|
|
Post by swl on Apr 25, 2009 8:56:36 GMT
Phew,
It's all over. Voting closed at midnight last night. The votes will be audited over the weekend and a result announced on Monday. At the close, I think I was 30 votes ahead, but Riot & RJ were frantically punching keys on their mobiles. I don't know if their votes got in in time. I'm not going to do a Kinnock, I'll wait until I'm officially told before I start celebrating.
That was tough. I've never done anything like this before. I take my hat off to Riot for doing this loads of times - I don't know how you can sustain the energy. Selecting candidates by text vote is new and I know it's raising eyebrows, but considering more people in the UK voted in Pop Idol than in the General Election, it's a technology we should perhaps be looking at. I've heard it said that it disenfranchises those without mobiles. Well, 85% of the UK adult population has at least one mobile phone and that figure is rising steadily all the time. In addition, many landlines have an SMS facility too. Considering that it's estimated that 3 million people are missing off the Electoral Register, the gap is closing.
I will say something though - standing on a doorstep and convincing a total stranger to text a vote is difficult. Would you? Someone you've never seen before knocks on your door and asks you to send a text costing at least 25p? Given all the scare stories about scams and rip offs, I'm not sure I would do it. And yet many did. I watched them do it.
Anyway, I just want to say thank-you to everyone that voted. It's incredible that you spent your own money supporting a disembodied guy on t'internet.
I'm going to sit down and work out exactly how I'm going to take this forward. When I started this I was a bit hazy on the details, but they've been developing. Somebody said last night that it's insane that political policies are going to be influenced by message boarders. I don't see why not. Yes I've seen some wrong-headed and frankly bizarre arguments, but I've also seen some incredibly clever ones. And I think posters are generally better informed about the world than the average man in the street. Politics has been taken over by "experts". There has been a deliberate attempt by the political classes to distance themselves from the society they govern. The route into Parliament is now typified as School - Uni - "Researchers" job - parachuted into safe seat. No wonder they can't understand why the public is shocked at their expenses. They inhabit a different world in the Westminster bubble. I read that the budget for entertainment at Westminster was raised just last month from £500k to £800k a year. In the midst of a furore about money, they slap down more of our cash on champagne!
These political "experts" who sneer at the idea of an ordinary guy getting involved are the ones who have bankrupted this country. Like kids in a sweet shop they've spent and spent, borrowed and borrowed to spend and borrow in an infinite loop. Well, even this ordinary guy knows that when you borrow you have to pay it back. These "experts" have just ensured that our children and grandchildren are going to be the ones paying back the money they've pissed down the drain.
Gah! Getting angry again.
Thanks once more for your help and for putting up with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 25, 2009 10:42:55 GMT
SWL, I didn't vote for you and I could take issue with some of what you say in the above post but...hell....
WELL DONE!
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 25, 2009 11:17:04 GMT
I think this idea that somehow the 'amateur' politician has moral superiority to the 'professional' is strange.
After all, if you wanted your electrics fixed you wouldn't bring in an enthusiastic amateur, but someone who was a time-served electrician.
And I am certainly cynical about SWL's chances of winning, or even retaining his deposit. (I posted about the deposit yesterday but I think I got the sums wrong. SWL needs to win one/fortieth of the vote to retain his £5k deposit I think.)
The single Scottish constituency elects 6 MEPs.
SWL's party will require to get somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 votes for it to get a single MEP elected, somewhere between 13% - 15% of the total number of votes cast.
At the last Euros the Greens (the newest established party on the political scene) won just 7% of the vote despite a national campaign and national media coverage.
I just don't think it's do-able. Sorry to be the rainer on the parade.
I also don't like this 'selection by text' thing. It just becomes like Big Brother or Pop Idol.
The established party's candidates will have been thoroughly vetted, and voted for by hundreds (if not thousands) of party members who will have heard them speak, asked them questions, etc.
During the elections the established parties will turn out hundreds of campaigners, knocking doors, delivering leaflets, etc. They will get media coverage. They already have lists of voters with their own supporters known to them and have in place established processes such as arranging for drivers to take elderly and infirm voters to the polls. The established parties will spend tens of thousands of pounds on publicity and campaigning.
The European elections have never captured the public imagination, and turn-out is always very low. All the committed party members and supporters will turn out to vote for their party, as they do at every election. But there is unlikely to be the novelty factor that you get at General Elections when people get excited . . we all remember the 'I haven't voted for years, but I turned out to vote for Tony Blair' types back in 1997! Well, things like that don't happen in the Euros.
The party supporters, the elderly and the middle classes will vote. The poor and the young won't bother. And the poor and the young are the very ones most likely to be vote for someone other than an established party (if they vote at all.)
Sure, there is perceived to be a general dissatisfaction with organised politics . . but isn't there always? And in Scotland the SNP have not been tainted by the economic mess that Gordon Brown's Labour Party are seen as being partially responsible for. So those who want to protest against the Government have an easy other option. Alex Salmond remains a very well known and respected figure in Scottish politics, so there is far less space for an 'outside' party than there is in England.
I maintain that, if you want to really change things, you have to work through one of the established party machines.
Or, alternatively, as someone said in the chatroom last night (I think), stand at a local election when there is a real chance of getting round a ward and making yourself known to the voters. Even then, independent and new party candidates will have been working the ward for years beforehand, involving themselves in community politics, etc.
SWL will need to build an army of campaigners to support him. He'll have to very quickly identify his supporters. He'll have to work to get round the lack of media coverage . . but how?
I wish you luck SWL as you know. But I am the angel of realism I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 25, 2009 11:56:20 GMT
Like I said on t'other thread .... if you don't get in, don't give up.
Don't turn your nose up at the idea of local politics, which in my view is the true home of the independent candidate. there, you will have ample opportunities to gather the views of your voters and see how best to accommodate their many conflicting demands against a tight budget - never an easy juggling exercise!
|
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Apr 25, 2009 12:02:42 GMT
That is a heck of a big step for MEPness, I think the lil birdy has a point about local politics  |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 25, 2009 12:44:23 GMT
I think this idea that somehow the 'amateur' politician has moral superiority to the 'professional' is strange. After all, if you wanted your electrics fixed you wouldn't bring in an enthusiastic amateur, but someone who was a time-served electrician. I don't think that is comparable at all! The whole point of politics is that anyone should be able to do it? It should not be a closed shop of elitist buddies and here I'm thinking of that loathesome wedding photograph of university "mates" John Gummer, Michael Howard, Ken Clarke, Spotty Git etc - Sure the same old boys shop has gone back for years and years, and it is wrong! You shouldn't have to be a QC or a lawyer to be a politician (but it helps!  ) It should be about an intelligent enough, articulate, open minded man or woman wanting to stand up for the rights of ordinary people! To have to accept someone who is supposedly a "professional politician" Is exactly the sort of prejudice we are getting now between University Graduates and people with years and years of genuine hands on experience! A true politician is somebody who believes in doing right. Not some dolt who has simply been trained to think like a politician! |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 25, 2009 12:52:23 GMT
I don't think that is comparable at all! The whole point of politics is that anyone should be able to do it? Well yes, anyone can do it, provided they're willing to join the party, go to meetings, knock the doors, put in the hours of boring work marking up the electoral register, or debating the sub-clauses of the constitution or whatever. From time to time (and I DON'T mean SWL here) you get some egotist with opinions who comes out with 'Anyone can be a politician' and attempts to run as an independent because they're so convinced of their own unique talents. They are convinced that they, and only they, know what 'real people' want. You see them in their starkest at by-elections - the local issues 'independent' candidate. They are inevitably humiliated, as their personal opinion, that they are so convinced represents the majority of people, is, in reality, nothing but their personal opinion. It's arrogance and ego that persuades such individuals that they - and not the established parties - are the ones 'really in touch' with the voters. In fact the footsoldiers of the political parties ARE real people, and they select the candidates that they think will do the best job. Inevitably therefore the candidates will include people with legal and/or political experience, because they are the BEST candidates for the job. Then people complain about machine politicians or whatever. Everybody is already free to participate in the political process at any and every level. That they choose not to do so probably indicates that they're not that interested. When they vote for a party candidate at least they have a broad idea of the range of issues that party stands for. When you vote for an independent individual, not subject to any party discipline, you really are voting for a pig in a poke. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 25, 2009 13:14:26 GMT
The real crunch comes when support is needed in a constituency that may go against the grain of the "Party". Take the all round rebel Austin Mitchell changing his name to Captain Haddock or something - in direct protest at the Government and (his party's) handling of the fish quota scheme. OK. not a fantastic example as he is a known rebel. I'm sure you know what I mean though.
I've often wondered whether it would be in the interests of local politics for a constituency to have two MP's should the first elected end up in the cabinet? Years ago we had the Northern Ireland Minister as our MP - at the height of the troubles - you never saw him? He was always over there! I'm sure anyone with a "big" politician for their MP feels the same. Perhaps it might be an idea for the one who came second to deal with the local stuff (should be and interesting clash of opinions) until the other one is free again!
A prospective MP is a bit like your Best Friend. Not literally - bear with me. Your Best Friend has been with you for years - you know everything about each other - shared the best and worst of times together, are closer than brothers/sisters. Then they get married. All of a sudden your relationship's in tatters, you never see them - they even forget your birthday and eventually as result of the man or woman they have married - you (or they) don't even phone any more.
I remember having chats with our prospective MP when I was working for the Lib Dems - a thoroughly nice, approachable chap - chatty open and honest. We talked about the fact that Paddy Pantsdown was so lousy in front of the cameras etc. I doubt - had he been elected he would have been so open then. There are MP's who would be though - they are the real MP's loyal to the party with a big "ISH" at the end. Because their constituency comes first.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on Apr 25, 2009 13:35:50 GMT
I see. To break the party system, you have to join a party. And then somehow, you'll manage to persuade the party to give up all the inherent power and advantages it has. Not. Ooh, and all these party activists and foot soldiers will choose the bestest candidate will they? Not the sons or daughters of party members then? Or the 22 year old daughter of one of Blair's advisers? www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/111571090 What about when the party orders them to choose from an all-woman list? They don't get the best candidate at all - they get the best woman. linkAnd do politician's need a PHD to fill out their expenses then? Don't give me a lot of guff about how hard they work. Take George Galloway (please). Contributed to 4 debates in the last year, asked 3 written questions and voted in 9% of votes. linkYou say you'd take a qualified electrician over an amateur. What if that qualified electrician has done 4 jobs in a year whilst the amateur has re-wired every house in your street? People choose parties because they know what they stand for? Do they? Did the people who voted Labour imagine they would be stealing from worker's pensions, giving multi-millionaire bankers £bns, attacking the sick and disabled, taking away rights, sending troops off to fight wars in the four corners in old landrovers and 50 year old planes? Then there's the small matter of blatantly breaking their campaign promises... need I go on? I know you're an admirer of Alex Salmond Riot, so you're probably blind to the fact that his smug, self-satisfied grin really, really nips the tits of many people. What have the SNP achieved? They get to sit clucking at the top of the roost in the pretendy Parliament in Holyrood doing the square root of sod-all because party politics means the first time they try to do anything significant, the other parties block them out of spite. 150,000 - 200,000 votes? Do you think there's that few people in Scotland seriously pissed off with the mess the lying, cheating, smug, trough-snuffling "experts" have got us into? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 25, 2009 16:21:53 GMT
But I don't WANT to break the party system.
A modern democracy ceases to function without it.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 25, 2009 16:25:28 GMT
150,000 - 200,000 votes? Do you think there's that few people in Scotland seriously pissed off with the mess the lying, cheating, smug, trough-snuffling "experts" have got us into? I'm sure there are that many people in Scotland pissed off. But what makes you think that's going to be enough to make them vote for you, someone they've never heard of, as opposed to just not voting? Why should they believe that you are any different from the other politicians? When, in the 20th or 21st century was there ever a time - other than a brief honeymoon period for new Governments - when people WEREN'T whingeing on about politicians? |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 26, 2009 1:10:02 GMT
There's a depressing bunch of people listed in the Independent today - from Chloe (24 - just finished a charidee trip up Kilimanjaro If she doesn't make it a job at Central office will follow)  to 48 year olds all gagging to be a new Tory MP. It really is vomit inducing - not to mention the number of them who already have their tongues welded to some party bigwig or middle weighter in the climb up the greasy poll. One definitely gets the impression that they're not there to make life better for others! Just for themselves. It's all so wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Apr 26, 2009 1:56:06 GMT
Maybe 'Democracy' is not such a good idea. Have a government of professional administrators and a second House of Representatives maybe, able to make objections known and with some restriction that when the objections top a certain level, they prevent the professional government from acting. The trouble is that history has given 'government' to people whose only qualification was land or money, not ability, or in revolutionary regimes, to following the Revolutionary Party's line.
Maybe we should vote for government from a restricted list of individuals competent for the job - Minister of Finance from only economists, Minister for the Environment from only ecolologists, and then for Representatives from anybody to 'challenge' them. Democracy depends on informed voters, just like a free market does on informed buyers. The purpose of advertising propaganda in bot cases is to ensure that they are not informed beyond beliefs suitable to whichever party wants their backing.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 26, 2009 8:00:53 GMT
From time to time (and I DON'T mean SWL here) you get some egotist with opinions who comes out with 'Anyone can be a politician' and attempts to run as an independent because they're so convinced of their own unique talents. They are convinced that they, and only they, know what 'real people' want. You see them in their starkest at by-elections - the local issues 'independent' candidate. They are inevitably humiliated, as their personal opinion, that they are so convinced represents the majority of people, is, in reality, nothing but their personal opinion. It's arrogance and ego that persuades such individuals that they - and not the established parties - are the ones 'really in touch' with the voters. In fact the footsoldiers of the political parties ARE real people, and they select the candidates that they think will do the best job. Inevitably therefore the candidates will include people with legal and/or political experience, because they are the BEST candidates for the job. Then people complain about machine politicians or whatever. Everybody is already free to participate in the political process at any and every level. That they choose not to do so probably indicates that they're not that interested. When they vote for a party candidate at least they have a broad idea of the range of issues that party stands for. When you vote for an independent individual, not subject to any party discipline, you really are voting for a pig in a poke. Most of what you say is fair enough, but I've been around long enough to remember that independent local councillors were once quite common. They were usually people already well known in the community so were trusted. As local government reforms took place and councils became bigger, the role of the independent became more difficult, as one member was unable to sit on all the committees so had to rely on other like-minded colleagues. However at district council level I believe there is still room for the independent voice. The real problem with parties at local level is not that they don't listen to the community (they all have the mechanisms to do that with knobs on) but that electors tend to vote according to how they feel about national politics and not on the qualities of the candidate. At one time, party affiliation was never put on ballot papers, and it is a pity that particular rule was changed. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Apr 27, 2009 17:13:12 GMT
And the spreadsheet shows me top of the list.  Thank you everybody, both for the votes and the support. It really means a lot to me. Riot, you're right of course. The challenge is absolutely huge. But they're the best kind  www.juryteam.org/region.php?select=scotland |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 27, 2009 21:20:20 GMT
And the spreadsheet shows me top of the list. Thank you everybody, both for the votes and the support. It really means a lot to me. Riot, you're right of course. The challenge is absolutely huge. But they're the best kind www.juryteam.org/region.php?select=scotlandOn behalf of everyone at Stub Crouch and all our loyal readers, I offer you the warmest congratulations on this auspicious day. And to honour the hard work, enterprising spirit and general Stubbiness of your achievement I hereby award you The Fellowship of the Stub Crouch. Bravo SWL (FSC)! |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 27, 2009 22:33:48 GMT
On behalf of everyone at Stub Crouch and all our loyal readers, I offer you the warmest congratulations on this auspicious day. And to honour the hard work, enterprising spirit and general Stubbiness of your achievement I hereby award you The Fellowship of the Stub Crouch. Bravo SWL (FSC)! Not to mention for being a Big Brave Boy, today! ;D Duly noted and attended to. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 27, 2009 23:32:59 GMT
And the spreadsheet shows me top of the list. Thank you everybody, both for the votes and the support. It really means a lot to me. Riot, you're right of course. The challenge is absolutely huge. But they're the best kind www.juryteam.org/region.php?select=scotlandOn behalf of everyone at Stub Crouch and all our loyal readers, I offer you the warmest congratulations on this auspicious day. And to honour the hard work, enterprising spirit and general Stubbiness of your achievement I hereby award you The Fellowship of the Stub Crouch.Bravo SWL (FSC)! This place is getting more like The Pickwick Papers every day. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Apr 30, 2009 19:20:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Apr 30, 2009 19:42:29 GMT
It is an interestnig thought that the only party formed and running on a European basis is Libertas. I don't care for them much because I think they want to weaken political union (although they are not an anti-European party like UKIP) but ironically, their very existence is proof of and contributes to ever closer unions of the European Confederation.
|
|
)
) It should be about an intelligent enough, articulate, open minded man or woman wanting to stand up for the rights of ordinary people!
A.P.P.S
S C 
