This would also be a problem with compulsory voting. Some people just wouldn't be able to get to the polls, and therefore there wishes would never be registered.
You can have a postal vote. You can have a proxy vote. You might not be able to get 100% turnout but I bet you could get 97% without too much trouble.
That has not really been an issue here. Those who can't get to a polling booth are able to cast an absentee vote, which will be counted with all the others. In the last Federal election, about 90% of those eligible voted, and my last State election it was around 88%.
The most common concern over postal ballots is that votes may not be secret within households where ballots may be filled in without the privacy of the polling booth. This can be a particular concern in households where there is abusive coercion and one member of the household can effectively dictate how everyone there votes.
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Your ballot has a serial number on it - which leads to rather more immediate risks.
That is indeed a problem. I wouldn't call it "more immediate" though. Isn't there some encryption method that could preserve the legitimate reasons for the serial number without enabling the extremely serious breach of privacy the link describes?
Over 20% of votes in general elections are now made by post. The biggest factors relate to age and disability. In the last 5 years, there is little evidence of widespread electoral fraud of any type. The biggest effect of restricting postal voting would be to reduce turnout.
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
Hmmmm...
AFZ
*2001 - I just checked
Hard to prove to the standards necessary for a criminal conviction, I would think. Although there were investigations in Tower Hamlets after irregularities a while back.
My view as a non-professional is that there may well be fraud in houses with an abusive parent (for example) filling in everyone's postal votes. Possibly even filling in postal votes for people who have since left the propery or died.
On the whole, this is unlikely to make much difference as constituency votes for the HoC are rarely that close.
There are obviously advantages in extending the franchise to the housebound.
Without actual evidence of fraud, it would seem that the realised benefits outweigh the nebulous drawbacks.
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
Hmmmm...
AFZ
*2001 - I just checked
Hard to prove to the standards necessary for a criminal conviction, I would think. Although there were investigations in Tower Hamlets after irregularities a while back.
My view as a non-professional is that there may well be fraud in houses with an abusive parent (for example) filling in everyone's postal votes. Possibly even filling in postal votes for people who have since left the propery or died.
On the whole, this is unlikely to make much difference as constituency votes for the HoC are rarely that close.
There are obviously advantages in extending the franchise to the housebound.
Without actual evidence of fraud, it would seem that the realised benefits outweigh the nebulous drawbacks.
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
Hmmmm...
AFZ
*2001 - I just checked
Hard to prove to the standards necessary for a criminal conviction, I would think. Although there were investigations in Tower Hamlets after irregularities a while back.
My view as a non-professional is that there may well be fraud in houses with an abusive parent (for example) filling in everyone's postal votes. Possibly even filling in postal votes for people who have since left the propery or died.
On the whole, this is unlikely to make much difference as constituency votes for the HoC are rarely that close.
There are obviously advantages in extending the franchise to the housebound.
Without actual evidence of fraud, it would seem that the realised benefits outweigh the nebulous drawbacks.
Like not requiring voter ID, perhaps?
No idea what you mean or what you think I support or don't support.
Perhaps take a little longer to post coherently if you want a discussion?
On a tangential note I don't like postal votes. They dilute the principle of the secret ballot. It would be possible to intimidate or bribe a postal voter and, importantly, check up on them so that you'd know you'd been successful. I think they should only be available for very good reasons.
On that tangential note, I don't think I follow. How is a postal voter especially vulnerable?
I have a postal vote. I miss voting in person but it's necessary.
I leave for work at 7. It's not unusual for me to be late home. Therefore, without knowing in advance when an election will occur, means I cannot be sure of being able to vote. This year, I am away at a conference on election day...
I think a postal vote being easily available is a very good thing.
AFZ
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
Hmmmm...
AFZ
*2001 - I just checked
Hard to prove to the standards necessary for a criminal conviction, I would think. Although there were investigations in Tower Hamlets after irregularities a while back.
My view as a non-professional is that there may well be fraud in houses with an abusive parent (for example) filling in everyone's postal votes. Possibly even filling in postal votes for people who have since left the propery or died.
On the whole, this is unlikely to make much difference as constituency votes for the HoC are rarely that close.
There are obviously advantages in extending the franchise to the housebound.
Without actual evidence of fraud, it would seem that the realised benefits outweigh the nebulous drawbacks.
Like not requiring voter ID, perhaps?
No idea what you mean or what you think I support or don't support.
Perhaps take a little longer to post coherently if you want a discussion?
My apologies, for not being clear. I assumed most readers of the thread would understand the parallel.
I agree with you, that based on what we know, the benefits of postal voting outweigh the theoretical risks. In the past two years, the government has rolled out voter ID to prevent voter personation - which we know is a virtually non-existent problem - with the result that hundreds of thousands were effectively disenfranchised at the last local elections. Who knows how many will be turned away in two weeks' time?
And that would be the issue, we don’t have a nation ID card, a good thing I think given how the government has behaved in the recent past, and the decisions over what counts have been decidedly skewed,
Well I don't agree with that. ID at polling stations seems entirely reasonable to me - providing the ID card is easily available.
That's fair, in principle. However, the fact is that many people do not have suitable ID.
The parallel still holds though because we know that personation is not a problem. We are talking literally one conviction in a decade vs millions disenfranchised.
The Liberals died in the 1920s. There is a famous book, The Strange Death of Liberal England.
The Tories will, however, be replaced by something.
Options:
Reform or Reform lite.
A more moderate and pragmatic New Conservative Party, attractive to prosperous people in prosperous shires. Maybe pro-EU.
An enlarged and somewhat modified Liberal Democrats.
What there will not be is a void. Plenty of people are vaguely 'conservative' in their thinking, it's just uniting enough of them behind a particular set of policies. This is what Labour has done. The process is not necessarily pretty, and it certainly won't please all those who have voted Tory over the last 30 years.
If the Conservative party loses the election and Mr Sunak resigns as leader who will actually still be there to be elected his successor? If the more hardened right wingers survive the public vote then the party may go further that way but if the moderates are the ones who we see again and one of them is elected it may bring them back towards (and beyond) Labour.
If the Conservative party loses the election and Mr Sunak resigns as leader who will actually still be there to be elected his successor? If the more hardened right wingers survive the public vote then the party may go further that way but if the moderates are the ones who we see again and one of them is elected it may bring them back towards (and beyond) Labour.
This is why I can see the LibDems becoming a Centre-Right party, much more centre than right, to fill the gap. They have always garnered a reasonable amount of support in this way previously. I can see them picking up one-nation Tories.
I could be getting this all wrong but some people are making the assumption that Reform and the Tories will unite and be an effective force. I could happen. However there is a lot of the remnant Tory support who want nothing to do with Reform. Equally there are a lot within the Conservative membership who are very close to Reform. I think on balance, a Reformative party is not an electoral threat to the Labour party. They have a core of very loud support (aka the "Silent Majority" which is in fact, neither) but not enough to win elections, even if they can unite. Hence I think a fractured right is what we will see for a while with the LibDems taking some of their centrist support.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
It might be that there's a new right wing party or that the Tories finally come back to their one-nation roots.
I think it will take a little while to resolve and for us to see how this is going to go...
In that window, if Labour is brave, they can begin to reverse the Overton-window's rightward shift that has been the feature of my whole life.*
AFZ
*I dispute the argument that Blair was right of centre but Blair and Brown only moved within the window that Thatcher had successfully framed. They never moved the window back, in my view.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
Interesting point.
I need to look at the 100 safest seats more closely perhaps.
However, of the big names of the party, I'm not sure any sane ones will be left. Can the rump of the parliamentary party get down to 2 sane candidates for the members to choose from or will one of the Reform-lite crew inevitably be put to the membership?
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
I think that at the moment there are not severe problems but it is as well to head off these issues in advance. I think the problems with turnout could be avoided by making voting compulsory and extending polling hours.
The most common concern over postal ballots is that votes may not be secret within households where ballots may be filled in without the privacy of the polling booth. This can be a particular concern in households where there is abusive coercion and one member of the household can effectively dictate how everyone there votes.
(There's a related concern over "vote farming" where it's a local organizer / enforcer who is exerting the coercion, rather than the dominant member of the household.)
I don't think there's evidence that these practices are widespread.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
I think that at the moment there are not severe problems but it is as well to head off these issues in advance. I think the problems with turnout could be avoided by making voting compulsory and extending polling hours.
I've believed in compulsory voting, with increased access to the polls for over 3 decades now.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
Interesting point.
I need to look at the 100 safest seats more closely perhaps.
However, of the big names of the party, I'm not sure any sane ones will be left. Can the rump of the parliamentary party get down to 2 sane candidates for the members to choose from or will one of the Reform-lite crew inevitably be put to the membership?
AFZ
Totally depends on the maths in the parliamentary party, as they have to choose the two to go to the membership. Not totally out of the question that they'd have the numbers to shoot the right's candidate and put forward two of their own. Tbh if I was advising them, which thank God I'm not, that's what I would be suggesting as a course of action. Purge the right of the members by not giving them the leader they want.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
Interesting point.
I need to look at the 100 safest seats more closely perhaps.
However, of the big names of the party, I'm not sure any sane ones will be left.
AFZ
I'm not sure there'll be many big names left - and most of those that there are will be the loonies. *but* I think they will be massively outnumbered by the remaining Wet(ers) (not sure there are many Wets left), and an influx of Cameroons who have been nabbing what currently pass for safe seats in the pre-election process.
What I do foresee is an outbreak of open warfare between the party members and the MPs. But really the MPs ought (eventually) to win, given they control basically all the levers.
FWIW there is no postal voting in France and the old and disabled still vote. If you can't make it to your polling station in person you have to vote by proxy. The main political parties all have systems in place to help you find a proxy if you need one.
TBH as an overseas elector I think I would have preferred something like this to the postal vote I have. I could have applied for a proxy vote in the UK (more reliable than depending on the postal service to get there on time) but the only people I could ask are family members with whom I strenuously avoid discussing politics. If I could just have contacted the party I wish to vote for and asked them to find someone willing to be a proxy in my constituency it would have made my life simpler.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
Interesting point.
I need to look at the 100 safest seats more closely perhaps.
However, of the big names of the party, I'm not sure any sane ones will be left.
AFZ
I'm not sure there'll be many big names left - and most of those that there are will be the loonies. *but* I think they will be massively outnumbered by the remaining Wet(ers) (not sure there are many Wets left), and an influx of Cameroons who have been nabbing what currently pass for safe seats in the pre-election process.
What I do foresee is an outbreak of open warfare between the party members and the MPs. But really the MPs ought (eventually) to win, given they control basically all the levers.
It's not a very good medium-to-long term position to be in, though, is it? If your party membership doesn't really like you, they're unlikely to work and campaign very hard for you, surely?
I had a shed load of stuff through my letterbox today. Together with voting papers I had two different leaflets from the Labour candidate featuring a nice picture of the toolmakers son (or should I say factory owner) with his sleeves rolled up. Perhaps Labour have a nice little arangement with the local posties? Still nothing from anywhere else.
The Labour candidate lives in the constituency. All the others, bar one, live in Sheffield. The Conservative candidate lives in St Albans and may not know the precise location of his prospective seat. He probably wont need to.
It's not a very good medium-to-long term position to be in, though, is it? If your party membership doesn't really like you, they're unlikely to work and campaign very hard for you, surely?
Except that lots of the left of the party peeled off to the Liberals and elsewhere in response to the rise of the nutters (Thick of It reference). A parliamentary party more to the left, and back in control (ie when it’s won) should see the soft Tory left back in the camp and helping. Basically aside from some die in a ditchers who stay as a matter of principle, the only members left are ones happy with the current madness, so a party would be unwise to have a strategy of relying on them if it actually wants power. Which, historically, (and aside from anything else) the Tories always do.
Sorry - I think my point is to the opposite to yours. Medium to long term they’ll be fine (worse luck), it’s the short term that’s going to be a bloodbath.
Half my family are soft Tories, and I know a couple of current MPs (despite blue not being my colour.
The other half are redder than a red thing’s red bits. One of my consequential talents is a reasonable ear to the ground in the reality of both parties. Ironically, I know far less about the inner machinations of the Liberals despite voting for them off and on. Perhaps that’s why!
It's not a very good medium-to-long term position to be in, though, is it? If your party membership doesn't really like you, they're unlikely to work and campaign very hard for you, surely?
Both tories and Labour seem to have decided that a mass membership is rather infra dig* and that being bankrolled by billionaires is where it's at.
It's not a very good medium-to-long term position to be in, though, is it? If your party membership doesn't really like you, they're unlikely to work and campaign very hard for you, surely?
Except that lots of the left of the party peeled off to the Liberals and elsewhere in response to the rise of the nutters (Thick of It reference).
Although the 'Nutters' in the episode in question were the supporters of the Labour chancellor.
It's not a very good medium-to-long term position to be in, though, is it? If your party membership doesn't really like you, they're unlikely to work and campaign very hard for you, surely?
The Tories don't rely on a "ground game" to the same extent as some of the party parties, and often professionalise elements of it.
Sorry - I think my point is to the opposite to yours. Medium to long term they’ll be fine (worse luck), it’s the short term that’s going to be a bloodbath.
Yes and No.
The Tory party has done a lot of damage and shutting them out of power for a while is a good thing but the greatest sin of the past decade is pandering to UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. And it's that sin that's brought them down.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
I think there's plenty of blame around to go around. Farage's success was overdetermined and austerity played a big role in bringing it about (remember Farage resigned in 2009, but then came back after 2010 and focused UKIP on anti-austerity).
Sorry - I think my point is to the opposite to yours. Medium to long term they’ll be fine (worse luck), it’s the short term that’s going to be a bloodbath.
Yes and No.
The Tory party has done a lot of damage and shutting them out of power for a while is a good thing but the greatest sin of the past decade is pandering to UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. And it's that sin that's brought them down.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
AFZ
Even as a non-voter of the Big Two I don’t think it’s generally helpful to think in terms of ‘shut out’ - any government that doesn’t think it’s possible to be booted within five years tends to be a bad one in FPTP. Labour could only go on the Iraq adventure because the leadership knew in 2003 that they were basically safe in 2005, for example.
(Slight vested interest for me there)
I think the Tories deserve to be out of office, Labour absolutely do not deserve to be in office untrammelled by threat to their position.
Although mischievously I suppose that if Labour go rogue in office then we will be able to blame the Tories for giving them all the rope! So it’ll still be their fault.
Sorry - I think my point is to the opposite to yours. Medium to long term they’ll be fine (worse luck), it’s the short term that’s going to be a bloodbath.
Yes and No.
The Tory party has done a lot of damage and shutting them out of power for a while is a good thing but the greatest sin of the past decade is pandering to UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. And it's that sin that's brought them down.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
AFZ
Even as a non-voter of the Big Two I don’t think it’s generally helpful to think in terms of ‘shut out’ - any government that doesn’t think it’s possible to be booted within five years tends to be a bad one in FPTP. Labour could only go on the Iraq adventure because the leadership knew in 2003 that they were basically safe in 2005, for example.
(Slight vested interest for me there)
I think the Tories deserve to be out of office, Labour absolutely do not deserve to be in office untrammelled by threat to their position.
The Liberals died in the 1920s. There is a famous book, The Strange Death of Liberal England.
The Tories will, however, be replaced by something.
Options:
Reform or Reform lite.
A more moderate and pragmatic New Conservative Party, attractive to prosperous people in prosperous shires. Maybe pro-EU.
An enlarged and somewhat modified Liberal Democrats.
What there will not be is a void. Plenty of people are vaguely 'conservative' in their thinking, it's just uniting enough of them behind a particular set of policies. This is what Labour has done. The process is not necessarily pretty, and it certainly won't please all those who have voted Tory over the last 30 years.
It would be very strange if Canada winds up retaining the Liberal and Conservative (Tory) political party monikers while they go or have gone extinct in the UK.
FWIW the Canadian nickname for the Libetals is the 'Grits' from the Clear Grit party, their ancestors under George Brown in the 1850's.
Sorry - I think my point is to the opposite to yours. Medium to long term they’ll be fine (worse luck), it’s the short term that’s going to be a bloodbath.
Yes and No.
The Tory party has done a lot of damage and shutting them out of power for a while is a good thing but the greatest sin of the past decade is pandering to UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. And it's that sin that's brought them down.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
AFZ
Even as a non-voter of the Big Two I don’t think it’s generally helpful to think in terms of ‘shut out’ - any government that doesn’t think it’s possible to be booted within five years tends to be a bad one in FPTP. Labour could only go on the Iraq adventure because the leadership knew in 2003 that they were basically safe in 2005, for example.
(Slight vested interest for me there)
I think the Tories deserve to be out of office, Labour absolutely do not deserve to be in office untrammelled by threat to their position.
I get it. I remember and respect your stance on Iraq.
I do not want a government without effective opposition. I just want the effective opposition to come from a place of sanity and facts and sensible policy. None of which was actually offered by Cameron's Conservative party, never mind the crazies in charge now. That's what I mean by 'shut out being a good thing'
What I'm longing for is a healthy shift of the Overton window...
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
I think there's plenty of blame around to go around. Farage's success was overdetermined and austerity played a big role in bringing it about (remember Farage resigned in 2009, but then came back after 2010 and focused UKIP on anti-austerity).
I am completely with you here. There is good evidence that austerity was an important cause of Brexit. However, to me, the proximate cause is Cameron pandering to UKIP rather than standing up to it. The calculation was blatant: "If I offer a referendum on the EU, I can win an election." Cameron recklessly risked the nation's prosperity rather than risk losing power.
Which brings me back to a point I made a few posts ago, if Brexit (and all that followed) ends up destroying the party, then there would be a certain poetic justice. Again, I don't say that with glee or malice.
<snip>a nice picture of the toolmakers son (or should I say factory owner) <snip>
Local information that I can find online suggests that Rodney Starmer rented premises in Hurst Green (near Ajax) from which he worked as a toolmaker in his small toolmaking business trading as Oxted Tool Company. I don’t know if he had employees. He may have done as Keir worked in the business which his father described as a factory, though its location suggests it can only ever have been small.
The Liberals died in the 1920s. There is a famous book, The Strange Death of Liberal England.
The Tories will, however, be replaced by something.
Options:
Reform or Reform lite.
A more moderate and pragmatic New Conservative Party, attractive to prosperous people in prosperous shires. Maybe pro-EU.
An enlarged and somewhat modified Liberal Democrats.
What there will not be is a void. Plenty of people are vaguely 'conservative' in their thinking, it's just uniting enough of them behind a particular set of policies. This is what Labour has done. The process is not necessarily pretty, and it certainly won't please all those who have voted Tory over the last 30 years.
I'm not entirely sure how true it is either that Dangerfield is right or that the Liberals died in the 1920s.
They were eclipsed by the rise of the Labour Party, but they still existed right down to their merger with the SDP in the 1980s. They were squeezed by FPTP in the 1920s, but Labour got fairly near to going the same way in the early 1930s. They didn't really revive electorally until 1945. Most of the main socio-political developments and significantly influential policies in the UK between 1910 and at least the 1960s derive more from Lloyd-George than anyone else.
True socialists on these threads and elsewhere will spit blood at this, but there are quite good arguments for regretting Labour's decision to go its own way from the middle of the First World War. The argument is that by splitting the reformist/progressive vote, that condemned the UK to a Conservative predominance for the rest of the period since. With the exception of 1945, the Labour Party has been successful when it has emulated the approximate political space that the Liberals occupied prior to 1914, viz Wilson, Kinnock/Smith/Blair/Brown, and potentially now, and has signally failed when it has determinedly chosen the political space its more ideological members love, but the public won't vote for, viz Benn/Foot and Corbyn.
The argument is that by splitting the reformist/progressive vote, that condemned the UK to a Conservative predominance for the rest of the period since. With the exception of 1945, the Labour Party has been successful when it has emulated the approximate political space that the Liberals occupied prior to 1914, viz Wilson, Kinnock/Smith/Blair/Brown, and
First, 1945 was a large reconfiguration in terms social welfare, industrial policy and workers rights (as well as penal reform) - those policies then shaped how the population came to see the role of the state and political struggle over the ensuing decades. Second, it is doubtful that the Liberal Party would have remained fixed in aspic post 1914 given their social base. You can look at the trajectories of other Liberal parties across the Anglosphere to see that they've gradually shifted rightwards and generally had limited appetite for progressive policies except when expressed in fairly individualist terms.
Which points to the fact that the Anglosphere presents a series of natural experiments for what happens if a country starts off with two parties balanced around a right/centre-right axis rather than a left/right one, and the results don't lead in the direction you suggest they would.
I don't believe Canada supports your thesis. To be clear, the Canadian and Australian Liberal Parties are utterly different creatures united only by the name and the Canadian one is far older.
To be fair, the Canadian federal Liberals were rank and unrepentent corporatists in the 1950's then veered left in the 1960's to steal CCF/NDP votes. They went right again in the 1990's with budget austerity and now appear to trending left of where they were then.
This reflects that Canada has a regionally-based party dynamic and Duverger's Law has never applied in Canada, especially federally.
FWIW the Canadian nickname for the Libetals is the 'Grits' from the Clear Grit party, their ancestors under George Brown in the 1850's.
Aka Failed In London Tried New York Failed In New York Tried Toronto(FILTNYFINYTT).
And possibly also deserving a place with T. Darcy McGee among assassinated Canadian politicians, though a) it was a disgruntled employee at the Globe, not a political zealot, who killed Brown, and b) the gun possibly went off accidentally during the kerfuffle.
Failef In London Try Hong Kong(FILFTH), anti-expat insult.
Comments
That has not really been an issue here. Those who can't get to a polling booth are able to cast an absentee vote, which will be counted with all the others. In the last Federal election, about 90% of those eligible voted, and my last State election it was around 88%.
A postal voter is especially vulnerable because the person intimidating or bribing them could stand over them as they filled in their ballot, so that they knew they'd voted in a particular way. If you bribe or threaten someone who goes to a polling station, they may agree to vote in a particular way, but they can switch to their true preference when they mark their cross and no-one would know.
I'm not saying no-one should ever have a postal vote. I just think it has potential drawbacks and should not be too widespread.
That is indeed a problem. I wouldn't call it "more immediate" though. Isn't there some encryption method that could preserve the legitimate reasons for the serial number without enabling the extremely serious breach of privacy the link describes?
Ok. I see the logic that a vote may not be fully secret.
Is there any evidence of problems? For a start, do we have stats on how many postal votes there are and the make up of the households? Is it a real problem or just a theoretical one?
As to access to postal votes: it used to be the case that one had to justify the request. When it was liberalised,* my ability to participate in the democratic process improved for the reasons noted. What's the balance of these two things? And is a proxy vote more dangerous than a postal one?
Hmmmm...
AFZ
*2001 - I just checked
Hard to prove to the standards necessary for a criminal conviction, I would think. Although there were investigations in Tower Hamlets after irregularities a while back.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47535867
My view as a non-professional is that there may well be fraud in houses with an abusive parent (for example) filling in everyone's postal votes. Possibly even filling in postal votes for people who have since left the propery or died.
On the whole, this is unlikely to make much difference as constituency votes for the HoC are rarely that close.
There are obviously advantages in extending the franchise to the housebound.
Without actual evidence of fraud, it would seem that the realised benefits outweigh the nebulous drawbacks.
Like not requiring voter ID, perhaps?
No idea what you mean or what you think I support or don't support.
Perhaps take a little longer to post coherently if you want a discussion?
My apologies, for not being clear. I assumed most readers of the thread would understand the parallel.
I agree with you, that based on what we know, the benefits of postal voting outweigh the theoretical risks. In the past two years, the government has rolled out voter ID to prevent voter personation - which we know is a virtually non-existent problem - with the result that hundreds of thousands were effectively disenfranchised at the last local elections. Who knows how many will be turned away in two weeks' time?
AFZ
And that would be the issue, we don’t have a nation ID card, a good thing I think given how the government has behaved in the recent past, and the decisions over what counts have been decidedly skewed,
That's fair, in principle. However, the fact is that many people do not have suitable ID.
The parallel still holds though because we know that personation is not a problem. We are talking literally one conviction in a decade vs millions disenfranchised.
AFZ
The Tories will, however, be replaced by something.
Options:
Reform or Reform lite.
A more moderate and pragmatic New Conservative Party, attractive to prosperous people in prosperous shires. Maybe pro-EU.
An enlarged and somewhat modified Liberal Democrats.
What there will not be is a void. Plenty of people are vaguely 'conservative' in their thinking, it's just uniting enough of them behind a particular set of policies. This is what Labour has done. The process is not necessarily pretty, and it certainly won't please all those who have voted Tory over the last 30 years.
This is why I can see the LibDems becoming a Centre-Right party, much more centre than right, to fill the gap. They have always garnered a reasonable amount of support in this way previously. I can see them picking up one-nation Tories.
I could be getting this all wrong but some people are making the assumption that Reform and the Tories will unite and be an effective force. I could happen. However there is a lot of the remnant Tory support who want nothing to do with Reform. Equally there are a lot within the Conservative membership who are very close to Reform. I think on balance, a Reformative party is not an electoral threat to the Labour party. They have a core of very loud support (aka the "Silent Majority" which is in fact, neither) but not enough to win elections, even if they can unite. Hence I think a fractured right is what we will see for a while with the LibDems taking some of their centrist support.
I think the Tories will inevitable move right after the election as the MPs that are likely to survive the election are from the crack-pot wing.
It might be that there's a new right wing party or that the Tories finally come back to their one-nation roots.
I think it will take a little while to resolve and for us to see how this is going to go...
In that window, if Labour is brave, they can begin to reverse the Overton-window's rightward shift that has been the feature of my whole life.*
AFZ
*I dispute the argument that Blair was right of centre but Blair and Brown only moved within the window that Thatcher had successfully framed. They never moved the window back, in my view.
Can't think of any others offhand, apart from Tom Tugendhat.
I don't think this is true - people are extrapolating from a few well known 'crack pots' to most of the well known crack pots. IMO the election will mostly leave a parliamentary Tory party well to the left of its voters. I don't mean on the left, obviously. But it is not going to leave a rump of headbangers. Reading the runes it'll be mostly what today passes for the One Nation wing.
It's going to be chaos, in many of the ways you suggest, but IMO not for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, as with a Parliamentary Labour party well to the right of its voters, it does make it easier for the parliamentary parties to tack to where the electorate is, ass opposed to where their electorate is...
Interesting point.
I need to look at the 100 safest seats more closely perhaps.
However, of the big names of the party, I'm not sure any sane ones will be left. Can the rump of the parliamentary party get down to 2 sane candidates for the members to choose from or will one of the Reform-lite crew inevitably be put to the membership?
AFZ
Trying to stop people voting has always been more of a tory thing. Besides, I think most 16 year olds would look askance at Starmer and co.
What children?
It may interest you to know that not all old people either vote Conservative and/or use a postal vote.
I think that at the moment there are not severe problems but it is as well to head off these issues in advance. I think the problems with turnout could be avoided by making voting compulsory and extending polling hours.
(There's a related concern over "vote farming" where it's a local organizer / enforcer who is exerting the coercion, rather than the dominant member of the household.)
I don't think there's evidence that these practices are widespread.
I've believed in compulsory voting, with increased access to the polls for over 3 decades now.
Totally depends on the maths in the parliamentary party, as they have to choose the two to go to the membership. Not totally out of the question that they'd have the numbers to shoot the right's candidate and put forward two of their own. Tbh if I was advising them, which thank God I'm not, that's what I would be suggesting as a course of action. Purge the right of the members by not giving them the leader they want.
I'm not sure there'll be many big names left - and most of those that there are will be the loonies. *but* I think they will be massively outnumbered by the remaining Wet(ers) (not sure there are many Wets left), and an influx of Cameroons who have been nabbing what currently pass for safe seats in the pre-election process.
What I do foresee is an outbreak of open warfare between the party members and the MPs. But really the MPs ought (eventually) to win, given they control basically all the levers.
TBH as an overseas elector I think I would have preferred something like this to the postal vote I have. I could have applied for a proxy vote in the UK (more reliable than depending on the postal service to get there on time) but the only people I could ask are family members with whom I strenuously avoid discussing politics. If I could just have contacted the party I wish to vote for and asked them to find someone willing to be a proxy in my constituency it would have made my life simpler.
Yeah, I can definitely see this happening.
The Labour candidate lives in the constituency. All the others, bar one, live in Sheffield. The Conservative candidate lives in St Albans and may not know the precise location of his prospective seat. He probably wont need to.
Except that lots of the left of the party peeled off to the Liberals and elsewhere in response to the rise of the nutters (Thick of It reference). A parliamentary party more to the left, and back in control (ie when it’s won) should see the soft Tory left back in the camp and helping. Basically aside from some die in a ditchers who stay as a matter of principle, the only members left are ones happy with the current madness, so a party would be unwise to have a strategy of relying on them if it actually wants power. Which, historically, (and aside from anything else) the Tories always do.
The other half are redder than a red thing’s red bits. One of my consequential talents is a reasonable ear to the ground in the reality of both parties. Ironically, I know far less about the inner machinations of the Liberals despite voting for them off and on. Perhaps that’s why!
Both tories and Labour seem to have decided that a mass membership is rather infra dig* and that being bankrolled by billionaires is where it's at.
*beneath [their] dignity
Although the 'Nutters' in the episode in question were the supporters of the Labour chancellor.
The Tories don't rely on a "ground game" to the same extent as some of the party parties, and often professionalise elements of it.
Yes and No.
The Tory party has done a lot of damage and shutting them out of power for a while is a good thing but the greatest sin of the past decade is pandering to UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform. And it's that sin that's brought them down.
If they end up losing the nutters, that'll be a good thing for the body politic. Giving Farage a cloak of respectability is the greatest failing of Cameron, even greater than austerity. Which is difficult for me to say.
AFZ
I think there's plenty of blame around to go around. Farage's success was overdetermined and austerity played a big role in bringing it about (remember Farage resigned in 2009, but then came back after 2010 and focused UKIP on anti-austerity).
Even as a non-voter of the Big Two I don’t think it’s generally helpful to think in terms of ‘shut out’ - any government that doesn’t think it’s possible to be booted within five years tends to be a bad one in FPTP. Labour could only go on the Iraq adventure because the leadership knew in 2003 that they were basically safe in 2005, for example.
(Slight vested interest for me there)
I think the Tories deserve to be out of office, Labour absolutely do not deserve to be in office untrammelled by threat to their position.
I agree, but it looks like they will be
It would be very strange if Canada winds up retaining the Liberal and Conservative (Tory) political party monikers while they go or have gone extinct in the UK.
FWIW the Canadian nickname for the Libetals is the 'Grits' from the Clear Grit party, their ancestors under George Brown in the 1850's.
I get it. I remember and respect your stance on Iraq.
I do not want a government without effective opposition. I just want the effective opposition to come from a place of sanity and facts and sensible policy. None of which was actually offered by Cameron's Conservative party, never mind the crazies in charge now. That's what I mean by 'shut out being a good thing'
What I'm longing for is a healthy shift of the Overton window...
I am completely with you here. There is good evidence that austerity was an important cause of Brexit. However, to me, the proximate cause is Cameron pandering to UKIP rather than standing up to it. The calculation was blatant: "If I offer a referendum on the EU, I can win an election." Cameron recklessly risked the nation's prosperity rather than risk losing power.
Which brings me back to a point I made a few posts ago, if Brexit (and all that followed) ends up destroying the party, then there would be a certain poetic justice. Again, I don't say that with glee or malice.
AFZ
They were eclipsed by the rise of the Labour Party, but they still existed right down to their merger with the SDP in the 1980s. They were squeezed by FPTP in the 1920s, but Labour got fairly near to going the same way in the early 1930s. They didn't really revive electorally until 1945. Most of the main socio-political developments and significantly influential policies in the UK between 1910 and at least the 1960s derive more from Lloyd-George than anyone else.
True socialists on these threads and elsewhere will spit blood at this, but there are quite good arguments for regretting Labour's decision to go its own way from the middle of the First World War. The argument is that by splitting the reformist/progressive vote, that condemned the UK to a Conservative predominance for the rest of the period since. With the exception of 1945, the Labour Party has been successful when it has emulated the approximate political space that the Liberals occupied prior to 1914, viz Wilson, Kinnock/Smith/Blair/Brown, and potentially now, and has signally failed when it has determinedly chosen the political space its more ideological members love, but the public won't vote for, viz Benn/Foot and Corbyn.
First, 1945 was a large reconfiguration in terms social welfare, industrial policy and workers rights (as well as penal reform) - those policies then shaped how the population came to see the role of the state and political struggle over the ensuing decades. Second, it is doubtful that the Liberal Party would have remained fixed in aspic post 1914 given their social base. You can look at the trajectories of other Liberal parties across the Anglosphere to see that they've gradually shifted rightwards and generally had limited appetite for progressive policies except when expressed in fairly individualist terms.
Which points to the fact that the Anglosphere presents a series of natural experiments for what happens if a country starts off with two parties balanced around a right/centre-right axis rather than a left/right one, and the results don't lead in the direction you suggest they would.
I don't believe Canada supports your thesis. To be clear, the Canadian and Australian Liberal Parties are utterly different creatures united only by the name and the Canadian one is far older.
To be fair, the Canadian federal Liberals were rank and unrepentent corporatists in the 1950's then veered left in the 1960's to steal CCF/NDP votes. They went right again in the 1990's with budget austerity and now appear to trending left of where they were then.
This reflects that Canada has a regionally-based party dynamic and Duverger's Law has never applied in Canada, especially federally.
Aka Failed In London Tried New York Failed In New York Tried Toronto(FILTNYFINYTT).
And possibly also deserving a place with T. Darcy McGee among assassinated Canadian politicians, though a) it was a disgruntled employee at the Globe, not a political zealot, who killed Brown, and b) the gun possibly went off accidentally during the kerfuffle.