Labour voters are switching straight to Tory as second preference and Tory straight to Labour in Scottish local government by-elections held under the STV system. These are not opinion polls, they are real elections.
I was shown results and transfer sheets yesterday in the margin of the SNP vetting assessment of potential candidates which I was attending. Unfortunately I did not have a chance to copy down the figures, but the pattern was clear.
For those unfamiliar with single transferable vote, you mark the ballot paper 1,2,3 in the order you prefer the candidates. What is now becoming clear is that Labour voters tend to put the Tories at 2, and Tories put Labour as 2. I have been arguing for years that there are no significant policy differences between Labour and Tory – it is a fake choice. I will never forget at the count in Clackmannan the Labour and Tory councillors and their wives all celebrating together, all looking well-heeled and arrogant and entitled, impossible to tell apart.
That the few remaining Labour voters put the Tories as second preference, instead of the Greens, SNP or Liberal Democrat, shows that the core Labour support base is largely Blairite. Which explains why the ultra-Blairite Jim Murphy, scion of the far right Henry Jackson Society, is set to become Labour Party leader in Scotland. It is also interesting that Tory voters are happy to give second preferences to Labour, recognising that Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Tess Jowell and Harriet Harman – every one a millionaire – are doughty protectors of the rich and the established order.
I haven’t been able to find a website that records local byelection results including the transfers – some results are listed on politicalbetting.com but only give the final result after all transfers. If anyone can find the data online I would be grateful. I should love to see an analysis from James Kelly on this one.
Doug Scourgie
“Labour is a pro-monarchy, pro-NATO party; the Conservatives are a pro-monarchy, pro-NATO party; the LibDems are a pro-monarchy, pro-NATO party.”
Er, yes Doug. That’s the point. The SNP are just more of the same.
Nevermind
“even Phil…so comfortably easy and Stalinist of him…”
The irony that your knowingly false and derogatory labelling exactly mirrors the establishment tactics you claim to understand and oppose is clearly beyond you.
Behind you! Stalinist! Commie! Extremist! Terrorist!
Craig
For the recent Midlothian by election, the votes broke as follows as each candidate was elected:-
Lib Dem
34.8% to Labour
21.8% to SNP
19.6% to Independent
23.9% to Conservative
(doesn’t seem to be a transfer figure for Greens)
Scottish Greens
18.4% to Labour
48.6% to SNP
23.5% to Independent
9.5% to Conservative
Conservative
47.6% to Labour
12.9% to SNP
39.5% to Independent
Independent
51.1% to Labour
48.9% to SNP
So it does look as though a fair number of Tories would rather see a Labour candidate elected than an SNP one.
What really lost the SNP the seat, though, was the quite large reduction in 1st preference votes when compared to the 2012 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlothian_Council_election,_2012#By-elections
We get more insight into Habbabkuk’s mind with his choice of nom-de-plume: Lady Marmalade!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQa7SvVCdZk
Total since 2012 2014 only
Labour transfers to Tories 146 122
to SNP 311 208
to Lib Dem 164 0
to Ind 591 445
to Greens 39 0
not trf 720 557
1971 1332
Tory transfers to Lab 1142 661
to SNP 401 273
to Lib Dem 600 107
to Greens 11 0
to Ind 881 517
not trf 2772 1083
5809 2641
SNP transfers to Tories 116 27
to Labour 220 0
to Lib Dem 609 92
to Ind 328 110
not trf 1097 276
2370 505
I’ve just posted the an analysis of all recorded transfers in Scottish council byelections since 2012 – Ive also given the analysis for 2014 on its own.
For anyone to base conclusions on such small samples as Craig and the SNP have clearly done is clearly ridiculous – 146 Labour voters transferring their votes to the Tories since 2012 (less than 10% of all the Labour votes that were available for transfer) clearly is not sufficient to conclude that Labour is reduced to a Blairite rump.
There really is no sstaistically significant difference from the 2012 results which were base don a much larger population.
Interesting to note how SNP voters have a strong preference for the parties of the Coalition over Labour – which of course ties up with Craig’s own prejudices.
The reason why people vote that way in STV is that we are ALL becoming more apathetic- as in who gives a fuck. Whether you believe it or not, the political debate has become so twisted and poisoned- mainly by MSM on order from their political masters. Perpetual war, corruption, hatred of each other, no one seems to give a shit, we’re becoming immune to all of it. We shrug our shoulders watch guff on TV, surf the Internet, buy shit we don’t need- the corporations are happy and we become incapable of feelings. Numb, dumb, dispassionate,able to watch this unfold without any other emotion except curiosity.
The BBC wants Labour to win the General Election because it is in a “fight to the death” over the future of the licence fee, Conservative MPs have claimed.
David Cameron and George Osborne earlier this week launched an unprecedented attack on the corporation’s coverage of the Autumn Statement, describing it as “nonsense” and “hyperbolic”.
One senior Tory MP suggested that the BBC coverage is influenced by concerns that a future Conservative government will use the Royal Charter review to cut the licence fee in 2016.
He claimed that the corporation believes that it will be “business as usual” if the Labour Party wins the election and that the £145.50 payment will be maintained.
The Conservatives fear that the BBC’s coverage could tip the balance in Labour’s favour in the run up to the General Election
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/11276739/BBC-wants-Labour-to-win-General-Election-Tory-MPs-claim.html
________________________________
The BBC show biased coverage…NEVER!
It is the most hotly anticipated Royal visit since the days of Princess Diana. Huge crowds, heart-warming photo opportunities and a meeting with the President are all on the schedule.
But when, later today, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge start their whirlwind New York tour, they will have another, rather more confidential objective in mind.
For tonight, at a lavish reception at a private residence from which the press is barred, Kate and William will shake the hands of 15 wealthy couples who are each paying $50,000 –– or £32,000 – for the privilege. It is the start of an important US campaign which they hope will pull in millions for their favourite charities.
The money will go to the Royal Foundation, the charity run by the couple and Prince Harry which gives grants to good causes such as Tusk, the wildlife protection charity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863744/William-Kate-charge-15-couples-32k-dinner-New-York-Cash-access-questions-Royal-couple-court-super-rich.html
_____________________________________
I’d love to know where the cash is really going, the Royals couldn’t give a stuff about wildlife.
Both Harry and William have shot rare birds in the past and their father and grandfather Philip are well known for shooting hundreds of deer and boar, in Scotland.
Its more of a cash for access, than for charity in my opinion.
RoS A BBC producer with the nickname Gobby is leaving to join UKIP as comms director. Bad career move I would say.
Producer ‘Gobby’ quits BBC for UKIP communications job
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30366982
RoS I put that Kate/William stuff on an earlier thread and was pilloried by RD and Habbabkuk,
We must not criticize the royals!
The Mail and other tabloids will be full of photos.
Hope it went well yesterday Craig.
O.T –
Dear Save the Children:
My office writes on behalf of Felicity Arbuthnot, Michel Chossudovsky and Denis Halliday in response to the Global Legacy Award (the “Award”) given by Save the Children to former Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 19, 2014, formally requesting that Save the Children rescind the Award forthwith. Due to public debate on this issue, we intend to make this letter public.
Save the Children’s notable legacy as a defender of children, internationally, has suffered unquestionable damage – perhaps permanent damage – as a result of the Award to Mr. Blair, and we write to request that Save the Children immediately rescind it. Failure to do so would place Save the Children in the unfortunate and even tragic position of honoring an individual who has been personally responsible for the intentional deaths of tens of thousands of children in the Middle East and the continued suffering of thousands more.
As you may be aware, in March 2003, Mr. Blair, while Prime Minister, likely participated with several high-ranking United States leaders in committing the crime of aggression against Iraq. The crime of aggression is the “supreme international crime,” as declared by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. In addition to being prohibited by international law, the crime of aggression is a crime also defined by the International Criminal Court in the Hague, over which it may have the opportunity to exercise jurisdiction in the coming years. “Resort to a war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal.” United States v. Hermann Goering, et al., 41 AM. J. INT’L L. 172, 186, 218-220 (1946); see also Charter Int’l Military Tribunal, art. 6(a), Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1546, 82 U.N.T.S. 279.
As you may also be aware, in 2004, Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq War illegal and in contravention of the United Nations Charter.1
In 2006, a former prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Benjamin Ferencz, stated that the Iraq War was a “clear breach of law.”2 “There’s no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of law.”
More @ –
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lawyers-letter-to-save-the-children-stc-rescind-the-global-legacy-award-to-war-criminal-tony-blair/5418469
Nevermind
“Habby…. go swing your dick somewhere else.”
__________________
Or, in your case, language appropriate for the lower sort of German Kneipe.
Mary
“The schoolyard sneak has done that before – transmitting the contents of comments on Squonk to Craig.”
_______________
On the assumption that you are referring to me, well, Squonk is a public blog and in the same way as you regale us with numerous cut-and-pastes from other blogs, O thought I would do the same with a post of direct interest to this blog and its founder.
On what grounds do you base your objection?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“PS Habbabkuk is banned from commenting on Squonk’s blog. He has tried to bypass the ban by using various subterfuges such as Lady Marmalade!! but has been rumbled each time.”
_________________
Quite correct, Mary. Lady Marmalade, Lord Randolph Churchill (deceased) and Amschel Rothschild (deceased) were my less-than-inpenetrable aliases and I offer hearty congratulations to those who were keen-eyed enough to “rumble” me. LOL.
Mr Scorgie
“We get more insight into Habbabkuk’s mind with his choice of nom-de-plume: Lady Marmalade!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQa7SvVCdZk”
___________________
Nice video there, Doug, thank you. I shall bookmark it!
Mary
“RoS I put that Kate/William stuff on an earlier thread and was pilloried by RD and Habbabkuk,”
________________
Yes, yes, you were first, as always!
For God’s sake indicate copyright in future, RoS, or she’ll get very huffy and upset.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We must not criticize the royals!”
_________________
Not at all, Mary, criticise away – it’s still a free blog and country despite your best efforts.
But do try to talk sense when you criticise – as you didn’t when you accused one of the Royal Princes, who had just got a job as an air-an)-sea rescue pilot, of “stealing some one else’s job”.
Great article on last week’s Turkey-Russia pipeline deal. A major geopolitical event? Looks like it. As the article says: Watch out Erdogan. I’m sure our obliging media will soon tell us, over and over again, just what a bad man he is. He’s in the neocon crosshairs now, that’s for sure.
Judoman wrong-foots the Drone King yet again.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/talking-turkey-and-gas-pipelines-putins-groundbreaking-deal-with-turkish-president-erdogan/5418420
“Surely that’s the UK nationalists Phil. Have you been at the Sunday sherry again?”
________________
The Sunday sherry? The SUNDAY sherry??
That’s a very low, vulgar notion, Mr Scorgie and I’m surprised it even occurred to you. Surely you must know that sherry can – and indeed should – be drunk frequently (but in loderation) irrespective of the day of the week?
Why, next thing we know you’ll be telling us you keep a “best room” in your house for when you get visitors!
@Mary
“RoS I put that Kate/William stuff on an earlier thread and was pilloried by RD and Habbabkuk,”
No Mary I just asked you why you thought it was degrading for them to spend their time raising money for charity. A question that you failed to answer.
Thanks for that link Brian ref the StC award to BLiar.
:::::
Israel knows no law(s). They stole the Golan Heights from Syria too. Always the aggressor.
Israeli jets ‘strike near Damascus’ – Syrian army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30370670
That rapacious, cunning cuckoo. The Armageddonist – relishing blood and tears. Conspires against an ancient people, with the full support of the Israeli surrogates/servants in the west.
UN reveals Israeli links with Syrian rebels
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.630359
We knew that anyway.
One of Charles Crawford’s latest posts, required reading for anyone interested in Russia and Serbia.
Enjoy…and digest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Here’s a question. If country X grows its economy 1% faster than country Y over ten years, what’s the difference in outcomes?
I previously looked at Serbia and Zimbabwe in this sense, trying to calculate the True Costs of Stupidity:
Thus the Cost of Milosevic(ism) can be accurately measured. It is the space between the two lines of a simple graph of total GDP measured over time:
one line shows Serbia’s actual awful performance
the other line shows what Serbia would have achieved by growing at an average of 3% a year over the past seventeen years. (Note: a conservative estimate – of course it could have done a lot better than that with common sense leadership and policies.)
To calculate that gap, a mathematician uses the Trapezium rule. In Serbia’s case the ‘opportunity cost’ of Milosevic and Milosevicism now runs towards hundreds of billions of dollars.
It is no exaggeration to say that Milosevicism in all its forms delivered a set-back to Serbia from which it will never recover. There is no conceivable chance of Serbia growing faster than Slovenia for the decades required for Serbia to ‘catch up’ the ground lost in the past seventeen years.
The political costs of this madness also have compounded up. Montenegro and Kosovo have broken away – had Serbia developed to its natural potential they could be clamouring to stay with Serbia and share its success.
That’s right. Within only a few years the ‘opportunity cost’ of frittering away growth opportunities for reasons of political vanity mounts up to staggering levels, even in a small and relatively poor economy. I recall Serbia’s finance minister making this point to me: thanks to Milosevic and NATO and sanctions and the whole mess, Serbia had experienced far greater losses in proportional terms than Germany in WW2. Western assistance programmes after Milosevic fell might look large, but they were a drop in the ocean compared to what Serbia had lost.
If the opportunity cost of stupidity runs into hundreds of billions of dollars for small Serbia, what about the cost to Russia of its reckless policies in Ukraine? How would one start to calculate the numbers?
Poland’s Radek Sikorski (now Marshall of the Polish Sejm) tackled that very question in a recent speech at Harvard University. He started by looking at how well Russia has done by joining the ‘world of rules’ after the Soviet Union collapsed:
Freed from decades of self-inflicted communism, Russia has joined the global economy as a normal country. And it has seen the benefits. Russia’s GDP was a feeble $570 billion in 1990. By 2013 Russia’s GDP has grown to $2.1 trillion.
So, in the years following the end of the Cold War, did NATO and EU governments show unwavering hostility towards Russia? Did we cynically ‘take advantage of Russia’s weakness’? Have we been ‘humiliating’ Russia? I answer those three questions in three words. No. No. And no.
The record since the Berlin Wall came down shows NATO and the European Union and their individual member states all working hard, and in good faith, to build normal, purposeful relations with Russia. And it shows that Russia itself benefiting hugely from this support.
He then looked at what happens if Russia’s economy takes a sustained hit from sanctions:
The international response to Russia’s policies has been restrained. It has been designed to raise the cost to Russia of undermining Western institutions. The policy is working, up to a point.
Russia’s president has just admitted that the price his country is paying is high. Let’s run the numbers again.
In the decade from 2002-2012, Russia’s economy grew on average by 5% per year. Russia, like Poland, was integrating with the global economy, and seeing very positive results. If Russia were to grow at the same rate from now until 2025, its GDP would be in 2025 $3.7 trillion– up from today’s $2.1 trillion.
If instead Russia grows at only 1% over the next decade, which seems to be the case this year, because of sanctions and because of global mistrust of its intentions, its GDP in 2025 will be far less – $2.3 trillion.
Therefore, cumulatively over the decade, Russia will have lost the staggering sum of over $8 trillion! Its leaders have decided to gamble with their own citizens’ lives and hopes, by looking to the past, not the future. Some of Russia’s citizens are wondering whether this enormous price is worth paying – and what Russia is getting for it?
These figures of course represent a bleak scenario. But even if Russia manages (say) 3% growth per annum over the next decade after a bit of a slump in the next couple of years, the wealth lost by not maintaining its early successful growth path will run into trillions of dollars. It’s a big economy, and a big economy underperforming means a LOT of lost opportunity.
In practice that will mean that Russia’s awful health and social services carry on being awful for far longer than necessary. Many tens of thousands of Russians will die unnecessarily through poor procedures, grotty medical treatment, dangerous roads and insane accidents. President Putin’s latest long speech did not honestly address these strategic problems caused by his own policies.
The iron laws of compound interest also apply to us. Debt levels in far too many areas are soaring out of control as welfare state policies become steadily more unaffordable on both sides of the Atlantic:
As Robert Lucas showed, “a government that is credible—that is, a government that makes itself understood and believed—can quickly end a major inflation without a big increase in unemployment.government credibility will cause people to quickly adjust their expectations”.
But the corollary of that is that wild and sustained government stupidity as we are seeing in so many places and policy areas can lead to people adjusting their expectations – and behaviour – in wild and persisting stupid directions:
The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: Once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else…
True. But at least Radek Sikorski has done the Russian people a favour by attempting to explain just how much Putinism could cost Russia in the next ten years. If smart Russian economists disagree, maybe they might explain why he’s wrong?”
A link from Crawfish would have sufficed.
If you liked James Crawford’s piece on Russia you’ll love this NYT editotial. More economical on words but just as batty!
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/PYMfU2B.png
Any comments on the RI perspective?
I’d like to defend Phil and Habbabkuk against all-comers. I don’t expect to make many friends.
Both contribute acerbic notes, from different perspectives, which add considerably to the value of this website. Whether their positions are real or rhetorical, both ask pointed questions which deserve responses. Both argue aggressively and employ ad hominem arguments (aka playing the woman, not the testicular lookalike).
Often I don’t agree with them. For instance, as long as political parties [and media oligarchs] determine what we are allowed to vote on, I have no problem with a republican anti-NATO Craig wishing to be a candidate and yet willing to campaign on behalf of a (presently) pro-monarchist, pro-NATO SNP party. Being part of a growing minority matters more than political purity.
One of Charles Crawford’s latest posts, required reading for anyone interested in Russia and Serbia.
Enjoy…and digest.
I’ve certainly enjoyed observing Crawford’s sleight of hand when it comes to Russian economic history. He notes the increase in GDP-
‘Russia’s GDP was a feeble $570 billion in 1990. By 2013 Russia’s GDP has grown to $2.1 trillion.’ He then forgets to remind his few readers that Russian GDP fell in the Yeltsin years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1992%E2%80%93present)#mediaviewer/File:Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG
or in other words that the growth occurred entirely under the alleged numbskull, Putin.
His attempted comparison of Putin with Milosevic is also full of holes; Serbia’s poor economic performance over the last 17 years is allegedly the result of something called Milosevicism- which Crawford clearly sees as ‘Putinism’ writ small; errr… Milosevic was President for just 3 of the 17 years in question. He was overthrown in 2000, and then kept as a prisoner in the Hague until his demise in 2006.
All in all, pathetic stuff.
On the main theme of the latest post- Scotland- I reckon Salmond has played a canny hand in choosing a winnable seat in his own backyard; he sees the opportunity to use Parnellite tactics in the next Parliament, and the shock to the Westminster village this could mean is a most welcome prospect.
Resident Dissident
I am interested in what is happening post-referendum. In Midlothian a week ago, for example, Tory votes transferred
47.6% to Labour
12.9% to SNP
39.5% to Independent
So it is Labour who are the true “tartan tories”. That was enough to take Labour over the line. Fascinating, isn’t it. let’s carefully monitor every upcoming by-election.
Backsidebung
If you kept your safety tampon in your mouth instead of releasing neo-con fantasy FCO propaganda poo in here, it would be better.
Neo-con policy is the same as Milosevic’s. Mrs Thatcher loved going to Paris for tea with him. A policy of continuous aggression against the Muslim neighbour firstly in order to achieve ongoing suffering for Islam and secondly, to divert the resources of a small, but rich country into the service of an aggressive superpower, in order to, as the FCO often says ‘ punch above our weight on the world stage’.
The wreckage of FCO neo=con policy is to be seen in our ruined economy, our ruined reputation, and our ruined population which has to be regularly topped up with normal, breeding human beings from better countries than our own. David Cameron had to use the profits from prostitution to get our GDP up to the level of a leading economic nation.
How does it serve the economic and intellectual status of our country for the top representatives of brand UK to be so far up the Zionist backside as to tickle its duodenum with the resulting haemourrhage of manure from Charles Crawford?
The answer is that we are a wealthy country in our own right from industry and fair trade and it only serves the interest of the elite political class to suck up to rabid Islam hating Zionism.
Charles ‘arse-*** ‘ Crawford describes exactly the appalling predicament we ourselves are in. Shock and Orr, joining in.
… we are a wealthy and RESPECTED country in our own right from industry and fair trade …
“David Cameron had to use the profits from prostitution to get our GDP up to the level of a leading economic nation.”
No he had to do it to comply with EU accounting rules.
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31010
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh.
“No he had to do it to comply with EU accounting rules.”
EU accounting rules? ROFLMBFHAO. EU accounting rules! Fuck me. That’s the most stupid combination of words I’ve read on this blog this morning. Good work Kempe.