Voting TaKtiX

Tom Watson asks:

Seriously, I’d be interested to know what people think about this stuff. Is it a new way of communicating or just clever marketing and spin?

Both, I think. As Paul Walter observes:

Does he think we were born yesterday? If you were going to do a videcast would you do it while you were doing the washing up?

It’s obviously staged and intended to make him look like a ‘normal’ person, right down to the flat not being 100% clean and tidy. But, essentially, while it is a little cynical, it’s a sign that politicians are learning and adapting to the new media environment. (more…)

We all know that the EU exists solely to make life difficult for people by introducing new, pointless regulations. The very idea that it could make life easier by allowing us free travel, movement, standardising weights and measures and giving us rights if we choose to live or visit any other member state is complete anathema, right? James C. M.:

How DARE they give shoppers choice? How DARE they remove pointless domestic regulations that prevent pensioners and single people from being able to buy anything less than half a loaf when all they might want is a few slices

It’s terrible, isn’t it? Deregulate and allow consumers to choose, so that, for example, a single bloke living alone can buy small packets of stuff that goes off quickly so that he can eat it all before it goes off?

How awful…

D’you think there’s a chance that the Europhobic might, possible, acknowledge when the EU does something they’ve been asking for? A little internal consistency? Nah, silly question, I know.

For those that find remembering which countries are part of what, the Pedant General has created a venn diagram that’s reasonably comprehensive.

He forgot Croatia in the accession countries, and hasn’t covered Council of Europe at all, but, well, the rest are all there. The reasons for us to not be in Schengen still elude me, but there y’go…

Remember this time last year, when they kicked the lifelong party member out of the conference for being honest? Well, guess what? This year?

They’re not even letting him onto the conference floor. That’s despite him now being elected to the NEC (via).

In other news, Gordon Brown is rumoured to be planning to announce plans for a constitutional convention, complete with full written constitution. Maybe Helena Kennedy managed to get to him? So, the question is, is it posturing, is he a genuine reformer, has he been putting up with Tony’s authoritarianism, or is it something he’s going to fuck up completely?

Why is it that even when they’re saying exactly what I want to hear, I don’t believe a word this lot say? Time will tell I guess. (via)

Just briefly, in the comments tot he Tactical post, the topic has drifted to how preferential systems, especially STV are better and negate the need for tactical votes. I thought I’d bring the discussion to the top again. Dave asks:

From the limited amount I know of STV it sounds really good.

I know its probably been writen else where, but could you briefly say roughly how you think STV would work in the UK?

I assume you would need much bigger constituencies? or would you suggest similar size with a lot more MP’s?

If the constituencies were too big then the politics wouldn’t seem as local surely?

Right, without sourcing too much, you’re looking at (more…)

One of the blogs on the blogroll is a contradiction in terms. A Tory atheist with a sense of humour. She’s done some nifty wallpapers that amused, I especially liked the Cameron one, and the Brown one will probably be good for many years to come. Go download, before the puppy gets it.

When I started writing at NLE, I wasn’t a member of any particular party; I was fairly disillusioned with the whole process of party politics generally and partizan sniping as a specific. Far too often, politics and politicians seemed to be about what you were opposed to, not what you were in favour of. The more I wrote, and read the thoughts and opinions of others, the more my views and opinions were refined.
(more…)

Tired of the Govt? (Anyone not already tired of them needs to smell the coffee). We are. Rachel is as well. THE RULES OF THE GAME HAVE CHANGED:

We won’t talk of causes, we’ll talk of effects.
We’ll whip up a horror of radical sects.
(We don’t want to talk about why they are vexed)
The Rules of the Game Have Changed.

Go read the rest

Simon (in a comment at Richard’s):

The fight here is not really between the West and Islam, or even between religion and atheism, but between people who want a “clash of civilisations” and those who don’t. Unfortunately it looks like the Pope is on the wrong side.

The problem here isn’t what the pope said. It isn’t that he was taken out of context and misunderstood. It wasn’t that it was an ill-advised remark from the titular head of a major religion who acts and thinks more like a batty old professor.

The problem with the pope is that such a role still exists. People still buy into this junk. It’s not a war between Christians and Muslims, it’s not the West vs the East. It’s the religious versus the sane, the moderates vs the extremists. There’s a simple way to stop the conflict between religions. Abandon God.

Atheism. You know it makes sense.

OK, took less time than I wanted, many thanks to Pete and Dave for the assists, and Duncan for pointing out the obvious (I had Flashblock installed, it’s absolutely essential for browsing with dial up, but it was stopping the weird stuff displaying). So I now have my nice grey-sludge post background, curved boxes in Safari and Mozilla and blue links and purple visited links like what they’re meant to be. Cool beans. Now, Lib Dem conference stuff or The Cameron Project?

When you vote, do you vote Expressively, or Rationally? Most party activists and committed partizans will vote expressively, and assume that voters do likewise. However, many voters will vote rationally, seeking to maximise the impact their vote will have on the result. It is this tendency, that most activists find hard to relate to, that leads to the phenomena referred to as “tactical voting”. Still with me? Good, let me explain…
(more…)

Tim’s got the weekly best of up, which is good. Especially liked Gavin’s post on UK partisanship.

Hmm, a challenge for me. Can I break the blogger’s block and write something good enough for inclusion in nest weeks? Meh, we’ll see.

Well, it took me long enough. I’ve had the domain set up for months, it was just a question of timing and inclination. Got there now. (more…)

From new blogger Sammy Morse:

Personally, I doubt Blair will last 12 months or anything like it. Until he goes, civil war will reign in the Labour Party. Unlike Blair, too many people in the Labour Party have an interest in not losing the next election for that to happen. Unless they’re really, really stupid. And I don’t think they are. … Brown will be a disaster as Labour leader. If Brown really had the capacity to be leader, he would have become so after the Granita restaurant, after Blair was clearly out of step with the country on the war, after Labour lost 50 seats at the General Election, etc., etc. He didn’t because he has no killer instinct and no real leadership skills. Brown likes to skulk in the corner and avoid difficult issues

He goes on to analyse the state of the parties, the poll rankings, the likely effect on the next election, etc. It’s one of those “I wish I’d written that” posts, well worth a read.

In addition, Caramel Betty asks “what’s Charles Clarke up to?” and has re read his resignation speech:

However, I do not think it would be appropriate to remain in government in these circumstances and return to the backbenches, where I will be a strong and active supporter of this government and the leadership of Tony Blair for his full parliamentary term.

Do we detect a note of “well Gordon’ll never give me a job” in the Safety Elephant’s behaviour? In the meantime?

Keep an eye on Jack Straw over the weekend. Have fun in the Middle East Tony…