Back to the pongy days of the 80’s
36
elevated opinion-making.
such as?
I simply pointed out a few days back when gold was trading at over $1000 that I thought it would fall and the safest way to bet on this was using options rather than, say a spreadbet with an unlimited down side. Spot gold is now trading at 923 and falling. How much money have you made in the last three days? I’ve done very well ta very much. As for you dislike of short selling, well tough. If you don’t like free markets, try North Korea.
36 Well spoken … especially the final para.
[40] If people have other goals in life than making as much money as possible, it shows they’re not very bright and deserve all the sh*t that happens to them, eh, EDW?
37. Personally, I agree with you and preferred it before most of the hereditaries were kicked out, but we are where we are and that battle has been lost. You are right about the dangers of a carbon-copy of the Commons. Much longer terms than the Commons has will do something to give back some independence to Senators though.
42
Quite right, if you gamble on the markets you can expect to take a beating some times. The same as polictical betting which as presumably why ur here or is it merely to troll to at others sucesses?
36. Pompous, ignorant nonsense.
43, I agree that the longer terms will make things more interesting, but I disagree somewhat about hereditaries. There’s no reason at all (except for Labour’s infantile fetish for tampering with institutions) we can’t keep the hereditaries we have and appoint the remaining members.
Far from trying to force Commons attributes on the Lords, the Commons could learn from the upper chamber, not least about keeping proper expenses.
Forget about the pastor scandal. Now Hilary endorses Heather Mills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlFsVi5zuhc
On topic!
No doubt there are huge numbers of investigative journalists in the States is trawling through every bin bag in Illinois. The thing about Obama, though, is that it all bounces right back. Having charisma in spades gives him a *lot* of leeway. That and his freshness, his open-ness and his ability to speak eloquently from the heart.
The graph of head-to-head Obama vs. McCain on the RealClearPolitics site doesn’t show anything like a catastrophic descent resulting from the Pastor Wright situation, though of course it hasn’t had a positive effect on Obama’s popularity. One article from there suggested that it was brought out at this point as it was always going to come out. The best time to get it out into the open was last week. And now the road back. There’s plenty of time.
[44] I don’t bet. Neither, so far as I know, do quite a few of the other regular posters here. If you want us all to clear off, I’m not sure that the site would be much improved.
49. It’s one thing not betting, but to come on to a betting oriented site and condemn gambling is absurd.
45 Glad you like it.
Rule 1 for anyone unable to argue a point is to ridicule it.
43 Yes, I really like the idea of long (15 year?) terms of office for members of the upper house, in order to give them a bit of independence. But please, don’t let’s call them Senators! Call them “Lords”, which at least has a resonance with British history and practice going back to the Dark Ages.
40 EDW, you didn’t point that out. Your sentence about options etc followed immediately after your sentence about HBOS. If you had been referring to gold, wouldn’t you have mentioned gold before writing about options?
Sayonara.
52, Lords does sound both better and more British. However, would someone elected and then not returned keep their noble title?
54 Sure, why not? But only as an honorific title. Harmless enough, and a (cheap) recognition of public service.
That post office bill nearly split the government, I see Dr Palmer voted against it, whereas his nottingham s collegue voted for it, hmmmm, odd that. I can’t think of a worse person running the labour mayopral campaign, blears is useless, all she does is get more and more shrill. Her speech at the labour conference attacking Boris was just a long nasty rant.
[50] I’ve never condemned gambling.
I can’t see why HC would give up before Penn - she’s going to win that. Infact this will rumble on until May/June.
47. Well found! Anyone questioning Obama’s choice of chums should watch and enjoy!
[59] So that’s what the witch in Hansel & Gretel looks like!
On topic, I think the media finally getting around to covering this is another nail in Hillary’s coffin, but the tax returns are likely to be even worse. In themselves they’re probably not _too_ serious, but the problem is that her only remaining hope is to look like the safe option as Obama collapses in the face of determined Republican attacks. This is only an option in the first place if Obama actually _does_ collapse in the face of determined Republican attacks, which is looking pretty unlikely, although we’ll have to wait another week or two to know whether his defence against the Reverend Wright attack has really works. But it also requires that Hillary continues to look like a safe option. Which, if the media continue to cover this kind of thing, she probably won’t. To put some numbers to it:
- Chances of Obama looking really shakey come the convention: 30%
- Chances of Hillary looking substantially better at that point: 50%
- Given both of the above, chances of a bunch of currently committed superdelegates defecting from Obama to Clinton and/or the remaining ones breaking more than 70% for Hillary: 33.3%
-> Chances of Hillary getting the nomination: 5%
On the House of Lords tangent, the question is how to make it democratic without being a carbon copy of the Commons. The solution is very simple: Make everyone in the country a Lord. We’ll meet and vote on the internet. If you don’t want to use your vote yourself, you can delegate it to someone else. Problem solved.
45. Is it ever possible to use the word ‘pompous’ without sounding pompous using it?
19, 22 The Daily Mash’s take on HBOS and Scotsmen.
62. Isn’t that some kind of Argentinian grassland ?
Sorry to go O/T, but Brown still treats PMQ’s like a debate rather than him answering questions, which is why he’s so poor at it.
A Commons elected in “all up” elections would automatically have more of a mandate than one elected by fractions, because the one elected by fractions has only partially been elected in the last round of manifesto commitments.
That is why in the US system the House of Representatives has ‘primacy’ in budget matters. The Senate has primacy in ‘foreign treaty’ matters, since it is generally more stable and experienced.
The best model for the Lords has always been proportional election by 1/3s every 5 ears, with ~500 members.
I’m amazed that the media has not taken up more the astonishing hypocrisy of Labour MPs campaigning against post office closures and then voting for them.
62 - my secretary manages it successfully. Sadly, she’s usually talking about me
3
There was a suggestion that she’d run for Governor of New York, but I don’ see how Mr Obama can win, with the Wright stuff still circulating around. His ‘race’ speech the other day struck me as an attempt to change the subject, rather than address it.
65 The parliament programme on R4 this morning was scathing about browns performance. They highlighted the fact that hardly anyone stayed in the chamber to hear his pointless national security announcement and that he commands little interest or respect.
65. What a fascinating and original thought
Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I hadn’t….
“At Downing Street upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t Blair,
He wasn’t Blair again today,
Oh how I wish he’d go away.”
Suposedly written by a Cabinet Minister, and published on the Spectator website.
68. And I suppose “Shut yer friggin’ gob yer pompous bastard’ from ‘Boys from the Blackstuff’ also shows it can be done
59. I believe that’s what they call judgement.
72
Hutton was quick to deny it.
71. If you want to ridicule someone why not use your usual username so we can at least compare your criticism with your own posts?
On topic - re 17. I don’t understand why more commentators haven’t highlighted the futility of HC’s position. If the contest was in the Uk she’d have been written off already and pressured to stand down.
EinTokyo @ 61 re USA: I’m not sure it is a nail in Clinton’s coffin yet our host is right about Pastor Wright. Surely none of this will concern any voter other than activists for the other side. Like Obama’s vicargate, it is froth and bubble.
Tax returns? Perhaps the most damaging revelation will be that the Clintons are loaded.
Hillary will stay in the race but the numbers suggest her best hope is “events, dear boy, events”.
78 her best hope is “events, dear boy, events”.
Pretty poor battle plan! In the meantime, the Party spend $100m to knock lumps off each other, not McCain.
I do wonder if a short period of reflection over Easter - and an awful lot of quiet phone-calls between Super-D’s - might not bring this thing to a head in short order.
[78] Who was the least wealthy occupant of the White House in the last century? My first guess would be Truman, someone here will surely know.
I’ve just has an idea, but bear with me because I’ve just had it and it could be rubbish. Instead of the Lords or an elected second chamber why not have the seats in the Lords assigned randomly among the adult population once every five years. The draw could be done live on BBC3 in a show hosted by Dominic Littlewood and Stephanie Flanders. That would be a truly representative second chamber…
This long and bitter contest could actually work in Obama’s favour. Getting all of the worst aspects of Obama’s past/life out in the open cold spike the republicans guns for the real contest. A late victory will also keep the monentum with his candidacy. Obama will go into the main race on a high while the Mccain brand will be stale.
69 - I’m not sure how someone could hear a speech whereby Obama mentions his pastor numerous times and condemns what he said and says that he avoided the subject?
If you get all your news from Fox and/or are a neo-con muppet I suppose you could be excused.
The speech will be one of the defining moments, not just of this election, but regarding how politicians should approach such issues. Thoughtful, intellectual and unevasive.
After the Bush years that’s a massive step forwards.
re 24 - but that’s only 24 senators in total. Surely we need a decent number if only to man all the government departments.
80 - I believe that every President since Coolidge has been a millionaire. So presumably Coolidge was poorer than Truman.
82 It is a fair point. I read elsewhere the suggestion that Hillary is essentially a sparring partner for Obama - landing a few blows, but nothing knock-out. But it is leaving sod all for the Republicans to then fight him with. In the meantime, McCain’s big hits have yet to be endured.
(Hitting knockout punches on an old man reminded me of the classic Monty Python sketch:
“Jack Bodel has defeated Sir Kenneth Clark in the very first round here tonight - and so this big Lincolnshire heavyweight becomes the new Oxford Professor of Fine Art….”)
re 70 they’re always scathing about Brown.
[84] I read it as 240-400. One issue with Lords reform is how big should the second chamber be? If the cousins can manage with 100 senators I think the case needs to be made as to why we should need more.
re 81 I believe that was how the ancient Greeks did it.
81. Am I the only one that finds Ms Flanders aesthetically pleasing ?
re 88 then the original post should read 3-4 senators for every 8-10 constituencies, and not 80-100
Chris A [84] 100 constituencies with 3 or 4 Senators in each - makes 300 - 400 Senators.
One thing will be interesting though will Ministers be appointed who are not in Parliament.
No more Derrry Irvings or Charlie Falconers - I think we could all live with that!
86. I suspect that most of the Republican attacks will not come from the Republican campaign team but from their surrogates on the airwaves and the blogosphere.
Anyone who thinks that Obama will be able to ride into the Whitehouse on a sea of optimism is going to be in for a shock. There will be almost certainly be heavy swiftboating and race will play a huge part.
It hasn’t been too bad yet, but I just get the feeling that the hard right in America are holding their breath to see whether Obama is really going to be a risk or not. I still think that race will keep him out of the job in the end, but even if he manages to overcome it, it will be at the cost of some real real ugliness.
I notice that the McCain vs polls on realclear keep bouncing around. One day McCain is in the lead, the next the Democrats.
Goes to show how close the contest could be, I think - though the state polling will be more key.
93: Both sides will use surrogates, but as Obama has made so much of not going negative his attacks have the biggest chance of backfiring.
39, Roger, yes where have all the true crusaders gone from here , who were telling us how innocent they were.
re 93 just wait until McCain’s “senior moments” become the issue
97: But that would not be the cleverest move considering which age group votes the most.
33. And that is why I am against PR. I don’t want a system that puts a minority party (the LibDems) in power almost 100% of the time as kingmakers. I don’t want a system that allows the parties in power to weasel out of their manifesto commitments all the time by claiming their coalition partners wouldn’t support their proposals. I want to know what I’m getting when I vote.
PR is only “fair” if your definition of “fair” is that the number of seats each party gets is broadly in proportion to the number of votes received. My definition of “fair” is that the party that receives broadest support gets to form the government. PR does not deliver that. Indeed, it could allow the party with broadest support to be shut out by the other parties. I might feel differently if we had a presidential system but we don’t (and personally I prefer the system we’ve got).
Rant over!
78. The big question is why are the Clintons delaying on this. My understanding is that presidential candidates normally release their tax returns early in the campaign. The delay may be innocent but it suggests they may have something to hide. Mind you, McCain hasn’t released his tax returns either.
97. It looks like they already are. This is the most popular Mccain related video on youtube at the moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU
I see McCain was knocking about in Israel with Lieberman on the news yesterday. I know it was strictly a Senate visit and both were bound to be involved, but the shots made it look as if they were joined at the hip. Clue as to running mate do people think, or is it merely an attempt by McCain to look bipartisan, Presidential and pro-Israeli?
McCain-Liebermann has got to be worth a punt
82/86/93 etc: The way for the Democrats to really make lemonade out of the nomination situation they’re stuck with would be to do a nice-cop, nasty-cop on McCain. They could have Obama to carry on being virtuous and above-it-all while Hillary goes on the attack with some vicious, below-the-belt attacks designed to plant anything negative they can think of in the public consciousness. Since right-leaning voters already think she’s Lady MacBeth anyhow, what does she have to lose?
I have just watched the full Obama speech in response to Pastorgate, “A More Perfect Union”. “We the people …”
Stunning.
I am not sure of the current rules and whether Mike has addressed the possibility of a fresh “compromise” politician standing to be President at the Democratic Convention in the event it is very close between Obama and Clinton say at the end of the first round. Such a canditate may not have participated in any of the Primaries. While this may appear unlikely I understand there are historical precedents. I for one would be hesitant to back an outsider just now(although Gore seems a possibility)but think when backing one of the main contenders one should recognise that neither of them may be selected as Presidential canditate.
99
Well put,PR is the tail permaneantly wagging the dog and far less democratic than our current system for all its faults.
McCain “a great admirer” of the prime minister. A bit of a slap in the face for the Tories given the amount of pro McCain noises they’ve been making.
Mccain speaking and answering questions outside Downing Street:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7300000/newsid_7306400?redirect=7306427.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&asb=1
83
“I’m not sure how someone could hear a speech whereby Obama mentions his pastor numerous times and condemns what he said and says that he avoided the subject?”
Because he made not effort to explain why, in his 15-20 years as a member of Trinity he didn’t speak out against Rev Wright’s vitriol. He tried instead to deflect the story to ‘race in america.’
“While answering a question that no one is asking, Obama dodged the question that everyone is asking, namely how exactly did a healing figure like Obama spend 20 years listening to the hateful ramblings of a man like Jeremiah Wright. ”
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp
47) How can we get the Heather Mills & Hillary Clinton video “out there”? Would be hillarious to force a denouncement of Mills by HRC given Mill’s behaviour in the trial that was so criticised by the judge. Did you guys see that Mills even poured a whole jug of water over Paul McCartney’s female QC?
110. Well there are certainly similarities with a wronged-woman dying for the attention and limelight that their spouse once had, who is emotionally volatile and prone to telling porkies.
110 The video is ancient, made in the day when everyone was fawning over mrs macca. There is apparently one from Branson from the 90’s. Best thing we can all do with Mills is to forget her.
106. Any system that increases the influence of the Lib Dems should be rejected out of hand.
112. You’re right. Best to ignore her and hope she goes away.
re 92 - oh I see, I misread it and took it to mean that the multi-member constituencies would be based on 80-100 FPTP ones.
99
The Direct Democracy people suggested the HoL being made up by, the already elected, local gov’t councillors. Apparently Germany uses such a system.
This is my own mad idea, but put the candidate that comes 2nd in a FPTP election in the lords with reviewing powers only. HoC has clear authority, more voices are heard and elections would be more competative in “safe” seats.
Any point on opening a market on how long before someone compares the LibDems to Heather Mills?
107. Oh because of course having been invited to number 10 McCain was really going to bad mouth Brown. I know you Broonnosers are in dire straits but that was frankly pathetic..I know it doesn’t feel like it but McSporran is still PM and accorded appropriate diplomacy from foreign dignitaries..
113 Well it will be out of yours as you are too busy doing something else with it.
PR is what this country needs and I wish the Lib Dems well on their quest.
There has been some improvement in Euro elections, Scotland, Wales, NI.
However we might have to wait another generation if the polls are correct.
89. Please, no more buggery discussions.
117 - my first reaction was that your idea was indeed mad since it would result in the Government automatically being in a minority in a second chamber (which should not happen automatically), but then it occurred to me that there was nothing stopping political parties putting up more than one candidate in a seat in such circumstances. Your method would have the additional benefit of ensuring that constituency MPs in safe seats would have to do their job properly or risk losing their seats to more diligent rivals from their own parties (or those more in touch with public opinion). It’s worth thinking about further.
From the Obama web site, this may have been posted before, but it is interesting to see the vcanom that is happening in the US, we are mild by comparison, despite all the seemingly inane shouting at PM’s Question Time.
“Apparently, today was a slow news day.
So Fox News evidently decided to pore through our millions of user-created pages on My.BarackObama.com and put a screenshot of inflammatory content on the front page of FoxNews.com.
You see, more than 700,000 people have created accounts on the system. You can create one right now if you choose, in about a minute — anyone can.
Now, from time to time people get up to no good — creating fake profiles (like one for Sean Hannity created today), or posting profane or inappropriate content. When they do, the community reports the offending content and if it violates our terms of service it is removed (as the Sean Hannity profile was).
My.BarackObama.com has been at the core of our bottom-up organizing strategy. The tools available have been put to work by a community of supporters that is bigger and more powerful than anything presidential politics has ever seen.
Evidently, Fox News didn’t think it was a big deal that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans are participating in the democratic process creating groups and local events in communities all across the country.
But they did think it was a big deal that one random person on the Internet, without the knowledge of the Obama campaign, posted a profile in the system with the image of the New Black Panther Party on it”.
A comment on the blog:
“When we were alerted of the existence of this page, we pulled it down. Yet even after we pulled the page, Fox News continues to disingenuously and prominently feature this “story” on their homepage” happened to switch on Hannity and Colmes tonight just to get my blood pressure up, and I saw one of the guests giving Sean Hannity a really hard time. He mentioned the name of Hal Turner to Sean Hannity and you could tell that Hannity got real uncomfortable with the mention of his name. I googled Hal Turner and was amazed at the articles written about him. He is a Nazi sympathizer nut case that Hannity embraced for many years. He was even a member of Pat Buchanans campaigns. I know I shouldn’t but I sent one of the articles to every major news outlet. I am so angry at Hannity I can’t stand it. I had to do something”.
Many saying they will boycott Fox News, writing to advertsiers on that channel saying they will not buy their products etc.
Love it!
113. I wish the Labdemers ill in any quest for PR..it is the most ridiculous system giving huge amounts of power and influence to irrelevant minority nutters (eg Labdemers) totally out of proportion to the percentage of votes they have obtained..it also leads to seriously unstable goverments as even a peripheral study of italian and early 20th century French governments demonstrate.
Sorry para 1 should be venom, last para should be advertisers.
120
PR is what the Lib Dems think the country needs;poll after poll shows that the electorate don’t think so and it doesn’t even register on the radar screen.
As Marquee Mark pointed out probably the biggest story here is the meetings Clinton had on NAFTA and the reports from 2 different people unaffiliated to any campaign who were in the meetings and who said Clinton was “unequivocally” pro-NAFTA.
Hillary Clinton perpetrated a fraud on the voters of Ohio. “Shame on you Barack Obama”. What a crock of you know what. The same goes for her mythical national security and foreign policy experience. I only hope the people of Pennsylvania wise up to this congenital liar.
124
Have Belgium finally got a government?
Probably bad news for Obama in Pennsylvania: Apparently a dumb programming error caused the state’s voter registration website to leak personal information including name, date of birth, driving licence number and political party registration. (You could get people’s information out of the system by changing an ID number parameter in the URL.) This will make voters less likely to register. Presumably most likely to affect first-time voters or voters who were not previously registered Democratic, who I’d have thought would skew towards Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/26oep8
129. Would most people not already have registered ?
130: Not sure, but IIRC the deadline for registration was in a few days. Apparently the Obama campaign is making a big effort to register people, so this can’t have helped.
127 - People change their minds a lot in 15 years…
132 - Further to the point. I used to be really anti-EU but my position has softened to a very large extent. That doesn’t mean that when I say I am “broadly pro-EU” I am a congenital liar because 10 years ago I said “We should pull out”. It is just a change of opinion.
Many Labour MPs were young marxists. Misguided, not liars.
130: Yup, here’s Obama’s video encouraging people to register by the deadline on March 24:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pavoterreg
I’d assume that if you’ve voted before and were previously registered as a Democrat, you wouldn’t have to do it again.
124
It also makes it very difficult to vote someone out, so the MP is motivated to court the party machine, rather than the voters.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/05/driving-wedge.html
But Peter Harrison[99]. WIth FPTP we get a party who a minority of the voters support getting all the power!!!
We also get an executive with too much power and disillusioned electorate who don’t bother to take part.
O/T
Yesterday I emailed Nick Sparrow at ICM commenting on the peculiar wording of his turnout question in the Guardian Poll - It talked about going to a polling station and the apparent high turnout the tha poll predicted 71% against 61% at last GE
His reply was prompt and helpful:
You are right about the wording of the turnout question. We will change it. However, I think it just as likely that those people who have already made up their mind to vote by post (likely to be a very small number) are just as likely to interpret the meaning of our question in the way intended
Polls do find a higher claimed level of turnout for the last election than was actually the case. Three reasons. 1) 100% turnout would be impossible because of problems with the electoral register (some people are on twice, others have moved, died etc). 2) People not on the electoral role are also less likely to be present in a poll, simply because they are less likely to be on the telephone (or connected to the internet). 3) Finally people who cannot be bothered to participate in elections are also slightly more likely to refuse an interview on the subject. Therefore a poll that suggests a 70% turnout probably reflects an actual turnout of around 60% or so. On our last poll for The Guardian the actual numbers of people we used calculate our vote intentions were the 63% of the total sample most certain to vote.
The idea that PR is fair because every vote counts is incorrect.
Even under PR several hundred thousand voters ballot choice makes no impact to the outcome to the eventual seat allocations. Once you have enough votes to gain a seat you pile up votes doing nothing unless and until you hit the next threshold and add a second seat, and so on.
Those intermediate votes on the last seat are wasted and the only difference is that the voters don’t know about it.
Their votes are just as ‘wasted’ as a Labour vote in Kensington or a Tory vote in Hull under FPTP.
128 - Yes. It’s a dark day for Belgium today - just when things had started to look up for them along comes a government to p*ss on their bonfire!
Could someone please explain something for me. The Bof E has just said (according to 5 live) that they would be pumping £5 billion into the economy every week for as long as needed(that’s what I understood anyway.
Does this not this increase the money supply dramatically, and is it not equivalent to Anthony Barber in the 70s printing money, and isnt it highly inflationary and bad for sterling??
Thanks
65 - cuddles, Brown might not treat it properly, but then did Blair? He certainly didn’t answer questions he didn’t like. Personally I don’t think Brown or Cameron are good at it - although Dave as improved quite a bit - but then, does it really matter? Only one or two bits will make the news. It all depends on the editing!
I don’t know if I’m alone in this, but I am really getting tired of the Democratic race now. It was interesting when Obama was the outsider and Hillary the ‘inevitable’ candidate, but we’ve had a month now full of muck raking on both sides which hasn’t really altered the overall picture. Obama’s race speech was good but I’m getting tired of his endless mantra of ‘change’, whilst nothing makes me want to switch off more than Hillary’s ‘I’ll be ready on day 1′ line. Still, most people probably don’t follow it as closely as we do. And if that’s what the US electorate wants, that’s what they’ll get.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/is_this_race_over.html
This is a good analysis of the Dem nomination race. This guy is very much a numbers man, but worth keeping an eye on. He was cool in Clinton when she looked inevitable (admittedly before any voting).
Also a new Pennsylvania poll has Clinton leading 51-35, up from a 44-32 lead in mid-February.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_558179.html
Re 137 The big difference is that under PR a Tory-vote in Bootle could help to deliver an extra seat to that party. Under FPTP, the same vote will never deliver that seat.
139. This is entirely different to printing money. The beauty is, its all electronic and no extra printing is necessary, if it doesnt generate inflation it means we are in a worse state then we could ever imagine…
81. That’s a system I’ve championed on here and elsewhere for over two years. While I wouldn’t have the whole House made up from that source, I do think there’s scope for about a quarter of it to be chosen that way.
137. I’d reject the idea that votes are ‘wasted’ under any system. Apart from the fact that you can never really tell which are the votes that elect a candidate, even losing or surplus votes have a value in terms of making the argument.
Out of interest, is it a coincidence that the Lib Dems favour a system of PR that sets the quota value high enough to largely exclude parties smaller than them, but give them representation just about everywhere, which would at the same time just about institutionalise their position as king-makers?
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama for the first time in weeks in the race for the party nomination, according to a Gallup poll.
The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN2037834020080320
145. Pre Obama speech data ?
146
You’re expecting Mr Obama’s speech to move the polls?
147. Yup - most watched clip on youtube this week.
OT
Perhaps those for were so furious with me earlier on regarding free mkts
would like to read this excellent article in todays standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23459935-details/Just+try+stopping+the+City%27s+rogue+traders/article.do
144. I had a thought of my own regarding voting reform whilst shaving this morning. If things are going so badly for Gordon in the polls that he can’t see a way out, might voting reform be the only answer. Something like STV could help them squeeze the Lib Dem vote - that assumes that LD’s would still prefer Labour. On the other hand it might lead to Labour meltdown, if many of their lefties spot a free chance to vote Lib Dem. So it’s a real risk, though if Gordo sees it as THAT bad, anything is worth a try.
Of course, chaning the voting system might look like a desperate attemptt to alter a system that served Nulab very well when they were winning. So, put it to a referendum. Something that appears to extend voter choice and control is likely to be popular. If it turns out to be the only way to stop the DC bandwagon, why not?
re 122 it’s loopy. There must be only a handful of seats were the winning party could risk putting up two candidates and still be confident of wiining the seat.
139
All the losses on derivatives our clever bankers are making mean lending is reducing. We are in a deflationary environment. Net US money supply gorwth is nil or negative.
M King is fighting a war from 20 years ago.He could raise UK interest rates to 10% and not change oil or food prices one penny.
144. “Apart from the fact that you can never really tell which are the votes that elect a candidate”
FPTP Majorities of 1, or 2 votes, are fantastic.
Everyone feels empowered. Everyone feels like they put the boot in, or carried their candidate over the line.
Other benefit is, supporters of the candidate who lost feel ashamed of themselves and are more likely to feel compelled to vote next time.
150 Unfortunately, Blair tried that dodge in 1997. I am still waiting for the referendum on the subject. I for one won’t get fooled again.
148
How it it you’re still able to speak when George MacDonald Fraser has popped his clogs? I don’t think you’re the real Harry Flashman at all, imposter!
re 124 so are the governments of Germany, Australia or Ireland seriously unstable?
150. I think the Euro-elections in 2009 will send a strong enough message to Labour that PR will not be in its interests. It would be extremely difficult to design a set of elections which could be more damaging to Labour than those, and PR is part of the reason for that. For one thing, people get the chance to vote for all the minor parties that usually aren’t on their ballot paper.
154. It was certainly a hypocrisy of Blair to pledge voting reform of FPTP and then change his mind when it suited him so well.
re 137 you seriously misunderstand STV. If you number all the candidates (and it’s entriely your choice whether you do or not) then your vote is going to end up electing someone.
151 - in the 19th century there were three member seats where the voters each only had two votes. The parties organised themselves so that in suitable seats they divvied up their voters’ votes to maximise their chances of taking all three seats. It would not be beyond the wit of parties to try similar things with the type of system that Jonathan described.
155. Is that better ?
re 153 and what about consitutencies with majorities of 20,000+?
You have to admire everyone for trekking down to the polling station when they’ll make no difference whatsoever to the result.
161
Paradox resolved
136. I know. We are, to a large degree, arguing about definitions of “fair”, so we won’t agree. We are coming fromm different perspectives.
I think it is fair that the party with broadest support forms the government. I don’t even think it is necessary for it to be the party that gets the most votes, although the two will normally be the same - the current system favours a party that can get support across the country over one that builds up a huge lead in some areas.
You think that it is unfair that a party with less than 50% of the votes gets to form the government. I can see your point. I don’t agree but, even if I did, I certainly don’t think that making the third party into permanent kingmakers is the solution.
66. Why on Earth would you need 500 of them? If there’s no constituency work to be done, I don’t see why you need any more than 100 of them. That would allow individual ones to be more high profile and have an influence in agenda setting for important issues the govt was ignoring.
Personally, my idea for the HoL would be 99 elected voting members, of which one third would be elected every five years on 15 year terms. You would then have additional non-voting “advisory” members drawn from business, academia, trade unions, major religions etc who could give speak when it was relevant.
116. Considering the quality of local councillors I would be alarmed at that idea.
145. I said last week that Thursday-Friday would be the worse of the polls for Obama. I expect them to start recovering over the weekend.
147. The speech won’t. The media reporting that Obama “has handled it well” will have a subconscious effect.
It’s also worth reporting that with MI and FL ruled out, “Can Clinton win?” stories have started appearing on cable news channels for the first time. This should hurt her as its still a long time to Pennsylvania. A source in the Obama campaign also tells me there is the possibility of a superdelegate caucus as soon as the primary voting is over. Even if that doesn’t happen, many in the party are looking at ways for the superdelegates to decide BEFORE the convention, to stop the chance of chaos in the public eye. Worth bearing in mind if you’re laying Obama on the basis of a long time for things to go wrong.
150. If we ever had STV we should keep it to two members per constituency. Any more and the number of safe seats goes up exponentially, and the opportunities for party leaders to parachute in their favoured sons goes up exponentially.
148. 95% of those youtube views will be people under 25, who fall overwhelmingly for Obama anyway.
165
“Considering the quality of local councillors I would be alarmed at that idea.”
I can’t say the current members of the HoC, or HoL impress as philosopher kings. Direct Democracy’s reasoning is:
“An ideal Upper House would reflect the temper of the country as a whole without establishing a new tier of politicians. So why not rely on elections that have already taken place, and create a Chamber of the Regions? This would be filled with existing county and borough councillors in proportion to their parties’ representation in each county or city. This would correct the metropolitan bias of the Upper House; give a valuable fillip to the prestige of local government; and allow life peerages (or, for that matter, hereditary peerages) to become wholly a mark of service, devoid of political significance.”
http://www.douglascarswell.co.uk/files/pdf_pdf_15.pdf
If people are set on wide scale reform, then it makes more sense to kill two birds with one stone: make the Commons an English Parliament and the Lords a British Parliament.
Of course, that would mean giving the English equal sway with the Scots. Somehow I can’t see McBrown doing it. Mind you, Cameron’s Grand Committee, though better than what we have at present, is still not good enough.
139. No it’s not inflationary unless the injections become permanent. As they stand they are only short term loans that have to be repaid. It is of course possible that they will become permanent but in that case, the environment will have become so negative that it won’t matter much.
109 - He answered the question unequivocally. There are some who choose not to see that and they have their reasons.
145 - And counter that with the CBS and Rasmussen polls that shows Obama is ahead.
Where’s ‘Richard’ by the way, and did he email PtP for the bet he agreed on?
167. It is true that youtube has a majority of younger viewers. However, I have found it to be a very good indicator of shifts in public opinion. In the days leading to Clinton’s first comeback in New Hampshire, the top video views decisively shifted in favour of Hilary and again before her latest victories.
Since Obamas speech it has switched even more decisively to Obama. The sheer scale of popularity of this Obama speech on youtube has to be significant. Earlier today 8 of the 12 top bews/politics videos were identical postings of the speech. Now not everybody watching them will have a favourable response but the scale of the interest will probably at least counteract the negative effect of the pastor’s words, if not even being a net positive for Obama.
171
“He answered the question unequivocally. There are some who choose not to see that and they have their reasons.”
Heretics perhaps? Here’s another one:
“Now, Obama says, he rejects and abhors what Wright said and did. No doubt, he does. But, he could cite no instance when he ever intervened with Wright to protest his hateful nonsense.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obamas_pastor_and_populism_fos.html
If HC wins it will be even more depressing than a second Bush term.
Desperately bad news for Clegg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7306954.stm
“Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened….”
Maybe it was a group effort. Sorry, should really have posted that on Guido’s blog!
The funny thing is, Clinton voters will mostly happily back Obama. As far as Obama’s voters are concerned, with every snide attack and barely-veiled racist slur she utters, Clinton further undermines her position with them. If she is the eventual Democrat candidate, Obama backers will not swing behind her in the same way her backers would swing behind him.
Obama could therefore win against McCain; Clinton, because of her own divisiveness, cannot.
176
“As far as Obama’s voters are concerned, with every snide attack and barely-veiled racist slur she utters, Clinton further undermines her position with them. If she is the eventual Democrat candidate, Obama backers will not swing behind her”
But smears from Mr Obama’s supporters are OK?
OT
Well thats Ken done for then!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23460010-details/Brown+comes+out+to+bat+for+Ken/article.do
176 - This is conventional wisdom but there is little evidence for it. In fact most polls show both of them losing about the same number of Democrats to McCain. Black voters will feel aggrieved if they perceive the nomination to be stolen from Obama unfairly. But there are likely to be lots of women who feel the opposite if they see the nomination as stolen from Clinton unfairly. (This would be a small percentage of women, but predominately feminists at the core of the Democratic coalition). As long as the nomination is seen as fairly won by all sides Clinton has as much chance of winning over defectors as Obama.
The Republicans will be delighted by all this. Clinton’s scorched earth strategy will leave Obama as the ‘un-American’ candidate for many voters, and thus doomed to lose.
180 - Clinton can’t be blamed for pastor-gate, these videos were always going to come out. It is better to know if Obama can stand up to the heat now than find out in November. The GOP attacks will be much rougher than anything Clinton has done.
120.”PR is what this country needs and I wish the Lib Dems well on their quest.
There has been some improvement in Euro elections, Scotland, Wales, NI.”
Eh! 6/7 counts for a council by-election and a voting system which resulted in thousands of votes being invalid. Just voting is more difficult and complicated, it’s taken something that was simple and straightforward for decades and turned it into a process that requires a booklet!
Everyone goes on about voter turnout and making it simpler, then you have a mayoral race which might depend on the 2nd preference of the candidate that comes third. Its crazy!
176. Obama will have a very hard time with Reagan Democrats now. That’s the one bloc of support that may not move across. Middle class women, the elderly and Hispanics should all go though.
180. Pastorgate was not Clinton’s doing. It emerged from ABC News (although was originally on FOX a few months back).
Latest Rasmussen Massachusetts Presidential Poll and West Virginia Primary Poll :
Massachusetts :
McCain 39% .. Clinton 55%
McCain 42% .. Obama 49%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/massachusetts_2008_presidential_election
West Virginia :
Clinton 55% .. Obama 27%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/west_virginia_democratic_presidential_primary
159. Not exactly. In an n member constituency, there will be up to 1/(n+1) of the votes going to losing candidates.
162. They only make no difference to the result because they all do trek down to the polling station. If all the voters for the party who holds the safe seat independently thought ‘I won’t bother this time as it’s a safe seat’, it would stop being safe.
178
After the Metronet,Olympic and LDA shambles that would automaticaly rule Livingstone out.
PR and STV are terrible systems. I think we should start any electoral reform with FPTP with instant runoff and move from there.
136.”WIth FPTP we get a party who a minority of the voters support getting all the power!!!
We also get an executive with too much power and disillusioned electorate who don’t bother to take part.”
And that has not happened under PR in Scotland, just remind who power shared with Labour for 8 years! FPTP favours the larger parties, but PR does the opposite and simple favours smaller parties, hence the reason why the Libdems support it. Neither is truly fair, but it is not the reason that the electorate is disillusioned, going from a party with a large majority to no one ever being in control will not improve voter participation or general disillusionment with politics. If it did, we would have seen a huge increase in voter turnout in Scotland.
144.”Out of interest, is it a coincidence that the Lib Dems favour a system of PR that sets the quota value high enough to largely exclude parties smaller than them, but give them representation just about everywhere, which would at the same time just about institutionalise their position as king-makers?”
David, that would be cynical….
New CBS Presidential and Primary Polls :
McCain 44% .. Clinton 46%
McCain 43% .. Obama 48%
Clinton 43% .. Obama 46%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/opinion/polls/main3951729.shtml
69
Well I guess you are in a small minority then. The US media has judged Senator Obama’s response as intelligent and sensitive and they have moved on.
Perhaps your major difficulty is that you are not used to being treated as an adult by your politicians; and that is not a criticism of you. The British people were talked down to by Thatcher and Blair who showed no respect for the intelligence of the British people. Brown and Major just mumble[d] nonsense. And remember the world has had to listen to the linguistic strangulations of the idiot boy Bush for more than seven years.
Obama’s charisma will allow him to breeze past H Rodham Clinton, who, only now, is being vetted by the US media. As for the elderly McCain, he has a long record of voting in the Senate and has taken a number of opposing positions on crucial issues like immigration. He has been given a free pass by the press so far, and the liberal blogosphere has been so intent on the Democratic Party race that it hasn’t had time to turn on the old man from Arizona. The attacks on McCain will be fast and furious.
Malcolm
Huckabee defends Barack Obama over pastorgate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
190 - The US media don’t win elections, voters do! That kind of elitist attitude is what has lost the Democrats the last two Presidential election. It is still too early to tell what the effect of pastor-gate will be, but this article suggests it has done Obama some damage.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9132.html
Forget dodgy vicars and keep an eye on the American economy. That’s what will be concentrating voters’ minds.
Which may not be altogether good news for us since the American electorate is often partial to a spot of protectionism.
137/144. The difference is that at the last election FULLY 70% of the votes cast were wasted, in the sense they did not contribute to the outcome. That we cannot put names to them does not diminish this fact. (We have a secret ballot anyhow.) Under STV, only about 10% votes would be wasted, a vast improvement.
No system is perfect, and I don’t think anyone has claimed literally that “every vote counts” under STV, although it’s certainly true that almost every vote counts.
STV would not just benefit the LibDems by “giving them seats everywhere.” It would benefit all three parties, giving them seats everywhere e.g. Tories in Liverpool and Labour in Surrey.
117. You can’t have a system based on FPTP losers, for obvious reasons.
175 The Grim Reaper certainly looks to be working his way down the list of Equity-card holders this week.
American wide reflections on that Obama speech :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20race.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1206018433-DSMbiw8GQq9fyrz1Ym77og&pagewanted=print
There doesn’t appear to be much value left in any of the US election markets, except for those of us willing to throw money at the bookmakers in second guessing the identity of the next Vice President.
Maybe Shadsy, Aaron, Sidney & Co should try being a tad more inventive - may I suggest a fixed odds and/or spreadbetting market on when Hillary will eventually quit the Democratic nomination contest, assuming she doesn’t actually win it?
I may have missed something, but looking back to post 24, if three or four Senators represent each seat and they are elected in stages in order to replace Life Peers gradually, won’t that mean (at least to start with) one of two things:
(a) that only one Senator is elected per constituency per election or
(b) that some parts of the country get a full set of Senators from the first election onwards whilst others have to wait 8-10 years?
I hope that (b) would be ruled out, which leaves (a) - which is likely to leave most constituencies with a one-party rather than proportionate make-up over a cycle of three or four elections.
183: Just wanted to thank socrates for his balanced comments - people who can separate who they support and how they view the trends are so important for this site.
re 166 Can we please have an article about the various forms of PR please. They’re not the same - some like the EU election closed lists are worse than FPTP, others like the mixed system for Wales and Scotland are better but lead to two classes of MP. STV is preferred and it does not have safe seats, nor is amenable to the party machine.
I don’t see what you’re getting at. If the party parachuted one of its favourite sons into a 3-4 member consituency then if the electorate didn’t want him they could vote for one of the party alternatives. MPs would have to be genuinely local and do constituency work in order to maximise their number of first preference votes next time round
179
*This would be a small percentage of women, but predominately feminists…* I humbly disagree. McCain is virulently anti-choice and therefore anathema to feminists.
Malcolm
199 I agree. After possibly the worst series of posts last night ever to appear on PB.com, it helps to restore one’s confidence that overall the site remains a worthwhile read.
There is an easy way to make every vote count. Treat the whole country as a single multi-member constituency. And if this were done for the second chamber, there would be less overlap with the role of constituency-based Commons MPs.
Obviously, not all votes would be equal. Those with by far the most clout would be the apparatchiks compiling the party lists.
Oh dear - Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg turns into one of the prophets of doom that Mark Senior despises so much..!
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=161618&d=340&h=341&f=342
Actually, regardless of what reform they go for it’ll be a hard sell. Prior to trying to change the Lords, the Commons really needs to get its own house in order.
Plus, if the proposed changes are perceived to give Labour an unfair advantage it would not be conducive to good headlines.
203. Another way to make every vote count would be to let every voter nominate a proxy to vote for them in Parliament. Very popular individuals would represent more people and have more votes in the House than those who represent just a few people. [I'm not at all in favour of such an idea, but it would satisfy the "every vote counts" concept!]
205: I suspect any party would be prepared to suffer a week of bad headlines in return for an unfair advantage.
194.”The difference is that at the last election FULLY 70% of the votes cast were wasted, in the sense they did not contribute to the outcome.”
So that 70% of votes did not put any MP’s in the HoC to represent individual constituencies? More to the point you seem to indicate that their vote was therefore wasted because they did not contribute to the outcome. Your vote is not wasted if it does not necessarily produce everyone’s choice holding hands and job sharing in No10.
You can have both systems working together with a nice shiny new building, a snip at just over 400million and with running costs of over a million per backside presiding in it. Funny thing is that most voters will be able to name the FPTP occupant in their constituency, I have no doubt that his cross party post bag and local workload far exceed those of his PR chums too.
I don’t know if anyone else has posted this
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080320/tpl-uk-usa-politics-gallup-20b2d2f.html
Clinton now leads Obama in latest poll.
209 - This is well out of line with other polls released today and yesterday though, coldstone. The Real Clear Politics site (see White House 2008 polls on Mike’s links list) covers most of them.
207, it wouldn’t be just a week of bad headlines, in my view. If a party (particularly one currently far behind in the polls) is seen to be trying to gerrymander the system it could create massive resentment against a public that is less than enthralled with the Supreme Leader.
209 coldstone. It’s the Gallup tracker from yesterday. Frankly the polls are all over the shop. Pick your candidate and a poll to match !!
200 etc re wasted votes.
The implication is that it doesn’t matter whether an MP gets a majority of 1 or a majority of 20,000.
Is this actually true - do MPs in marginals do a better job of catering to constituency needs, or is it that MPs in safe seats feel they are less dependent on the party and hence take a more independent line. Many of the rebels on the post office votes were from very safe Labour seats - Frank Field, Diane Abbott, Alan Meale etc
Genuine question for Nick Palmer - How different do you think your day to day life as an MP would be if you were MP for a safe seat like Mansfield or one of the Nottingham seats. Do they have more time for committee business and suchlike ? Is the relationship with the CLP different ?
Took a journey past our local HBOS today. Can’t say the people of Yorkshire seem very perturbed by recent events. The Bank seemed quite empty… no more queues than normal in fact less, but it was tipping it down and the streets were pretty quiet anyway.
Was quite pleased as we have much to worry about as a family if its got problems.
HC down to 3.6 on betfair from 3.9 this am.
208. About 52% of all votes were cast for losing candidates, and another 18% were “wasted” in surplus majorities. There are other electoral systems which are far more efficient in making votes count, which surely is a desirable feature of any system.
214, us Yorkshire folk don’t go hysterical over mere rumours. You must be thinking of Lancastrians:p
214 - Not surprising though is it? Northern Rock sets the precedent that there is no real need for depositers to worry. The worry is for investors in the shares and for taxpayers.
Drudge reporting the latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracker Poll :
McCain 51% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 49% .. Obama 42%
David Roe: Then I wait to hear Hillary say she’s changed her mind but instead she says she’s been against it from the start which she clearly hasn’t. That’s a liar in my book.
216.I would say that having observed PR in practice up here, it actually disconnects voters from their individual representatives rather than empowering them further. You talk of making the percentage of votes count in a more effective way, but the problem is that by pushing us into a system where no one has overall control dilutes responsibility even further and disconnects the voter from politics even more.
One of the problems of coalition government in Scotland during the last Parliament was watching the coalition partners suddenly distance themselves from each with silly arguments. This was followed by a campaign which concentrated more on who would share power rather than a debate about policy.
Sometimes when number crunching, its helps if the realities of a system in practice are discussed in an equally robust way.
179 - You nearly get to the point that Obama was making about seeing the world as static. As much as his admonition of the black community in getting stuck in past arguments the speech was also a challenge to feminists of a certain age who still appear to be fighting the battles of the sixties.
213: Thanks to Paul for the interesting question. I think there are several *possible* effects of having a very safe position (a big FPTP majority, a high place on a PR list, etc.) - not all of them are visible in all cases:
- You might spend more time in Parliament, less in the constituency, enabling you to get involved more with national campaigning NGOs, sit on more committees, etc.
- Your party might promote you more readily to senior party positions, because you’ve got more time to help.
- You might become braver in taking unpopular stances that you know your constituents will dislike but you believe to be right
- You would almost certainly refer more casework to councillors - I almost never refuse to take up an issue, ’safe’ colleagues routinely do.
- You might be more indifferent to adverse comment on MPs’ pay, allowances and working practices. Some of the strongest resistance to reform has come from people with very safe seats.
- You might simply work less and fill in with media stunts. I know some high-profile MPs who I’m quite certain do no more than a 40-hour week, if that, vs the more typical 70-80 for marginal MPs.
I don’t think it would make you more or less rebellious - the party really has to support its marginal seats no matter how rebellious the MP. A factor is possibly that in safe seats (of all parties) MPs have been around for longer, so are less in tune with whatever changes the current party leadership makes. It might also at some level make you more relaxed about whether your party wins the next election or not - you’ll probably be OK personally either way.
If Stewart J is around it’d be interesting to hear his view?
200. If you study elections you find that by the largest effect on voter choices is name recognition. This is why mayors and governors all over the US name highways and buildings after themselves - it gives them a significant boost in opinion polls. This is mostly offset by party identification, but when you ask voters to vote between two candidates in the same party the bulk will pick the one whose name they recognise. Sad, but true. Thus, unless someone’s name is truly mud, they will never drop down their party list. Especially since it will be even harder for new candidates to get their name out when there are 12 people running (and larger constituencies = more ground to cover). Now let’s say we have an average 3 member constituency that reflects the UK over the last 30 years:
1979:
Con 44%
Lab 37%
Lib 14%
Conservatives get the first seat, with the surplus mostly going Liberal. Labour get the second. Liberals get the third.
Result: one seat a piece.
1992:
Con 42%
Lab 34%
Lib 18%
Exactly the same thing will happen. One seat each.
1997:
Lab 43%
Con 31%
Lib 17%
Labour get the first seat. Most of the surplus goes Lib Dem. Conservatives get the second. Lib Dems get the third.
So we have three entirely different types of election with exactly the same result in our typical seat. If you had a fourth seat that might be a toss-up but you still have three safe seats. The top two seats will know they are entirely safe.
By far the most important aspect of an electoral system is that seats are competitive. FPTP does this better than most systems, though AV would be even better. A secondary issue is making sure voters understand the voting form, and complex systems confuse the bulk of people who don’t pay too much attention as we’ve seen in Scotland.
Here’s an idea though. Why not a blanket primary on some sort of AV system? Thus the politically informed can look at all the candidates and decide between them, before the masses vote in a simple one on one final campaign? Politicians would have to appeal to both the knowledgeable, and the public at large.
223 - How much of that “70 hr week” involves doing stuff that is not in your job description. eg. canvassing?
188.And your not cynical?
Maybe just a Tory in Surrey, as the politics there at the moment must be intresting.
A seat for life with no competion hardly a recipe for success or representative democaracy.
The same applies in any one party thiefdom.
Modern Conservatives should their minds to constitutional change, unlike the last century types, who centralised all political power to westminster.
Morris dancer @ 211 re unfair advantages. Look at electoral fraud surrounding postal votes. We’ve had bad headlines but no sweeping reforms. Over-representation of various bits of the UK was tolerated, even applauded, for decades. Our rulers are not saints.
214/217/218 Yes, all very quiet today outside the Halifax Huddersfield office and certainly no queues, also the shares today are up 24p - a relief for me and doubtless for HBOS’ other 2 million shareholders.
Sadly however, yesterday’s scaremongering will inevitably hurt the company both in detering possible new savers as well as persuading umpteen thousand existing savers to move tyheir money elsewhere.
The fact remains that even before yesterday, the company’s shares were yielding an incredible 13% p.a. gross - a yield that would normally apply to a junk bond. This, if nothing else, sets the alarm bells ringing for me.
209
Thanks coldstone that’s interesting,the only polls we seem to get are the partisan ones from JackW that show Obama winning.
223. Thanks Nick, very interesting and informative post.
230. Agreed.
225 - There is no such thing as a job description for MPs. Canvassing is anyway probably time quite well spent in terms of finding out the word on the street and building a connection between people and their representatives. It is not clear that keeping the green benches warm using only your well padded arse is necessarily any more valuable.
200
You’re assuming each party only puts up one candidate, surely in a multi-member constituency they’d up the maximum, in this case 3.
Like the idea of using primaries. Not so keen on a blanket primary (but then, I’ve only ever come across the term in one article, so I may well be misunderstanding it.)
223: pure party politcal stuff not much outside election periods - maybe 6 hours a week. In election periods, the sky’s the limit.
But there’s a lot of hard-to-classify stuff. If twenty people writing to me criticising Government policy on baked beans and I write back putting the other side, is that in the standard job description? Probably. In fact I’d argue that even canvassing is, because if you don’t do it you’re not in regular touch with the majority of people who don’t contact you. It’s not possible to see MPs realistically as apolitical animals.
Above should refer to 224, not 200. Sorry.
227, perhaps you’re right. Scotland’s over-represented in Westminster and the postal voting issue should be a national disgrace, though you wouldn’t guess it from the lack of media coverage. The government should be hammered from all quarters on the issue.
226.”188.And your not cynical?” Well Dez, I am arguing against a system which has given my party more support in Holyrood than it would normally expect under FPTP….
229 - Rubbish, he posts all the polls. It’s just that all, apart from the Gallup tracker at the moment (which someone had already posted if you were paying attention), do show Obama beating Clinton.
The past week’s polls have shown five giving Obama the lead and one Clinton (as above), it is a clear outlier which anyone fixating on is clearly doing so for partisan reasons. The problem with a tracker is that it keeps getting repeated, outlier that it is, every day.
So now you have the true figures you can see that your accusation is wrong.
I would have thought that canvassing is a key part of a marginal MPs job.(Sorry for agreeing with you again Nick, normal service will be resumed)
Living in a rock solid seat, we never see our MP from one election to the next.
238 - Link to the figures as above.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
236. Due to postal voting fraud we’re going to have EU observers at the next GE. Secondly, all political parties have used voting fraud so none of them are able to use it to hammer any of the others, which is a shame.
233. No, I wasn’t. If, say, the Conservatives put up three candidates half of the Conservative voters wouldn’t choose between them, and most of the other half would choose the name they are most familiar with. This would dwarf the tiny minority that would examine the views of the various Conservative candidates.
I really like the idea of a blanket primary. One problem in primaries from one party’s electorate is that the extremists extract stupid commitments from moderate candidates (see McCain and ID). Additionally, we could get two candidates from the same party going up against each other in a safe seat! (This has happened in Washington state). It would basically reduce the importance of party, and increase the role of candidate.
223 Many thanks for the response Nick. Very informative and honest.
With respect to the CLP, presumably if you are in a rock solid safe seat the bigger battle could be being reselected as candidate by the CLP (or Conservative Association etc). Do members in safe seats have to cater more to the whims and idiosyncracies of the local party members/activists ?
241, I agree that all parties have abused it, but the fact is that Labour could change it and refuse to do so.
Looking at todays locals.
Lambeth, interesting to see whether the Lib Dems recent good run in London elections continues, or was this just confined to north of the river.
224. Yes, but
i) Most multi-member seats will not follow the national average vote; there will be a range of local outcomes.
ii) Most multi-member seats will have more than 3 seats, giving lower quotas and thus more scope for change than you suggest.
iii) Most seats, including your example, will be contested by more than one candidate from each party, meaning that while a seat may be nominally “safe” for a party, it will not necessarily be safe for a particular candidate. Unlike FPTP, voters will be able to get rid of an unpopular MP without damaging their party.
241 it is true that all parties have had rogue members who have participated in illegal activity.
Only one party thought John Prescott’s patently stupid idea was worth turning into law and only one party can change the law.
Part of being the governing party is accepting responsibility for your mistakes and making the necessary adjustments. However, we know from PMQs that Gordon’s government ‘makes the right decision at all times’.
237 ChrisD and I am arguing against a system that gave my party 3 thumping election victories.
Neverthess more people need to participate and feel their vote is not wasted.
Mine has been for twenty years in various seats in North Yorkshire.
And people wonder why certain people dont bother.
Don`t tell me you cant improve anything.
Latest Rasmussen tracker as reported above;
McCain 49% Obama 42%
McCain 51% Clinton 41%
But in the dem nom, Obama’s lead over Clinton ticks up;
Obama now leads Clinton 46% to 43%
was
Obama 45% Clinton 44% during PASTORGATE on the 18th.
Note that’s a rolling figure so if that holds up Obama’s lead over Clinton will extend.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
244 In order to obtain a bus pass or even to open a bank or building society account, one is required to provide photographic evidence as well as proof of one’s address. People are used to these procedures, although they involve some degree of hassle.
Why shouldn’t exactly the same requirements apply to postal voting?
A couple of points: firstly in the example of three member seat, while we might assume those results give each party three seats regardless, the fact is that they may not be the same individuals. If, for example, you happened to have a candidate you dislike from the party you generally support, then you could vote against the individual without voting against the party- it genuinely does give a greater power to the voter. My view is that Counties are probably the best basic unit for constituencies and that would tend to mean more candidates to be elected, which obviously changes the apportionment of seats. Secondly in terms of electoral outcomes, the fact is that the elections in Wales firstly delivered a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, then a minority Labour government and now a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition, while in Scotland it was firstly a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition that was re-elected and then defeated by an SNP minority administration. So I would argue that the system no more entrenches power with any given party than FPTP does.
246.
(i) Agreed, but do you really get any more of a percentage swing? Labour might range from 30-40 nationwide, and 45-55 in a safe seat. It means the same chance of seats changing hands, even if the initial distribution is different.
(ii) More seats in each constituency just mean even more safety for the “top” ones. If we had six seats say, the top three parties are entirely guaranteed at least one seat, and the top two should be confident of getting a second one.
(iii) An MP would have to have a LOT of unpopularity to make up for the advantage of name recognition. In all other cases, name recognition would win the day due to the crowded field meaning newcomers would have a harder time distinguishing themselves. Especially so if you increased the number of seats. How many voters will be able to make an informed choice when you have 20+ candidates going for six seats?
248. I’ve read various studies on this effect and there is no evidence that electoral system affects voter turnout. Quite simply, most people either will vote dutifully regardless, never vote regardless, or not understand the system enough to realise when their vote counts more or less. However, there is clear evidence that coalition goverments create more disillusionment over the long term.
251. I was arguing about individual MPs being entrenched in power, not the party at the top. Although the party in a kingmaker position is undoubtedly going to form part of most governments (look at how long the FDP stayed in power in Germany).
247 “However, we know from PMQs that Gordon’s government ‘makes the right decision at all times’.”
Gordon’s little dig at Cameron comes back to bite him in the arse!
Postal vote as currently carried is far too open to abuse by all parties. It should be changed. The government needs to do so and sharpish. It is incredible that they have not. Given the fact that all parties have been found cheating, there is no effective opposition to the status quo.
248.Dez, PR will not achieve those aims. It simple makes the political classes even less accountable.
Have you seen a big increase in voter turnout in Scotland and Wales in the wake of this new system? If we are going to have separate council elections in Scotland now, and remember having both the Holyrood and local elections on one day to shore up turnout helped get us into the electoral mess last year. Will our new separate local elections with a STV system show more voter engagement than it does done South with FPTP?
I would suggest that it won’t make one iota of difference to voter turnout, it will simple make things more bl**dy complicated and difficult for those that do bother to vote already.
“Neverthess more people need to participate and feel their vote is not wasted.” Then keep it simple and make it compulsory, but don’t expect voter apathy to improve because you have made the system more difficult and the politicians even less accountable.
255. Agreed, Labour may have the least moral authority on this issue but none of the opposition parties have enough to actually oppose it, neither do they particularly want to draw the general publics attention to the fact that they’ve been doing it themselves.
You would have thought that the continuing Postal Vote frauds, registers with ghost voters (of course voter registration would drop, Blears, they don’t exist!) and the fiasco of the Scottish election with lost of spoilt papers, would shame someone into getting a grip.
If you can make the Bank of England independent and risk them ruining the economy with their high interest rate policy, then surely UK elections should be run by an independent commission.
O/T - I’ve just been polled by yougov on the mayoral election and assembly (though constituency seats only) so perhaps the Standard will be publishing something on this shortly.
On Topic. I don’t think the papers will hurt HRC that much. A few days of sceptical press and poor coverage but people know what First Lady’s do and how political a figure she has always been. I think the nature of her role is pretty factored in.
As for it being “over”. Well now that we have got to within a month of Penn I can’t see the establishment pre emepting anything as they’ll be seen as denying a big state a vote. If she wins that big then again its not an ideal time for the supers to finish things off by a mass endorsement.
If the polls are right and she then wins WV it could stumble on for months. Obama needs to finish her off but never quite manages it.
Its the same in the polls. the match ups with Mccain only show obama advanatages within the margin of error. It does n’t lead crediance to idea that he can beat the reps and she can’t.
My hunch is pastor gate has done more damage to obama than is currentlly apparent.
I’ll be intersted to see the march fundraising figures following the big win in Ohio for HRC and pastorgate.
Obama’s latest speech links the cost of the Iraq war with the problems in the US economy - and hammers both McClain and Hillary for voting for it. If this sticks, he is home and dry - blaming his two opponents for the two issues most troubling America today.
Read it here:
http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-obamas-speech-the-cost-of-war/
259. I always wondered, how did they approach you? Did you register on their site?
Hillary - Mike, as well as the 17,000 documents to which you refer, there’s also the small matter of her seemingly ever-elusive tax returns. One is bound to conclude that she has no intention of furnishing these unless and until it appears likely that she will win the nomination, i.e. probably never.
262 - Yeah, you register on their site. Mike previously gave some advice on how you can increase your chances of being selected for polls (put yourself down as a Sun reader who voted Labour in the last election if I remember) but I think they banned him from the site after he wrote about that.
264. That’s quite shocking if true. Did he say it tongue-in-cheek?
265 - What’s shocking?
265. No straight up - they dont need any pensioner conservatives from TW who read the telegraph.
No I did the same and they banned me too!!
I eventually reregistered under a different name though, and since then Lib Dem figs have started recovering.
THEY ARE ONLY POLLS!
266. The fact they go for Labour voting Sun readers.
255
What are the chances of being polled by any one of the organistations?? Anyone have any idea>>>??
I have been able to vote for 36 yrs and never been polled once.. Come to think of it, I have never been on jury service either..
269 - Labour voting Sun readers were under-represented in their panel so anyone registering as such was more likely to be selected for polls.
267 Ghostie - I hope you don’t mind my asking, but what happened to your alter ego - did he suffer a long and painful end?
270 sorry should be ref 259
269
In an attempt to increase my payments I have just undertaken a change of newspaper and a political conversion.
I think the MPs who ran the old “rotten boroughs” had the right idea. All this talk of PR and stopping fraud in postal voting is so passe.
256. When Scottish Council elections were under FPTP, about 50% of voters got the candidate they voted for elected.
Under STV, the proportion of voters who had their first preference candidate elected rose to about 75%.
So STV more accurately reflects voters’ wishes then FPTP. End of.
In the Scottish elections, significantly fewer voters messed up the STV vote than the FPTP votes.
I would suggest that voter turnout depends more on the amount of publicity given to the election and how hard candidates and parties are trying to get the voters’ support than the mechanism of voting.
At the last General Election, my aged mother had a postal vote for the first time. She had two ballots, one for the General and one for the County and somehow managed to get them in the wrong envelopes.
I took the whole lot down to the Council Office who told me to open them up, put them in the right envelope and then sellotape them up again.
I thought at the time this could be an open invitation to fraud. It seems though that the whole system is open to such abuse that it can readily bring an election result into question.
271 Pretending to be a Labour-supporting editor of the Daily Mail would probably stand you in good stead also.
252. Under STV, a 1% swing will produce a 1% net change in seats between parties, instead of (currently) under FPTP about a 2.5% change in seats.
However, the overall turnover in MPs would probably approach FPTP levels, since the Irish experience suggests
“over the years, around 56 per cent of Fianna Fail TDs, and 37 per cent of Fine Gael TDs, who suffer defeat at an election lose to a running mate rather than to a candidate of another party”
See
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-85.pdf
Another Irish analysis of the effect of STV on Wales at the 2005 Westminster election.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/EPOP%202005/Papers/AKavanagh%20EPOP%20Paper.doc
270
If you register with YouGov they will poll you and pay.
278 - “over the years, around 56 per cent of Fianna Fail TDs, and 37 per cent of Fine Gael TDs, who suffer defeat at an election lose to a running mate rather than to a candidate of another party”
A lot of that will be down to geographical differences (eg FG running two candidates from either end of a constituency) and very often the dirtiest campaigning and nastiest tricks end up being played on running mates rather than political opponents.
277. What abot a Tory Morning Star reader?
ChrisD 256.
Regarding your Scot, and welsh point you are correct.
However that I believe is because of election fatigue.
In a general election across the UK, I believe voter participation would rise especially outside the marginals.Where at the moment there is hardly no political activity in safe seats, because people for example in Surrey or parts of South Yorkshire know the result, therefore why should people bother.
At least the last 10 years has opened up the system to differing holders of power, London, Scotland, Wales,and any readers of history in the future will acklowdge the constitutional change.
I have been disaponted its not gone further and I was hoping that Blair would change the system in 97 fundementaly for GE.
Maybe its a forlorn hope especially now but in a tight election Cameron might progress it further.
Conservatives in the 19c took the gamble and it paid off handsomely.
Was Obama’s speech timed well to get coverage from church ministers, priests and pastors on Easter Sunday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20race.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
243: It’s quite difficult to be deselected in any party unless you do something seriously discreditable or try to hang on when you are clearly very ancient indeed. Personal loyalties develop and even in a safe seat parties are chary of dumping an MP who is well-known locally - who knows how the electorate might react?
If the sitting MP stands down it’s another matter. You can easily expect over 200 applications for a safe seat (it is, after all, almost a job for life), whereas at the other end of the spectrum you get maybe five people wanting to be a candidate in a hoepless seat. When I applied for Broxtowe (an apparently fairly hopeless seat, but in the promuising run-up to 1997) I think there were about 50 applications, of whom a dozen or so were well-known local figures or otherwise obviously interesting. There are still people who think I was parachuted in by HQ (who hadn’t heard of me any more than anyone else).
243 - Indeed - I’ve got a vote there and am still undecided…
282 - “at the moment there is hardly no political activity in safe seats, because people for example in Surrey or parts of South Yorkshire know the result, therefore why should people bother.”
The only reason they already know the result is that the vast majority of them are happy with it…
Quentin Letts on yesterday’s PMQs:
http://tinyurl.com/2g9tg7
283 - I was in my tin foil hat about the Pastor Wrght ’scandal’ a couple of days ago. Against McCain, tell me that preachers all talking about Obama and his 20 year relationship with the Christian faith doesn’t help him?
He got to offer a seminal address on race and religion, massive coverage in a lull in his momentum, shut out Hillary and McCain, connect with Christians and African Americans, weather a ‘crisis’, and come out looking good. An accident?
I’m being silly and cynical of course, but the way they’ve played this like a blinder, his campaign can be happy they’ve wrung a great number of positives out of this ‘incident’.
288 - Should his campaign be very happy? His polling has gone south recently, presumably as a result of this, I think it should recover on the basis of his handling of it but I’m not sure this is a certainty.
I am afraid the Gruniad has dropped another b*llock. In an article about shareholders of Northern Rock sueing the Government, it says the General Election is due in May 2009 at the latest. Only a year and more than a months out!!
288. I tend to agree. But many white Christians might not think much of black Christianity anyway, and there will be a large section of working class Democrats who have been turned off by Wright and won’t be turned back on by media elites praising the speech. This can’t be denied.
But, on the other hand, he has played it very well, and, as it was certainly going to happen, it happened at the best possible time for Obama - a month before the next primary, and the maximum time between near-wrapping up of the nomination and the GE.
229 simon. My ‘policy’ is to reproduce tha basic information from each poll as they are published with a link so that PBers may delve further if necessary.
Your accusation that I only reproduce polls favourable to Obama is drivel. Please note my post @ 184.
286. Frank Field, said that MPs in safe seats should have the selection thrown open to a primary, he volunteered his own seat for the first test. Though i think that would be a foregone conclusion.
*If* it has gone south (beyond MOE), and *if* that can be attributed to ‘pastorgate’, I still think they should commend themselves on it not being the disaster that some people orginally thought it might be.
In fact, I think it will bring some people round to him, it will reassure those who already liked him, introduce him to people who might not have seen much of him before, and at very least it will get his name talked about in churches. No more ‘Obama is a Muslim’ rumours - the charge is now being too loyal to his pastor. Christians might prefer that to McCain, whatever sort of Churhc they attend.
I think the positives around this are slow-burning, and this incident will be seen as good for his campaign by the time we reach November.
Borders for sale (going bust)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/20/bcnborder120.xml
seanT’s blockbuster didn’t arrive in time ?
294 - “I think the positives around this are slow-burning, and this incident will be seen as good for his campaign by the time we reach November.”
I hope so.
Latest Gallup Presidential and Nomination Tracker Polls :
McCain 48% .. Clinton 45%
McCain 47% .. Obama 43%
Clinton 48% .. Obama 43%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105517/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Holds-Onto-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx
270 MTF - Were you the invisible man in The Green Man?
Actually I’m of a similar vintage and the same applies. You’ll have seen madasafish at 279, posting that YouGov will pay you for undertaking one of their polls.
298
So far paid £50 and credit of about £45. Never won one of their prizes tho.
Rate per hour is lousy but as it’s fun:-)
Never done jury duty either…
293 I wish Frank Field was my MP and I’m a Tory.
299 Madetc - Do they ever ask for your opinion on different brands of Baked Beans?
178. argh, ken’s stuffed, jonah strikes!
300. Yes. Field is one of only a handful of decent MPs on either side of the house.
292
Jack you are wonderful. But I still think Hilary will be the next President.
304. She’s below 3.6 on b/f now for the first time in ages.
303 …. and also highly capable. Sadly he fell out with Brown so he’s wasted under this administration.
Make the switch Frank and you’ll be a Cabinet Minister in two years’ time!
296, Keep hoping still think its a big ask to win in November.
Kennedy in 60 only just got in.
304 Icarus. Your former insight is outstandingly accurate but desolves into giberingly folly at the business end.
308 LOL - I agree!
“So STV more accurately reflects voters’ wishes then FPTP. End of.”
No, STV was introduced at the behest of politicians who sought to make sure that the voting system favoured the political parties rather than individual candidates or the voter. Just think about the amount of independent councillors up in the North of Scotland. End of.
“In the Scottish elections, significantly fewer voters messed up the STV vote than the FPTP votes.” Does it alter the fact that having two different systems for the Holyrood and local elections contributed to the ballot paper fiasco? Again, the voting systems introduced favoured the political classes rather than the voters, who it seemed yet again were an afterthought.
The voters want their politicians to be more accountable, not less!
Anyone who is completely honest will realise that the various voting systems presently used in Scotland are in place for cynical partisan reasons, the fact that they will try and argue that it is all about making the system reflect the voters wishes is laughable.
The change in the voting system was instigated by politicians, not the voters.
300. Everyone wishes Frank Field was their MP. One of those you’d vote for regardless of party colours.
He should be given a cabinet spot, but i think it wouldn’t be very easy to keep him toeing the party line.
311, G. The risk of not toeing the party line is that you end up wrongfooted.
No they don’t - I dont know how good a constituency MP he is. But he seems to treat the poor as if they gave off a nasty smell. And as for foreigners…
If I am doing him an injustice I apologise now, I have never met him nor have I studied his policies closely.
294
I don’t see how you can regard the Rev Wright business as anything but negative for Mr Obama.
“The essential problem of the speech is that it gives no answer to these queries. Obama recognizes the problem with Wright’s viewpoint, feels strongly that it is part of a problem in society that needs to be corrected, but offers no evidence of his work to correct it. … Many parishioners in many churches or synagogues would do something if their pastors, priests or rabbis went astray on an important issue. Many more would expect a future president to do something.
What could be political trouble for him is that these are specific versions of the general question Hillary Clinton has been asking for weeks. … You can identify the problems, but what have you done about them?”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/on_obamas_speech.html
re 224 Socrates again you completely fail to understand how STV works. It is extremely unlikely that a candidate in a 3 seat constituency would win a seat with 17% of the vote let alone 14%. The parties with support over the quota would put up more than 1 candidate.
The old joke used to regard the Irish as stupid but here you’re going the other way as by implication you’re saying that the GB population is too stupid to understand an STV election. Perhaps Yokel would care to comment.
311. Given that the party line consists entirely of lies, gimmicks and smears, it’s surprising anyone sticks to it.
New thread - Who’s the best bet: Boris or Obama?
310. What is your problem with more voters getting the person they prefer elected?
There still are lots of independent councillors in the North of Scotland - what’s your point?
I agree that having the FPTP constituency votes on the same paper as the top-up list vote was a stich-up by the main parties (all 4 of them) on the Greens.
I also agree that the council elections should be held separately from the Scottish Parliamentary elections. Though sod’s law will probably mean that the council elections are moved to May 2010 and then Gordon Brown will call the General Election for the same date.
315.”The old joke used to regard the Irish as stupid but here you’re going the other way as by implication you’re saying that the GB population is too stupid to understand an STV election.”
Do they have about 4 different voting systems in place at the whim of who ever happens to be in power in any given area at any given time!
I am not impressed with STV, the thought of it being used more widely just depresses me. Back in 97′ we had a voting system which was simple and clear, it worked, and voter turnout went up or down depending on how engaged the public were in changing the status quo.
Now in Scotland we have a confused and chaotic mess which does not serve the voters well, add in the appalling fraud as the Westminster government pushed to increase postal voting and we have now got a voting system held in as much contempt as the politicians who delivered it.
re 319 yes Scotland is a confused and chaotic mess, but that’s not the fault of STV. It wouldn’t be if you used STV for everything and turnout would go up.
318.”310. What is your problem with more voters getting the person they prefer elected?
There still are lots of independent councillors in the North of Scotland - what’s your point?”
Come off it, do you honestly believe that the new system has delivered that for the voters? Take the council by-election system in Scotland now, its become beyond parody. Don’t you think that independent candidates are penalised with this system?
319.We have had STV for a short period of time, but I predict that in the longer term it will disenfranchise voters even more as they become more disillusioned with the whole voting process as cobbled together by politicians for purely partisan reasons. It will in the end not be seen as reflecting a larger % of voters views, but rather more about giving the political parties a more even slice of power with no one in particular then being held responsible. Bit like the EU today, now that really does engage everyone’s interest doesn’t it.
At the end of the day, FPTP was simple and delivered a clear winner elected by the majority, but more importantly someone who was directly connected to an area and responsible to their constituents.