Brexit Party & SDP. A Crazy Idea. But….

OK. Laugh this out of court if you like. It is (as it says on the tin) only a crazy idea. I’d love your comments (however derogatory) either here or on twitter.

This concerns the next General Election, which we all hope will not be long in coming.

It also concerns the Social Democratic Party (to whose members it is mainly aimed). So if you are not interested in the SDP or (say) the Brexit Party or even Brexit then stop reading now.

This post particularly concerns the vulnerability of the Brexit vote to splintering and how (this is the crazy bit) how to mobilise and maximise the Leave vote in staunchly Labour areas to ensure Brexit.

It also concerns (take a deep breath at this point – this is even crazier) also how we may yet get some SDP MPs.

So, here we go.

The Conservatives even though they are well ahead in the opinion polls, will struggle in many traditional Labour seats. However dismal Labours policies are, many will still vote for them rather than Conservative. The historic loyalties of honest Northern voters will be played like a fiddle by Momentum and their pals.

While the Brexit party may gain traction in these seats it may not be enough. The end result could well be that (thanks to our crap electoral system – FPTP) in many traditional Labour seats the Labour candidate sneaks in with 30-35% of the vote.

We could easily end up with another minority Leave government or even worse a minority/majority Remain government. Even though the electoral vote share for Leave may swamp the Remain vote.

This has happened before in UK General Elections. See these old posts of mine for dates and what happened. (Overview Here) (Example 1 - 1929 ) (Example 2 -1951) (Example 3 - 1974)

One of the obvious tactics that will be used by Labour to attack the Brexit Party will be that (as viewed by many on the left) they are closet Tories. Meanwhile many Tory voters in those same seats will see the Brexit Party as a one trick pony with few policies or direction.

The Brexit Party will get squeezed by both these ideas. Even though in fairness, it has gone some way to ensure it has candidates that are other than small Tories, and it also has policies beyond Brexit.

But voter perception is King. You can bet your bottom dollar the Brexit Party will get vilified by both sides.

So how does the SDP fit into this?

To answer that we need to look at the structure of the Labour Party. (Yes I told you this was crazy. Now it is going to get bizarre)

Or rather lets look at the structure of two separate partys. The Labour Party, and the Cooperative Party.

Most Labour MPs are just that. Labour MPs.

But 38 (who also take the Labour whip) are not. They represent two parties. they are elected on a joint ticket for the Labour & Cooperative Party

Although these days there is little difference between the two different parties, these 38 MPs in the House of Commons are actually from an alliance (dating back to 1927) between the Labour Party and the Cooperative Party. (See Here). 

Today they form the the fourth largest grouping in the House of Commons. They do NOT stand under the ticket of the Labour Party but under a joint ticket. On the ballot paper voters put their X in the box marked “The Labour & Cooperative Party”.

I expect you are way ahead of me by now. But if not, let me expand.

To ensure success in Labour Heartland seats, the Brexit Party needs to de-tory-fy itself. It has done this to the best of its ability by selecting candidates that are in the main clearly not Torys. But the stigma sticks. 

If it could form a public alliance with a Party with a strong working class history that Labour voters could easily identify with, it would greatly aid it electoral chances.

I would suspect too that many of the chosen Brexit Party candidates, while fully committed to delivering Brexit, are still somewhat unhappy about being on exactly the same ticket as Nigel Farage and would like some distance.

So for the Brexit Party it would make a lot of sense to stand candidates as “Brexit and SDP Party”. Just as some Labour candidates stand as “Labour & Cooperative Party”

I’d put money on it that Labour voters would much rather put an X in a box labelled Brexit & SDP Party than one marked Brexit Party. (let alone one marked Conservative)

It would also make a lot of sense for the SDP to adopt some of the finer centre-left candidates in the Brexit party as dual party members, and maybe negotiate to replace one or two of the weaker ones with real quality SDP candidates like Patrick O’Flynn.

Both partys would gain.

As Robert E. Heinlein once said

“Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.”

It is in the self interest of the Brexit Party to have an alliance. It is also in the self interest of the SDP to have an alliance.

It is in neither partys interest to squabble or ignore each other.

(Right. I’ll restart taking the medication now. Thank you)

A General Election? Or a Lottery?

The General Election tomorrow promises to be the closest and probably unfairest election in recent UK history.

Tomorrow we may well see the SNP with about 5% of the UK national vote return 40 - 50 MPs while UKIP with 15% will return 2 or 3.

The Greens will get a national vote share of about 5% will return just one MP. Meanwhile the Lib-Dems with their 5-8% will return anything up to 30.

To emphasise how bizarre, awful and anti-democratic this all is, be aware that the single Green MP may well only get elected after fluking it with support of only 31% of the Brighton electorate (like she did in the last election).

But without that fluke the Greens with their 5% would have no representation at all.

Meanwhile Labour expect to maintain their tribal vote in the North while the Conservatives will expect to maintain their tribal vote in the South

Most of this gross unfairness is down to the rubbish voting system we use. The First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system is both prone to fraud and can easily return an unfair result.

The FPTP voting system strongly favours tribal voting. That's why Labour and the Conservative love it.

That's why five years ago both Labour and Conservative unleashed a wave of fear-mongering to get the referendum on proportional representation rejected. That coupled with an incompetent campaign run by the Lib-Dems led us to voting against reform. (Seriously, who put the Lib-Dems in charge?)

Because we now have many parties with significant (4% or more) support, tomorrow will be more like a lottery than a fair and democratic election. All thanks to FPTP.

So tomorrow, why not just vote for who you believe in?

True, you can try and be clever and second guess a secret ballot by voting tactically.

But really the chances are you'll either guess it wrong or it won't make any difference anyway. You will also disguise your true opinions.

Stay true to your principles.

Of course this travesty of an election is not a one off. First Past the Post has failed us many, many times in the past.

But there is one thing worse than voting in a FPTP election. That is NOT voting at all.

Below are the three biggest FPTP howlers. No prizes for spotting the unfairness.

Yvette Cooper, Immigration and Honesty

I suppose I should have some sympathy for someone married to Ed Balls.

But after what I heard from Yvette Cooper this morning on Radio 4 I don't know which of the two I regard as the more dishonest or duplicitous.

Perhaps I should reserve my sympathy for Ed Milliband. After all, he only knifed his brother in the back. He didn't sell the whole country down the river like these other two.

There are some suppressed reports on immigration which are about to hit the fan. They concern the uncontrolled immigration policy that was quietly engineered by the Labour party during the last decade.

The findings in these reports are damning. see Here and Here.

If you think this was down simply to Labours incompetence rather than a deliberate half-cocked policy then perhaps you should read these too  Here and Here

So what did Yvette have to say about these reports this morning on radio 4?

Well, after many weasel words about the enormous immigration she and her colleagues presided over, she did actually mumble the word "sorry". Although rather disgustingly she first tried to blame it all on the Poles.

Maybe too many Poles did come here all at once. But at least they usually work also generally try and fit in.

Unlike some of the others, copiously reported on in these suppressed government reports and who Yvette Cooper so scrupulously avoided mentioning.

I suppose a mumbled "sorry" is at least a start. Coupled with her better (or worse?) half and his half baked apology for ruining the economy then I suppose the Labour party can congratulate themselves on glossing over two areas of their arrogance and incompetence.

Lets see....that only leaves

Lack of helicopters for Afghanistan
Housing policy
Attempted regional dismemberment of England
Cosying up to the Banks
Destroying UK industry
Reducing state education to a constantly changing shambles
Imposing bogus and ridiculous targets on the NHS
A half baked and very dangerous energy policy
Supporting a vast range of gangsters and dictators world-wide (including Gaddaffi)
More wars than any previous government since WWII
The Barnett Formula
Being George Bush's lapdog
Quangos
Political Correctness
Spin

Oh I'm bored now. Make your own bloody list. There is just too much to choose from.

As for Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, they obviously deserve each other.

Vote Drink Moan (Again)

Many Moons ago, on the last election day, I suggested that voting should ideally partaken of during the evening, just prior to pub opening time.

After voting, the voter should congratulate themselves on their exceptionally good electoral choice and sink a significantly dangerous quantity of alcoholic beverage.

This election is no exception.

You can be a namby-pamby - "Oh I always vote first thing in the morning" type. Or you can be a real man (or woman) and get them lined up down the boozer ready for the post voting binge.

As for the liquor of choice, I would personally recommend Old Rosie - the Cider of Champions. Old Rosie is served in a pint glass. It is cloudy. Whether this is because cloudiness is its natural cidery state, or because it is dissolving the glass has yet to be determined.

One for you doubting bastards who
thought Old Rosie was a figment of my imagination 

Of course, this time we have the AV/FPTP referendum to vote for as well as the local elections. In my locality we also have Parish Council elections to congratulate ourselves over. It promises to be a hell of a night.

While down the boozer and before the result is in, maybe we can view the future optimistically. After all we all know we are likely to be disappointed. But just because the game is rigged, does not mean you should not play.

I suppose even the early morning voters, though denied their liver challenging late night alcoholic consumption can still indulge in a bit of optimism.

Personally I recommend you support AV. A vote for AV will seriously restrict the room for maneuvre for the dirty men and women of politics.

The Eton boys, the dirty old guard of the Labour party, the dinosaurs, all want AV voted down - because it suites their ugly purpose.

True there are some real unadulterated tossers supporting AV - like Clegg and Co. But just because we have to endure these fellow travellers does not mean we should do the bidding of the ugly status-quo self servers either.

But whatever you vote, get out there and vote.

Don't forget - no vote no moan. If you can't be bothered to vote, don't expect anyone to listen to you moaning about politicians.

When you are down the pub next, how the hell will you be able to legitimately complain about the politico's if you didn't even vote?

I suggest you vote for AV.

But whatever you do:

Vote.

Love&Kisses
Billothewisp

First Past The Post, AV and Honest Men

Wonderfully, every now and then, the sterility of the First Past The Post voting system fails to stop the electorate having their way.

Two fine examples were Martin Bell who stood as an "anti-sleaze" campaigner in 1997 and  Dr Richard Taylor who stood as "Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern Party" candidate in 2001. Both were Independants. Bell was actually the first elected Independant MP since 1951.

These results are really interesting because the both show how First Past The Post could easily have failed the electorate under "normal" circumstances (and eventually did in Kidderminster) and how AV would have returned  the result.

First Martin Bell. Tatton 1997

The case of the man in a White Suite versus the Arch Sleazeball.

The bad guy? Neil Hamilton, MP in the ultra safe seat of Tatton.  The "Cash for Questions" King. All he really needed was a black hat and the whole thing would have been perfect. Bell, a highly respected journalist and reporter, stood against him.

Here is the previous electorial result.

Even under AV this was a safe seat with Hamilton having more than 50% of the vote.

Then in the 1997 election a benign subversion of FPTP took place. Both the Labour and the Lib-Dem candidates stood down. They essentially transferred their vote to Bell, as would have happened under AV. The Conservative vote collapsed. But it did not collapse completely. Here is the result (I've left off minor parties - they only got 700 votes between them)

So the excellent Mr Bell won and the whole country rejoiced. One in the Eye for crooked politicians. Hurrah!

But look again at the results. Bell won because dissolusioned Conservatives stayed at home and the Labour and Lib-Dem votes "transferred" to him. But both supporters of Labour and the Lib-Dems were denied their true aspirational vote. With FPTP, if either the Labour or Lib-Dem candidates had stood (as was their right) not only could Bell have been defeated, but Hamilton may well have still won.

That would have been on in the eye for Democracy courtesy FPTP.

With AV, even if all candidates had stood, the preferences would have ensured that Hamilton still lost. Nobody would have been denied their right to vote for the party of their first choice either.

Bell only stood for one term, which was a shame for British Politics. But at least he did us all a favour by turfing out liar and a cheat.

Second: The case of the Good Doctor versus the Evil Government.

Dr. Taylor campaigned largely on a single issue - the restoration the A&E dept of Kidderminster Hospital, which had been closed in 2000 due to cuts in the NHS (That is Labour cuts by the way). The sitting MP was a Junior Labour minister David Lock.

Lock was not quite the evil bad guy aka Neil Hamilton, but still clearly the enemy.

Lock, like Hamilton had a large majority. But during the election, the Liberal Democrats pulled their candidate. Many Tory voters switched tactically to Taylor. Both in crude ways enforced AV onto the election.

Here is the result of 2001.

Notice there is no Lib-Dem Candidate and also the reduced support for Conservatives. If either the conservative vote had held up, or the Lib-Dems had fielded a candidate, Taylor would have probably lost. But due to people personally "fixing" the broken system of FPTP by transferring their vote or completely sacrificing their party's vote share, the good guy won - with an absolute majority

In 2005 the Lib-Dems pulled their candidate again, although a petulant local party stood a "Liberal" candidate. Taylor still won.

This time he did not gain an absolute majority, but he would certainly have also won the seat under AV.

Again one in the eye for the evil governemnt - twice in a row.

In the 2010 election, the Lib-Dems fielded a candidate (as is their right and duty) but then this happened.

If this had been AV I would put my money on Taylor still being the MP.

So the wishes of the majority of the electorate were denied because their votes were corralled into a false race to a non existent finishing poll. The guy who won simply had a slightly bigger pile than any of the other piles. If any owner of one of the other piles had stood down (or had their vote transferred under AV) the result would have been different - and fairer.

I expect as far as the government were concerned Taylor was a real pain in the ass and they probably all put out the flags when he lost. But really we need MORE people like Taylor and Bell not less. We need people who will not just tow the party line.

With AV we are more likely to get them and keep them. First Past The Post simply entrenches the sterile old guard and denies us a dynamic and adaptive democractic representation.

Vote for AV on Thursday.

How First Past The Post Harms the Tories

Due to the unfairness of the First Past the Post voting system, the biggest losers in Scotland have been the Conservatives.

During the 2010 election, the Conservatives polled 18% of vote in Scotland but gained less than 2% of the seats. Without a fairer distribution of the votes in Scotland, the Conservatives will never be able to gain their fair Scottish representation.

Here is some Scottish Election data from the last two general Elections, 2005, 2010. Spot the (several sets of) unfairness:

Below, is the result table from 2010 General Election for Scotland. Again, spot the unfairness.

Notice the massive unfair seat allocation.  Particularly see the benefit to Labour and the grossly unfair penalisation of the Conservatives. In 2010, Lib-Dems actually got roughly the correct vote/seat ratio. If you divvied up the seats according to vote share Labour should have got 24 -25 seats, each of the other parties should then have got about 11 seats each

In Scotland, using the First Past the Post voting system, the Conservatives (and the SNP) are punished in exactly the same way that other minority parties are punished across the the UK. The people of Scotland end up with an unrepresentative grouping at Westminster, which strongly leans away from what a sizeable voting minority wish for, leaving these minorities with reduced  representation, or as with the Conservatives, with trivial representation.

Scotland may not  be a Tory heartland under any voting system, but under First Past the Post the Conservatives are guaranteed an insignificant representation.

There used to be a phrase used to define those Conservative who rejected the old class base system. A phrase used to define Conservatives who sought to promote the best interests of the whole of the UK. They used to be called One Nation Tories.

So how can these "One Nation Tories" today still support First Past The Post, especially when it harms their cause so badly as shown above?

By supporting FPTP the Conservative simply entrench themselves in their English heartland and so fail to be a One Nation party. Conservative party supporters need to look to the long term, not just the petty gains to be made in the short term by staying with an outdated and unfair voting system.

Vote for AV on Thursday.

First Past the Post and Tribalism

On my post about how George Galloway won the 2005 Bethnal Green and Bow seat during the 2005 General Election, I described how FPTP was responsible for foisting an extremist candidate on the 65% of the electorate that did not vote for him. During the research for this post I noticed another very worrying issue related to FPTP.

Look at the result below from Bethnal Green General Election result 2010. Remember Bethnal Green has a very large (approx 34%) Bangladeshi community. However this is still by any standards a minority. Besides this large single community the rest of the borough is diverse.

Below is the demographics of Tower Hamlets which incorporates Bethnal Green.

Notice in the first table how most of the candidates in the 2010 General Election have Bangladeshi names even though the Bangladeshi community is a minority in the borough. While I am more than happy for all communities who are settling in the UK to strive to become part of this country (and that includes standing for parliament), I am worried that the candidates in this case, were not selected on ability but on their ability to command a large tribal vote.

Galloway demonstrated the under FPTP any electoral victor in Bethnal Green had to command the tribal vote of the Bangladeshi community. Consequently, in 2010 all the main parties presented Bangladeshi candidates, even though 65% of the seat is not Bangladeshi. Of course, each party would, no doubt, protest that their candidate really was the best candidate they had, but really it seems unreasonable that all top polling candidates have Bangladeshi names.  The candidate list has been stuffed in order to win the Bangladeshi vote on racial grounds not on policy grounds.

First Past The Post is highly sensitive to block voting. In the real world of the UK today we have  a number of communities who are prepared to vote according to what they are told to do or what they tribally fell obliged to do.

AV would have prevented the election of George Galloway and it would negate the need for political parties to select candidates on racial rather than ability grounds.

FPTP is yesterdays voting system. It is not capable of meeting the challenges of a modern society. It need to be replaced. Voting for AV is an opportunity to significantly improve the democracy in our country.

Vote for AV on Thursday.

A Dual Dictatorship of Vested Interest

Because of the First Past The Post voting system, minority party supporters are given no option but to use tactical voting to remove an unpopular MP. Voters unlucky enough not to support either of the two main candidates are  left with no option but to vote for the least worst choice.

Emerging parties get starved of recognition and their policies go unnoticed or ignored.

The major parties regularly ignore anything that does not suit their policies or backers. We end up with a dual dictatorship where the electorate have only a tenuous choice between two monoliths. Each monolith is directed by the party zealots who ignore the obvious wishes of the electorate. Both main parties have little synergy to the real wishes of voters. The monoliths pay far more attention to their financial backers than the electorate. The electorate can go to hell.

We end up with a government completely divorced from the realities and wishes of most people.

Take well known examples of common electorate concerns:

Immigration
Europe
Justice and Crime
Social Security Abuse
Defence over-stretch
Foreign Aid abuse

How many of those concerns are even given a passing nod from the ruling elite?


Neither of the main parties pay the least attention to what the people really want but go off and pursue what their activists wish to implement. Occasionally they may throw a few propaganda crumbs to the masses, but that is all. Without the visibility of minor party votes, without the guarantee that each MP is supported by at least 50% of the constituency, we end up with a pallid monoculture where it is difficult to distiguish between the career politicians or their policies.

If our country is to move out of this quagmire of apathy that embraces our political system, we must replace the obsolete and corrosive First Past the Post voting system. The Alternative voting system is not perfect but it is far far better than what we currently endure.

On Thursday - vote for AV.

First Past the Post and Extremism

While First Past the Post can deny due recognition to minority parties, it is also, paradoxically, far more vulnerable to  extremist manipulation than AV.

Minor party supporters who vote with their conscience, waste their vote. If they vote tactically, they deny their preferred candidate support. People usually vote with their conscience. While this is highly honourable, it can let the extremists in by the back door.

The most recent example of this was the election of George Galloway for the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005. Galloway represented the so-called Respect Party. If you have any doubts about the extreme nature of Respect, which is essentially an umbrella organisation for various extreme left wing and Islamic groups, have a look at WikiPedia Page Here.

The Bethnal Green and Bow constituency has a large proportion of Bangladeshi immigrant voters. It appears they voted en-masse for Galloway due to the Islamic identity of Respect and also because the incumbent Labour MP (Oona King) was a Black woman of Jewish-Afro-Caribbean ancestry.

Even so, Galloway only secured 35% of the vote. But he won with a majority of 823 over Oona King.

If this had been a AV election Galloway would have had to make it to 50%. I find it difficult to believe that if the Liberal and Conservative vote had been redistributed with AV that Galloway would have won.

The end result was that the 65% of good people of Bethnal Green and Bow ended up being represented by an extremist party, rather than the capable Oona King.

Pro FPTP supporters often moan about how with AV, the second (or even third) choice on the first ballot may potentially win. Well, I reckon the majority of the  people of Bethnal would have been overjoyed to see such a "travesty" in 2005.

Interestingly in the 2010, Labour regained the seat - with an Asian candidate who replaced Oona King. Many have commented on how Labour cynically sold out to the inherent racism of the Bangladeshi community in Bethnal simply to regain the seat.  With FPTP they had to.

I understand Oona King was promoted to the House of Lords (Baroness King of Bow) but I understand, from several sources from she was a considerable loss to mainstream British politics

Below is the Bethnal election result for 2010. You will see the emergence of another extremist party - the BNP. They may have only gained gained 2.5% of the vote, but it is a foothold. People who are disenfranchised by FPTP are easy pickings for extremists. Perhaps what the BNP hope for is that one day, due to the unfairness of FPTP they may, on a fluke, secure 35% of the vote and so gain the seat - just like George Galloway.

Maybe that's the reason the BNP among others, are so keen to see AV voted down.

We must replace FPTP. It is a decrepit system ill suited to a modern democracy. AV is far from perfect but it stands head and shoulders above FPTP.

Tactical Voting, AV and First Past the Post

Supporters of FPTP often promote tactical voting as a way minority party supporters can make their vote count.

While tactical voting under FPTP can obviously give a minority party supporter a greater influence over the outcome of a FPTP election, it is at a huge cost to the voters real desire.

With tactical voting under FPTP, the voter must personally transfer their vote without it first being counted for the minority party the voter would prefer. The result of this is that the actual true support for the minority candidate is not reflected in the election result. The positive policy preferences of the tactical voter are left hidden. The major parties, which are inevitably the beneficiaries of tactical voting, carry on their chosen paths without reference to the real but hidden wishes of significant sections of the electorate.

Smaller but important parties are ignored, simply because they appear to have no support. As far as their true wishes are concerned, the  tactical votes of the minority party supporters have gone down the drain.

The tactical voter has to guess where the most effective place for his vote is going to be. Remember while this is essentially their second preference vote it may up being cast for their third or fourth choice. The tactical vote is rarely a vote of support or preference. It will be a vote against the candidate the voter perceives as the less desirable potential winner.

While any form of voting is better than abstention, it is far better for people to vote for who they prefer rather than vote against those they dislike. That is why the 1,2,3 etc of AV is so important.

Finally and arguably the most important advance given by AV is that it is inclusive. It gives everyone a chance to see their vote count. People who would not bother voting because they dislike the concept of tactical voting, because of its usual negativity, will be enfranchised and more likely to vote.

The country is currently on a slippery downward slope. Less and less people vote in general elections and even fewer in council elections. Something must be done to defeat the apathy and re-enfranchise the disillusioned.

Tactical voting has some very large negatives associated with it. It is in no way a substitute for a proper transferable voting system like AV. AV is not perfect but it is far better than FPTP. AV is a way for the political establishment to re-engage with the electorate.

Vote for AV on May 5th.

First Past The Post and Vote rigging

Regrettably, things have changed in our country. Voting fraud is now no longer a rarity. Crooks have realised how vulnerable FPTP is to Gerrymandering and vote stuffing.

In council elections both main parties have indulged in despicable practices to boost their candidates. There is strong evidence that even during the last General Election major corruption was evident.

The May 5th FPTP/AV referendum only relates to parliamentary elections, but the scams and criminality of some council elections serve as a useful window into the dark world of subverting democracy - and how fragile FPTP is to such scams.

Of course, whatever the voting system, such activities are totally reprehensible.

But the facts of life are just this: It is easy to "game" FPTP.

Vote rigging in our country is easy, almost undetectable and already seriously undermining the confidence of the electorate.

In my last post (HERE) I detailed four such scams. Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Here I will detail a couple more that have resulted in prosecution or at least controversy. I would put money on that for every scam found out, ten go undiscovered.

So why is AV more resilient than FPTP? I went through the main mechanisms used by fraudsters in my last post (HERE). But here is a brief resume about the most common fraud - Vote stuffing

Vote stuffing involves falsly registering phantom electors Then the fraudster usually uses the bogus postal vote. The type of seat/ward that is particularly vulnerable to this is where there is a sizeable third/fourth vote and the two leading parties are closely matched.

Because, in FPTP, all the votes for the third/fourth parties are essentially wasted, stuffing the ballot by a handful of false votes may well be enough to tip the balance. With AV the need to reach 50% from either direct votes or transfers renders most vote stuffing scams totally ineffective. Stuffing the ballot by (say) 100 votes will be totally swamped by the thousands of reallocated votes from the second preference votes.

With FPTP, a General Election can be decided by a few swing seats. Due to the nature of FPTP this means that in a close election the result is determined by a few thousand geographically critical votes. The trouble is now that the infection of disonesty is so ingrained into some communities within this country that those few thousand voters may only be imaginary. Mere figments of a criminal plan.

Two More Scam Examples:

One of the scams below resulted in jail sentences for the fraudsters. At least the second must have given the crooks a few sleepless nights.

1. Birmingham City Council 2005 (Labour)

This was a major fraud mainly involving vote stuffing (via postal ballot) and Personation (where known non-voters have their unused vote stolen). Six Labour councillors were found guilty of fraud. The judge famously described the fraud as: "that would disgrace a banana republic". This fraud was only viable because of the fragility of FPTP to vote stuffing. With AV the second choice votes would have overwhelmed anything but a massive (and one would hope) easily discoverable fraud.

The Times article on this fraud can be found HERE. The Times described this as the most corrupt election since the Victorian era. The BBC article on this fraud is HERE.

2. Tower Hamlets General Election 2010 (Labour)

A criminal investigation into vote stuffing before the 2010 general election found that there were over 5000 new applications for a postal vote at the very last minute. In the news reports (below) are reports of 18 freshly registered "voters" living in a single flat. Several Labour councillors appeared to have numerous new voters registered at their address.
This though was only one of 28 criminal investigations across the Capital. Anti-sleaze campaigner Martin Bell said: ‘There is actually a possibility that the result of the election could be decided by electoral fraud.'
The Daily Mail article on this can be found HERE

Many will rail against changing our voting system simpy because it is open to abuse. But really, democracy MUST be defended. The crooks MUST be defeated.

AV would make life much harder for the crooks to get their way.

I personally think AV is a better system for many reasons. But top of the list is its resilience against vote rigging.

 

First-Past-The-Post, AV and Fraud

In the current debate on which voting system we should adopt, nobody seems concerned about how resilient each system is to fraud.

I hope to show here (with examples) that one of the major issues with the current system (FPTP) is that it is wide open to Gerrymandering, Vote Stuffing and other forms of election fraud.

Proportional vote systems of just about any variety are much less sensitive to ballot rigging. This includes AV.

In recent times there has been major ballot rigging by both the Conservatives and Labour, you can guarantee that for every fraud that is discovered there are another ten that go unnoticed.

All of the all the fraud schemes are based around manipulating small numbers of votes or voters. These frauds will only work effectively if you have a flawed voting system like FPTP.

Example 1
Gerrymandering (or Manipulation of Demography.)
(Used By Conservatives, Westminster Council 1990)

The conservative council moved council tenants out of marginal wards into wards already strongly Labour, thus nullifying the vote of those moved. The council then sold the properties to owner occupiers, who, they assumed were more likely to vote Conservative. In this way they gamed the system so they made a small reduction to the Labour support base and at the same time made a potential small increase to the support base for the Conservatives. The fraud then relied on the fact that much of the vote went to other parties and was essentially wasted. A manipulated but tiny change in voter demography in these marginal seats gave the Conservatives a massive electorial advantage.

The net result of this scam was that the Conservative won the marginals. Labour increased their share of the vote in their strongly Labour wards but lost the marginal seats.

This scam is only effective with FPTP. With AV the second choice votes would come into effect and and it is highly unlikely that Westminster council could have changed the demographics anywhere near enough to game AV.

The Conservative Westminster Council only got caught because they were so blatent about it (politicians conceit again) I suspect that this methodolgy has been used on numerous occasions by both major parties, but with a little less arrogance and a little more concealment.

The leader of Westminster Council (Dame Shirtly Porter) was fined £37 million and stripped of here title.

Details of this scam are   HERE (Independent) and HERE (Wikipedia)

Example 2.
Vote Stuffing 
(Used by the Labour Party 2010 general election - unproven but highly likely)


Vote stuffing has a number guises. The most common is fraudulent postal voting. It works by the fraudster(s) registering fictitious residents into a marginal seat or ward. Each of these fictitious residents gets a postal vote. Because the votes for third parties are essentially wasted, these few fraudulent votes can swing the balance of the vote. According to Lady Warsi, The Conservatives lost three seats in the 2010 election due to postal vote stuffing.

Again this is only an effective scam under FPTP where the winner can win with a small percentage of the vote. With AV the second choice votes would mean that any candidate would need 50% of the reallocated vote to win. To stuff the vote to the extent as to counteract the transferred votes as well  would be untenable.

Lady Warsi's allegation is Here (Telegraph)

Articles on occurences of Postal vote fraud can be found HERE , HERE, HERE and HERE


Example 3  
Granny Farming
(Used by Conservatives, Bedford Borough Council 2005)


With Granny farming, older vulnerable residents, who under normal circumstances would not vote, are persuaded to give their vote to a proxy. This proxy themn uses the vote to their advantage. This is a variant of Vote Stuffing and there have since 2005 been put in place some controls (i.e. a proxy can only act for one other person not many as was the case).
Like other forms of vote stuffing this scam is only effective under FPTP. In AV due to the need for the winner to secure 50% of the vote, manipulating a few votes is far less likely to affect the outcome.

Article on Granny Farming can be found HERE

Example 4.
Personation.
(Used by the Labour Party, Glasgow North By-Election 2009)

When a party has a secure seat it is only vulnerable to voter apathy (i.e. people failing to turn up to vote) Personation is where the fraudster turns up and pretends to be someone else and uses the other persons vote, assuming that that person will not show. This is a desperate and dangerous version of vote stuffing and like all forms of vote stuffing is only effective under FPTP.

Article on Personation at the Glasgow North By election is HERE

I could go on and on.

Unfortunately election fraud is no longer a freak event in our country. One of the main reasons for this rise in fraud is simply because the FPTP voting system is so fragile and open to criminal manipulation.

It is considerably more difficult to game any form of proportional representation system simply because with AV you cannot win with a small share of the vote, you have to get 50% from direct votes or transfers.

That reason alone should mean we choose AV.

But FPTP also can foul up on a grand scale even without fraud. If you've not read them, have a look at my posts on the elections of 1929, 1951,  1974. Particularly look at 1951 where the Conservative Party that formed the government with an absolute majority, actually got a smaller  share of the national vote than Labour party.

Ed Balls Returns

Billothewisp is feeling slightly ill.

 It has nothing to do with the 5 pints of Old Rosie (The cider of Champions) he recently embibed.

But is has everything to do with the Machiavellian return of the odious Ed Balls.

After knifing his brother in the back Ed Milliband at least tried to do the decent thing and clear out the rotten core of Browns economic disaster. But now  the economically illiterate shadow chancellor Alan Johnson has chucked his hand in and our Ed is under pressure. Foolishly he has decided to re-rehabilitate  Ed Balls. The wreckers apprentice has returned.

The ugly ambition of Ed balls is already shining through, his little piggy eyes glint and shine. But then he is after all, the next leader in waiting.

If I were Ed Milliband I would watch my back. Sooner or later, it could end up just like his brothers.

Globalisation: The Stealer of Skills

OK my snarly gnarly little English illiterati. Here the next dose of why Globalisation is bad for you, me, and the rest of the world-wide Hoi Polloi** (see note below).

Put that bottle of cider down and pay attention.

The easy way to illustrate this is to give you a couple of recent examples regarding the theft of skilled workers from the third world and the corresponding theft of jobs from England

---

One of the great obscenities perpetrated by the last Labour government was the bribery and theft of trained medical professionals from the third world.

What! I hear you exclaim. The Labour party indulging in a spot of slavery? Well, Almost.

Starting in the late 90's teams of recruiters from local health authorities were flown to places like India, South Africa and the Philippines with the sole aim of stealing the medical staff away to the UK.

Nobody would dispute that these individuals were a great gain for the UK.

I would also hope that nobody would dispute that stealing them away from their own nations was not only immoral but also a catastrophe for those Hoi Polloi** left doctor-less and nurse-less back home.

Why did the ruling elite do this?

Because it was cheaper than training our own medics.

It got them out of a short term hole of their own making regarding impractical promises they made about the NHS.

Simple.

Now of course, it is a long term problem. But they don't care anymore. Another ruling elite has to pick up the pieces.

It also gave them leverage in keeping down wages. It enhanced their control over the NHS at the expense of the medics.

I am sure that in the future the Labour party's addiction to globalisation and its immoral theft of these medics will be regarded much in the same way as we regard slavery today.

To be fair there were rumblings of discontent from the odd senior (though soon to be junior) member of the Labour Party (like Clarles Clarke)

The other skilled worker obscenity we will be looking at today is the abuse of skills within the third world.

An engineer or technician is a precious resource in any country. But today many multi-lingual highly educated individuals in the third world will be found answering the phone and dealing with Mr Angry from Cheam and his missing direct debit.

Meanwhile the people in this country that used to do this job sit at home watching the afternoon telly waiting to sign on again. Their prosperity and self reliance ruined.

The foreign engineer, temporarily gets paid more than he would doing his proper job. Meanwhile his skills rot and the country that trained him goes without.

Long term nobody gains.

Except the fat cats.

OK?

Sermon over. Back to the cider.

**NOTE
I know you lot are, like me, a bit dim. (John Prescott told me this. So it must be true.)

So I need to explain the term Hoi Polloi.

Hoi Polloi is a Greek expression meaning the many, the masses, etc. It is usually used in private by the Great Good and Extremely Well Fed. They use it as a sneeringly derogatory term when describing people like you and me, my plebian proletariate mates.

Occasionally they get carried away and use it in public, so if you hear it, now you know what it means.

So theres a little lesson for you.

Of course Dioclese should know this already. It is not because he is brighter than the rest of us its just that as a short term past resident of Greece he must have heard the remark delivered about himself as he queued up every night to buy his industrial strength Metaxa.

Liam Bryne tries Leesons Cure

When Nick Leeson ruined Barings bank he at least had the decency to place a A4 sheet of paper on his keyboard giving his apologies. That was just before he did a runner.

On that sheet of paper were two words.

“I'm Sorry”

In total he lost about $850 million.

Nick Leeson went to jail and Barings went bust.

It looks like history may be repeating itself, although on a far grander scale. Nick Leeson's losses were, all-in-all, a mere smidgen of the amount of wealth vaporised by Gordon Brown and associates.

Liam Byrne of the outgoing Labour administration also left a note, just before making an exit. It was addressed to his successor at the Treasury.

The note read:

"I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left."

I suppose at least that shows a level of honesty. (See Timesonline article here)

A level of honesty similar to Nick Leeson's anyway. But I don't expect anyone will be going to prison.

As for the main architects of this calamity, namely Messrs Brown and Darling, barely a squeak. The only statement being a piece of flannel coming from Darling. He stated that Osborne's warnings about the Labour debt mountain were simply propaganda.

Actually I'm surprised Darling didn't blame it all on the last Conservative administration.

The one thing Osborne must not do is to try and hide the magnitude of the problem. OK the pound may take a hammering, we may lose out AAA credit rating but the facts of this catastrophe must be made public.

Electorates rely on information to make their decisions. That is why Brown postponed the last spending review. The present government has started well and must continue to treat voters with honesty and clarity.

Osbourne will be doing nobody any favours by papering over the fissures left by the Brown and Darling.

I hope we hear the unbridled truth. However bad it may be.

England in a Losers Coalition

First off: A hat tip to the Free England Alliance - Hampshire Blog which alerted me to this article in the Times today. I suggest you read it.

Meanwhile tonight, it looks like the Lib-Dem activists are cutting up rough about a coalition with Tories.

Even Gordo has said he is going to fall on his sword to try and stop a Conservative led government (but, Um, Oh.. not quite yet).

There is a distinct possibility that a government, of sorts could be formed by an alliance of Labour, Lib-Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Greens and anyone else who doesn't like the Tories.

Can you imagine how effective that will be?

Lots of feuding, disparate parties, myopically focused on their own narrow interests. They have little in common except their joint wish to undermine the Tories.

In order to keep the nationalists on-board, there would have to be a strong preservation of their services and jobs. Except of course in England, and guess who will pick up the bill.

Getting this lot to vote in one direction would be like herding cats. So don't expect much to get fixed. It could prove entertaining for us humble Proles. But only in a masochistic and very expensive way.

I am surprised that this potential Losers Coalition has any appetite for it, bearing in mind the parlous state the country. Obviously they haven't read the dire warnings from people like the Governor of the Bank of England. (see Independant article here).

Perhaps Cameron should sit back and let them have a go. It is going to be a cert that the whole thing would collapse within a short time. We may all hurt a lot during a Coalition Of The Losers but it may be worth it in the long run.

Finally, just a thought. Why is the Conservative Party so obsessed with the now obsolete concept of the United Kingdom? It's time has passed. If they were to give a lead to (at least) an English Assembly their large support within England would turn into an avalanche.

Maybe though things are changing. See this ConservativeHome article.

John Redwood tends to be out in front of Conservative policy.

Looks like he is leading again.

A Greek Tragedy and an English Vote.

As we come to the end of the British election campaign, matters in Greece have turned ugly. Greece is nigh on bankrupt and sliding towards anarchy. To maintain their position within the Euro zone they have to make massive cuts . Even our future cuts, that will be very bad, will not match those currently demanded of Greece.

There is a lesson here for us. Greece gave up its sovereignty too easily. It surrendered its national control over its currency and, like us has kow-towed to the Bureaucrats in Brussels. While things were good, the Greeks wafted along on a sea of debt. Now it has all turned sour. Today Germany is calling the shots. Greece does as it is told.

There but for the grace of God we go. I must admit that, several years ago I was of the opinion that joining the Euro was a good idea. How wrong I was.

When we go to vote tomorrow, we should all ask ourselves as to whether the people we are voting for will strive to keep us off the Greek road to ruin.

The European Union has just about cost the Greeks everything. It has also cost us dear.

As the SNP seems ultra Europhile, maybe the primary concern we should express with our vote should be for the sovereignty of (at least) England if not the whole of the UK.

Let us prevent the Greek tragedy becoming the English tragedy.

Examine the manifestos.
Who is really going to protect our sovereignty?

Watch out who you vote for.

Lib-Dems and Flying Pigs

Billothewisp loves the party political leaflets. He swoons over the promises and is thrilled by the wonderful feats of rationality they include. But he does get puzzled by the maths, especially the Dorset South pre-poll results given by the Lib-Dems.

A Hat tip to James Cleverly for this post. It made me take a closer look at the Lib-Dem literature that has been poked through our door. Like James we see a miraculous transformation of the voting intentions of the electorate.

My constituency is South Dorset.

In the Lib-Dem leaflet there is a bar-graph of party support. According to the Lib-Dem leaflet, this is the voting intentions

Lib-Dem 37%
Conservative 41%
Labour 14%

The Labour bar on the bar graph also has a handy little arrow stating “A Long Way Behind”

Hmmmmm.

I felt a little nonplussed by this, especially as the sitting MP is Jim Knight (Labour). While I expect he is going to lose his seat, he is actually one of the better of the Labour bunch and actually commands a level of loyalty within the constituency. I would be very surprised (amazed even) if his support fell to 14 %..

I thought I would Google the last election result. Here it is in this Guardian article.

In summary we got:

Lib-Dem 15.7%
Conservative 37.9%
Labour 41.6%


So Ros Kayes (Lib-Dem) reckons she has more than doubled Lib-Dem support. While poor old Jim Knight has seen his support fall by 2/3rds!

Hey! There goes another flying pig.

I hope this is simply wishful thinking and not a deliberate attempt at deception.

Maybe it is simply that the Lib-Dems need a few maths lessons. If so it doesn't sit well with the idea of them running the economy. But it is much worse if they have been deliberately deceptive.

One thing politics desperately needs in this country is honesty.
Not spin, not deception or wishful thinking.
We have had quite enough of those, thankyou.

Why Labour won't Die

Billothewisp has been drinking a lot of cider. During his drinking he has pondered the fate of the Labour Party and politics in general. Especially after the events with Mrs Duffy.

However bad the election result, there is a simple reason Labour will not die. Irrespective of the self serving, elitist clique who own, run and rule the party.

That simple thing is loyalty.

The loyalty of people like Mrs Duffy. People who are generally despised and treated with contempt by the Labour cognoscenti.

Straight forward working people, concerned about their communities. People who get treated like lepers by the ruling elite. They are the ones who will vote Labour even after being demonised and betrayed.

They will vote Labour because they are loyal and trustworthy. They will do it because they respect their forebears who formed the Labour party. They will vote Labour as an act of loyalty to their community.

Lucky ruling elite.

But what about the ruling elite?

I don't want to address the immigration issues again, but I do want to address the mind set of King Gordo and others of the intelligentsia within the Labour party who would deign Mrs Duffy and her like as “bigoted”. Simply because she expressed a view non centric to their mindset.

Bigoted. Really! What a thing to think! Let alone say. Even if it was said in private.

Here we have a pensioner, reasonably expressing her concern on a number of issues. She is smiled at, condescended to, and virtually patted on the head like a good dog. Later she is referred to as a bigot.

Lets make no mistake over this. That is exactly what Brown felt. He said it in private. There is no reason for him to have said it at all, unless that is what he thought and wanted to express. All the snuffling, apologies and false smiles later were there simply to try and dig himself out of the crap.

Even if she had been wrong (and I don't think she was), Mrs Duffy expressed her views in a controlled, reasonable and dignified manner. She deserves more than to be instantly labelled, categorised and demonised.

That is what the McCarthy witch-hunts were about or the Stalinist show trials.

It lays bare the narrow minded elitist mindset that grips the Labour Party.

But loyalty is a great thing. The overpaid luvvies, the champagne socialists and the intellectual contortionists can be assured it will keep them going for quite a few more years.

But one day, maybe, the trough snuffling elite will push things just too far. The loyal will rebel. Maybe then we will get a political party that tries to represent the electorate rather than a narrow intellectual clique. Maybe then we will get a Labour party that good people like Mrs Duffy deserve.

Bigotry, Anonymity and Immigration

This morning Billothewisp found he had this comment on this post concerning the Dear Leader, bigotry and a charming working class lady called Mrs Duffy.

The commentator, who goes under the funny name of "Anonymous" demanded facts and criticised some of the post. He/She even criticised bits I did't say and were not there, but never mind.

Billothewisp is pleased to get a criticism and happily provides the information. Blow by Blow.

So to "Anonymous": Thank-you for the question and challenge. You appear to have three areas of contention.

1. Anonymous: "Where's the evidence for your view that most Brits living abroad are retirees? Statistics and sources please."

Reply: Read what I said. ("most of the Brits staying in Europe are retirees or in high demand jobs.")

Read This BBC Report ( slightly old (2006) but do you think anything has changed? Also it is the same data cited by the Labour party in defence of Gordon Brown. Ironically, it is from his friends in the IPPR).

From The above link: ONS Passenger survey for emigrants:
40% professional managerial,
25% Manual/clerical
17.5% retirees/carers,
9.3% children
7.9% students

This is of course world wide emigration. Emigration to Europe is skewed more to retirees. Emigration to Australasia and the Americas is skewed to younger professionals.
See this BBC piece: Quote: "Many of those going appear to be young and highly skilled... The second group, particularly in Europe, are the middle-aged, retired or semi-retired."

I could go on from the BBC alone. The best source though is not the BBC, which is far from impartial (I'm using it first here because I suspect you love the BBC - I hate it)

This is an excellent account of this issue from Channel 4 website FactCheck. Better than anything the BBC produces.

But if you really want the Meat and Potatoes see What is the problem? This page at Migration Watch summarises extensive and detailed information concerning mass immigration. Trawl the Migration Watch website here and learn about the problem.

2. Anonymous: "Also, would you not say that her description of "immigrants" "flocking in" is both dehumanising and very problematic.

Reply: As for Mrs Duffy, From the latest reports I understand she turned down £30K from the Sun who wanted to put words in her mouth. So at least her personal integrity exceeds that of most MP's. So how would you describe 1M arrivals in such a short time to a single country? Flocking seems reasonable to me.

3. Anonymous: "Again, where is the proof that Eastern European immigrants have had an adverse impact on the economy, on the services that people receive from the state, on cultural life. Support your claims"

Reply With regard the Polish/East European influx, please read what I said and not what you want me to have said.

What I said: "The million(s) coming in are at best (like the Poles) looking for work and contributing through taxes. Although it can only be unhealthy for both England and Poland to have such a large number of workers dislocated from their own country. Like it or not, it does also mean less work for the locals."

To expand a little on what I actually wrote above:

The problem with the Poles is not their work ethic, attitude or honesty. The problem is simply the sheer numbers arriving. They are usually skilled and hard workers. Nothing wrong with that. But they often take jobs well below their actual qualification/ability level and displace the poorer and less able locals who end up on the dole. That was Mrs Duffy's worry (mine also). Further more, imagine what their absence is doing to the infrastructure in Poland.

Although I did not mention the impact immigrants have on the overall economy and social infrastructure I would suggest you read What is the problem? Section 10 and it's references. It may well challenge some of your pre-conceptions.

Finally:

The main theme of the post was that immigration is the taboo subject and that anyone mentioning is automatically (and unfairly) labelled a bigot.
I suspect you're allegiance is to the intellectual end of the Labour party. As such I suspect you (like your colleagues) are totally divorced from the cares and concerns of the the working class within this country (people like Mrs Duffy). Your blinkered and elitist attitudes isolate and frustrate fair, decent and loyal people.

Mainly due to Labours duplicitous handling of immigration, there is a possiblity that the BNP may get an MP elected. If that happens it will be solely because this issue has been ignored and brushed under the carpet. If this happens it will be due to people like you air-brushing out this problem and sneering at the concerns of honest people.

In other words it will be your fault.

p.s Why be anonymous? Only voting should be anonymous. How can I be influenced by your views if I cannot read your blog?