As background, John Redwood is a lifelong politician, and an MP for the pro-EU party known as the Conservatives (aka Tories).
If truth be told, he likes the current voting system ('First past the post') because it makes it easier for him to get re-elected and easier for his party (one of the two large parties) to obtain an absolute majority in Parliament; and he doesn't like the 'Alternative Voting' system (whereby each voter can rank candidates in order) because he knows that a lot of Conservative voters would give their first vote to a smaller anti-EU party known as UKIP (even though it is broadly accepted that most of these voters would still give their second vote to the Conservatives, so it is unlike to affect the outcome of the election very much).
But being a politician, he can't admit this and has to pretend he is doing this out of principle. He even tries using "logic" and falls flat on his arse:
Let us suppose that in a marginal the Conservatives last won with 37% of the vote. Labour had 31%, Lib Dems 22%, UKIP 3%, others 7%. If the UKIP theory is right and numerous Conservatives switch to UKIP on first preference, the AV first round result might be Conservatives 27% (10% switch to UKIP), Labour 39%, (they are currently well up on their 2010 result) Lib Dems 12% (as they are well down in the polls currently), UKIP 13%, others 9%.
Second preferences would easily give this seat to Labour, with the UKIP voters’ second preferences not coming into play.
Before we even discuss whether his final sentence is logically correct (it's not, it's complete and utter bollocks), is it not the case that Labour would have won this vote under First Past The Post anyway, having got more of the vote (39%) than the Conservatives would have obtained (27% + 10% = 37%)?
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Complete and utter moron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I like the fact he blogs and replies.
But the more he blogs and the more he replies the more you realise he just talks a slightly better class of shite.
Well spotted Mark, you do realise that if you oppose AV you are entitled to make up any figure you want and meld it to your case.
I'm not sure that moron is the right term for someone who dissembles for the benefit of themselves and their friends. The morons are those taken in.
Sadly, it really is difficult to find a politician who does not do it quite often.
Best regards
There are more signs of intelligent life in the comments - JR's arithmetical error is picked up by the first one - including this one, which makes a useful point:
The impression that this gives the public is that UKIP are a single issue party that cares only about Europe. Whilst I am sure most of the electorate know what UKIP’s stanc on Europe is I doubt there are many that know any of their other policies. Until UKIP start presenting a more comprehensive party platform that they can effectively communicate with the public they will struggle to achieve electoral success in Westminster. Indeed the fact that UKIP’s European election results are at a clear disparity with their Westminster results (a difference of 13.4%) shows that the public perception is one of an anti-Europe party but not much else.
AV will not help UKIP because in most circumstances they will only get the second preferences of Conservatives and would likely be lower than the Conservatives on the preferences of anyone voting Labour or Lib Dem (if they bother to record all preferences). UKIP in its current form can only take votes from the Conservatives who have far more grassroots supporters. UKIP will struggle to ever be successful until it can define itself as something other than the disenfranchised Tory party.
SL, but it's still shite.
SW, yup.
NH, see also "Killer arguments against LVT, not" for some made up figures. To be fair, you weren't averse to making up a few figures when it came to justifying the smoking ban.
NS, if he'd thought about it for two seconds, what he should have said is that Labour would have increased their votes to (say) 37% with the Tories down to (say) 28% (having lost 10% to UKIP), then at least he would have cleared the first hurdle (that under FPTP the Tories would have retained the seat).
He would still have fallen on the second hurdle (because that 10% who put UKIP first would almost certainly have put Tories second), but hey.
B, the media and the other politicians like to portray UKIP as a single issue, Tory splinter party, which we are not.
But as we are seldom given a chance to reply, this untruth sticks. When Nigel is on QT, he gets as much (or as little) applause or boos as any other member of the panel and he doesn't just talk about the EU.
My dear mp is doing what his constituents ask. That is all.
So his constituents are to blame for delegating thought to him. Where they should wake up and start to use their own minds.
True he lies a lot knowing all that. And his real constituents are across in the city in monopoly power ville.
But in the end it is the people whom elect him. If they were to get of their selfish and ignorant arses and vote for others and not themselves they would be immediately satisfied.
The voting system is irrelevant. What maters is how people think.
(is that correct use of whom) ?
RS: "Is that correct use of 'whom'?"
Nope.
If a first choice polls low but not very low then the second choice does not get counted in the count. The electoral reform website is wrong on this point. Either Ukip or the lib Dems could be in this position. If you increase the "other vote" in the above example you can see it.
Den, I take it you are talking about his second hurdle (whether the Tories would have won under AV)? In the instant case, neither Tory nor Labour have > 50% so clearly the votes of Greens, UKIP and probably even Lib Dems would end up being redistributed.
If you want to choose some numbers to illustrate your point, please do so.
If he'd just said that FPTP gives a greater chance of giving either Tory or labour administrations an overall majority and that he thought that that was a Good Idea, then fine. But to try and use bad aithmetic to justify an anti- AV position....
I still think the anti-AV needs to be about 'not buying anything you don't understand'. That might make people start to think a bit. Mind you after 70 years of nannying (by both Labour and Tory MW) that seems a vain hope.
I am worried about AV only on the basis that it will institutionalise coalitions and end up enabling a more domineering political class.
Personally I'd like Hayeks 'Party of Liberty' to vote for, but maybe Ayn Rands predictions are coming true and I might as well resign myself to it.
Sorry, rambling on a bit - must get some work done....
I'm not defending Redwoods post. First he states his party is Eurosceptic (para 4.) Then produces some crazy maths.
However it noteworthy that in the AV system votes for mid placed parties don't get the second choice counted in the second count.
eg
Conservatives 38%
Labour 30%,
Lib Dems 14%
UKIP 10%
others 8%.
Den, you still haven't told us what the second and third preferences of LD, UKIP and Others are, but so what?
Under FPTP, the Tories would have won this seat; once Others and UKIP votes are redistributed, the chances are that the Tories would win under AV as well. Does it make any difference whether or not LD votes get redistributed? Nope.
MW, if you had been successful in your bid for electoral glory, would you have started behaving like John Redwood?
H, nope. Having spent years laying out possibly the most intellectually coherent - and hence unelectable - set of policies ever, why would I?
Every justification for voting no so far is either false (e.g. it's an EU system, some people's preferences carry more weight than others, etc.), self-serving (suits Labour or Tories or the proponent's political predilections), a tautology (assumes fptp is the purest form of democracy en route to "demonstrating" that it is purer than AV).
I can only assume that our enlightened populace will vote no!
The23, you forgot another lie, the £130 million cost of counting machines which are entirely unnecessary.
"B, the media and the other politicians like to portray UKIP as a single issue, Tory splinter party, which we are not. "
I don't think the problem is with the media: most people don't really think too hard about political parties. They know that the Tories are right wing and Labour left wing and the Lib Dems somewhere in the middle (yes, I know that they are all really left-of-centre, but that's not the popular perception). The BNP are perceived as fascists and with everyone else, there is a tendency to think that it does what it says on the tin - the Greens are green, the Libertarians are for liberty, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party are a bunch of loonies and the UK Independence Party are for Independence, which must be from Europe, as we are not in any other political grouping. As I've said before, the problem's in the name.
The point is, if a party polls moderately well then the second preference does not come into play.
B, so what would you suggest?
Den, agreed, in your example, it's possible that a party which polls moderately well, i.e. the LDs in your example, would not have its votes redistributed IF nearly all 'UKIP' and 'Others' second preferences went to Tories.
But again, so what? Even if ALL LD second pref's were for Labour, Labour still wouldn't have won (they've got 44%-plus-a-bit to Tories 56%-minus-a-bit).
So the Tories would have won this seat anyway under FPTP, so that is not an argument against AV, is it?
B, so what would you suggest?
Den, agreed, in your example, it's possible that a party which polls moderately well, i.e. the LDs in your example, would not have its votes redistributed IF nearly all 'UKIP' and 'Others' second preferences went to Tories.
But again, so what? Even if ALL LD second pref's were for Labour, Labour still wouldn't have won (they've got 44%-plus-a-bit to Tories 56%-minus-a-bit).
So the Tories would have won this seat anyway under FPTP, so that is not an argument against AV, is it?
B, so what would you suggest?
Well, that's the bastard, all the good ones have already been taken, although I wonder if the Conservative and Unionist Party have any rights to the name "Tory Party".....
Redwood was adressing an idea that Cons voters change vote to ukip with second pref Cons.
If Ukip swap rank with libdem then the second pref Cons is taken out of play and Labour win, thats what Redwood was refering to in the first part of his post.
Den that's still not true, neither based on his figures nor on your figures.
Please give us a proper example of what you mean with numbers (first and second preferences). I'd be interested to know if such a marginal situation exists - where having AV instead of FPTP would actually change the outcome, rather than just giving people the opportunity to cast protest votes, which is IMHO the whole point.
Conservatives 38%
Labour 30%,
Lib Dems 14%
UKIP 10%
others 8%.
Redwoods example 10% Cons move to Ukip
Cons 28% (-10 to Ukip) (2nd pref not counted)
Labour 30% (2nd pref not counted)
UKIP 20% (+10 from cons 2nd pref not counted)
Lib Dems 14% (2nd pref lab counted)
others 8%. (2nd pref lab counted)
Den, OK, you got there in the end, and had JR put at least this much thought in to it, I wouldn't have posted as I did.
But you only get there by using the strained logic that the Tories are the only party which would lose first preference votes*. And given their consistent failure to live up to their claim that they are EU-sceptic, why is it wrong for them to get a kicking?
* It is always best to compare like-with-like and explain how many first pref votes Labour would have got under FPTP. Why not allocate them the 8% who gave first pref to 'Others', which would give Labour 38%, in which case this could have gone either way, just like under FPTP.
Post a Comment