Friday, 16 November 2012

Corby by-election results

Our candidate Rohen got 39 votes. Ah well, we did our best and everybody's got to start somewhere.

My latest blogpost: Corby by-election resultsTweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 21:49

Labels:

32 comments:

Derek said...

It's a question of getting the message out. Doesn't really matter how many votes the candidate gets. It needed doing. And at least 39 voters got it, probably more. So it's all good.

16 November 2012 at 22:26
Bayard said...

On the subject of getting the message out, the YPP don't appear to have a Wikipedia page (apart from the Sierra Leone chapter). Even the Elvis Loves Pets party has one.

16 November 2012 at 23:36
Mark Wadsworth said...

D, thanks.

B, good point. I'll get Rohen on it, he's good with this internet stuff.

16 November 2012 at 23:53
Robin Smith said...

Derek is exactly right.

Our goal is not wealth and power, that of liblabcon

You should see how even the small press in Croydon are fully co opted by the system. Only giving real coverage to the top 3 or 4. Point it out and they get angry. They dont even know they are doing it.

The voters and 'enterprise' are the same. Instead of asking the camdidates for freedom and justice, they call on the ones likely to win for 'protection'. Handouts, tax breaks, subsidies. Hardly enterprise. More lile dependency.

We are also getting close to uncovering collusion between the press and the council not on election maters though. A tacit alliance propping up the dead system.

17 November 2012 at 11:55
Bayard said...

"We are also getting close to uncovering collusion between the press and the council"

That's business as usual down here. I think most people would be surprised if it wasn't.

17 November 2012 at 13:01
Henry North London 2.0 said...

Fricking hell You're going to keep me busy,

Elvis Loves pets got 99 votes. He did well.

17 November 2012 at 16:39
Derek said...

Aha! Of course! So we need to change the party name to the Young People's One Direction, Twilight and Ponies Party. I should have suggested it earlier. Sorry, guys.

17 November 2012 at 20:45
Bayard said...

Fluffy Bunnies and Kittens Party?

17 November 2012 at 20:50
Mark Wadsworth said...

D, "Elvis loves pets" is a real party, it's a single issue that campaigns against the high cost of pet insurance.

We can't do what you suggested because you are limited to six words.

B, that's five, so that would be permissible at least.

17 November 2012 at 21:02
Henry North London 2.0 said...

How about The Non Conservative and Labour Party ( Would lead to several spoiled ballots)

There were about three or four ballot papers in which I was voted for and also other people were voted for. It was a crying shame.

17 November 2012 at 21:57
Bayard said...

You could be the Conversative Party and go for the optically challenged vote.

18 November 2012 at 00:19
Henry North London 2.0 said...

That might be thrown out on the Ballot paper... But its a good idea

18 November 2012 at 00:33
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, somebody once tried that with the "Literal Democrat Party"

18 November 2012 at 08:20
Bayard said...

HNL2, it would be more difficult to justify throwing out the "Conservation Party"

Mark, I remember; that was when I thought of the "Conversatives".

18 November 2012 at 11:22
Henry North London 2.0 said...

The Dream Team Party

18 November 2012 at 12:07
DBC Reed said...

Seriously,a name change to Stop House Price Bubbles or Tax House Prices not work or Tax land price Inflation not Wages has to be better than what was used in Corby with all possible respect to the candidate and his eminence grise.Some people are never going to read manifestos ,even if they get one and the description under the candidate's name maybe the only chance you'll get to communicate with them.The legalise cannabis candidate got a lot of votes.

19 November 2012 at 16:46
Robin Smith said...

Bayard

"That's business as usual down here. I think most people would be surprised if it wasn't."

Of course. We are doing something about it though. We will fail. But is must be done.

20 November 2012 at 09:18
Robin Smith said...

At St Paul's Occupy London we ran united as "The Anti Corruption Party". For 3 weeks I was staggered as it worked superbly.

100 Young People (not including me) Pushed back on the City, The Church and the Judiciary.

Now that is what I call power. It needed no election.

Then we got co opted by the champagne socialists and it crashed for good.

This shows it can be done... with a 'little magic'. And it shows how even the best are so easily tempted by that power.

KUTGW

20 November 2012 at 09:29
Bayard said...

DBC, the problem about that is that once you look like a single-issue party, then no-one takes you seriously in the larger political scheme of things. Look at UKIP: although they try to be a sort of "same as the Tories, but somewhere just to the right" party, their name screams "all we care about is getting out of the EU". That is why the mainstream parties' names don't actually mean anything. To my mind, the best name is something pretty meaningless (although most of the best ones have already been taken), with a strapline, e.g. "The Georgist Party: the party that fights for young people."

20 November 2012 at 09:47
Robin Smith said...

Bayard

You are describing 'cop out' psychology.

That commitment to anything is not useful.

The whole problem is that we are all hypocrites. Voting for ones pocket, without conscience.

The single issue party means commitment. Its the only honest one.

It might not be perfect. But all the alternatives are worse.

20 November 2012 at 09:59
Bayard said...

"That commitment to anything is not useful"

That's not what I said. The problem about a party that is, or appears to be single-issue, is that voters, if they think at all, often quite rightly feel that the party cares for little beyond their particular issue, ie that, should this party be in any position of power the usual suspects will be able to get away with anything so long as the party is satisfied on its single issue.
Also voters are lazy; give them a party name that purports to tell them all they think they ought to know and they will not bother to look any further.
Say Mark's party was called the "Land Tax Reform Party". Most voters would think "well, I don't own any land (in most peoples' minds "land" = "farmland"), so why should I care about land tax reform?" and that's it, they're gone, no chance to explain to them that, yes they probably do own land and that land tax reform affects house prices etc etc. If however, the party was called the "Reform Party", just a few people might stop and think "What do this lot want to reform?" and look a little further.

20 November 2012 at 11:46
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, a lot of thought went into the name, it's a question of working backwards from the answers.

If you think honestly about what policies on whatever topic would benefit younger people and future generations most (i.e. everybody under 40 or so and those not yet born), then 9 times out of 10, you will be able to guess what's in our manifesto.

Plus it shows we've got a bit of a sense of humour.

20 November 2012 at 12:06
Bayard said...

You've probably struck a good balance between a party name that means something and one that has broad appeal, although I'd still say that a nifty name change might be in order when you get into the mainstream (and many of your voters are no longer young any more!). I was mainly countering DBCR's more single-issue suggestions.

20 November 2012 at 13:06
Bayard said...

Having said that, some indication that the party is for young people not of of young people might head off the knee jerk reflex "another load of student lefties; what do they know about the world?".

20 November 2012 at 13:12
Mark Wadsworth said...

DBCR, we are a party FOR and not just OF 'young people'. I'm not doing it for me (I'm old), I'm doing it for my children.

And we are not 'single issue' despite what Robin says, what about e.g. tuition fees, do we want them lower or higher? What about cannabis legalisation? What about chronic deficit spending to be paid off by future generations? You can probably guess the answers from the name alone, that's the point.

20 November 2012 at 13:14
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, we are clearly a party FOR and not just OF 'young people'. Not sure how you'd express that in five words or fewer. I'm not doing it for me (I'm old), I'm doing it for my children.

And we are not 'single issue' despite what Robin says, what about e.g. tuition fees, do we want them lower or higher? What about cannabis legalisation? What about chronic deficit spending to be paid off by future generations? You can probably guess the answers from the name alone, that's the point.

20 November 2012 at 13:15
Kj said...

"Landless people's party" would perhaps attract the radical leftie vote while you tuck your generally liberal policies away in the manifesto? ;)
Anyway, congrats on your efforts, I'm impressed! If anyone came up to me with your sensible policies during an election year, I'd be embarassingly excited.

20 November 2012 at 13:18
Mark Wadsworth said...

Kj, I based our manifesto on things that you said :-)

There's nothing to stop you setting up the Unge Folkeparti and getting on with it over there. It certainly sounds better than Jordløse Folkeparti.

20 November 2012 at 13:23
Kj said...

There's nothing to stop you setting up the

You are ignoring effort. Yes yes, it will be done eventually.

20 November 2012 at 13:40
Bayard said...

Mark, I never suggested that the YPP is single-issue, or even looks single-issue. It was the suggestions for an alternative name that did that. Personally, I am convinced that far too many voters don't look beyond the name (or else why should so many continue to vote for the big two?), so if every time your saw the name, you saw a strapline that said "the party that fights for young people", it just might start getting the message across. BTW, I think it's six words you are allowed, but shorter is definitely better.

20 November 2012 at 14:02
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, yes of course it's six but "Party" counts as one of them and acronyms count as one word per letter, so the official name is actually "Young People's Party YPP" and that's your six, get on with it.

Good strapline though.

20 November 2012 at 14:06
DBC Reed said...

In defence of the unpopular single issue side of the argument, I'd say: you regularly get a few hundred votes and the other parties start shadowing your idea(s)because you could affect the electoral outcome/you could lose somebody a marginal seat;you get your main aim in the popular (un)consciousness with a slogan;you don't have to write out an all-inclusive manifesto ( some parts of which are bound to put people off)because your manifesto is about six words long (UKIP's is two: Leave Europe and they do alright.)
Details :young people have better things to do than vote ; it looks difficult to get young enough candidates.....With Low Property Prices High Wage Party you could field all kinds of ratty, cynical old troublemakers.

20 November 2012 at 19:37

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)