Council elections

[Orraloon]

12 minutes ago, Parklife said:

STV gives FPTP a run for it's money in terms of utter shiteness. 

What system would you prefer? 

[aaid]

16 minutes ago, Parklife said:

STV gives FPTP a run for it's money in terms of utter shiteness. 

They all have their pluses and minuses.  FPTP is simple to understand but not very representative in a multi-party system.   FPTP is good because it means the elected representative is directly elected and accountable to their electorate.  In theory in Westminster elections, there are 650 separate elections to elect a parliament and it is then that parliament that comes together to elect a government.  In practise in the majority of cases people vote for the party before the candidate.

STV gives the most proportional outcomes based on the votes but it can be pretty complicated, when you get past voting for the candidates you like and into ranking those you don't.  It can have problems with accountability of representatives as multi-member wards or constituencies can mean that its difficult to hold individual candidates to account. 

The worst of the lot is the Party List system - the additional member part of the Holyrood system - as that makes it next to impossible for voters to get rid of any elected members and encourages cronyism and nepotism.  

I think in all systems, a lot of the problems happen when people try and "game" the system by voting tactically and it has unintended consequences.  People should just be able to vote for the parties/candidates that best represent their views and have the results reflect that as closely as possible.

 

[Parklife]

15 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

What system would you prefer? 

I like the Additional Member System. Retains the FPTP accountability aspect, while also allowing us to have a more balanced parliament with the PR aspect. 

[Orraloon]

7 minutes ago, Parklife said:

I like the Additional Member System. Retains the FPTP accountability aspect, while also allowing us to have a more balanced parliament with the PR aspect. 

The main thing I have against that system is Mad Murdo. I think he has been rejected by the electorate about 10 times and yet he is still there spouting total pish. 

[Parklife]

27 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The main thing I have against that system is Mad Murdo. I think he has been rejected by the electorate about 10 times and yet he is still there spouting total pish. 

Yeah, i guess it does give rise to cronyism, as aaid points out. 

[hampden_loon2878]

With the first preference votes as shown below, can we read that much into it? I know it is a higher bote count than 2012 but regardless how much spin we put on it, it was very disappointing,,the council elections are usually low turn out and with the elderly most likely to vote i am presuming that would favour the tories?i cant see a high number of "natural tories" voting independent candidates either, that to me suggests that if the snp are to get their percentage up from the coucil election results they must tartget casual snp voters who couldn't be bother voting and get them out to vote, try to engage the young and those who boted for independent councillors 

 

SNP 32.3%
Con 25.3%
Lab 20.2%
LD 6.8%
Greens 4.1%

[Guest flumax]

@HampdenLoon

(ignore... Why can't I delete anything on this site anymore) 

 

[Guest flumax]

@hampden_loon2878

(and that does not highlight ffs) 

 

Anyway. Hat eating going on from me 

Looks like along Banff and buchan 2:1 ish first preference 

https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections/local-government-elections-2017/?ward=1

 

Apologies for the doubt. 

[iainmac1]

Not quite a 4,000 majority as claimed.

[Haggis_trap]

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

SNP 32.3%
Con 25.3%
Lab 20.2%
LD 6.8%
Greens 4.1%

Need to compare like with like....
Compared to 2012 the SNP won more votes / councils and councillors.

No need for panic - not least because old folk are more likely to vote in council elections.
Plus this was local election hopefully fought on local issues

SNP will lose seats in general election (due to tactical voting).
However the bookies reckon 50 seats for SNP - which would be great result.
Just make sure everyone you know gets out to vote!

[hampden_loon2878]

21 minutes ago, flumax said:

@hampden_loon2878

(and that does not highlight ffs) 

 

Anyway. Hat eating going on from me 

Looks like along Banff and buchan 2:1 ish first preference 

https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections/local-government-elections-2017/?ward=1

 

Apologies for the doubt. 

I always considered banff and buchan the home of the snp,, maybe biased but it could be argued the case, it has been a fall from grace and  very hard going, so i hope folk can appreciate my doom and gloom, considering the huge majority's we had for years the drop in support is staggering,,, Aberdeenshire council just compounded a bad situation when they never reselected a well respected and longstanding councillor john cox, basically kicking him out which played into the brexit brigades hands as he was pro brexit, the business rate riser have also been a disaster for support,,, alls not lost, i think its 50/50 and we may well sneak back in

 

A few years ago i was told banff and buchan has a different political climate from the rest of Scotland, i just dismissed that as rubbish but i am starting to see where he was coming from,,, the support for the snp was and is different to that of say the central belt,, i notice the difference on this board also.if a referendum was fought on  independence from the uk and europe i woul be confident it the result would be a 80% + result in favour of yes 

[hampden_loon2878]

28 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:

Need to compare like with like....
Compared to 2012 the SNP won more votes / councils and councillors.

No need for panic - not least because old folk are more likely to vote in council elections.
Plus this was local election hopefully fought on local issues

SNP will lose seats in general election (due to tactical voting).
However the bookies reckon 50 seats for SNP - which would be great result.
Just make sure everyone you know gets out to vote!

50 seats would be absolutely stunning,, we will have to fight a very intelligent campaign and motivate a election weary support,, the council  election does seem to have kicked support into gear into "battle mode" so heres hoping,, personally i think 45 seats give or take 3 

[Haggis_trap]

^ I would take 45 (so long as we remain 3rd largest party).

Ironically first past the post will favor us.
With 40% of vote there needs to be serious tactical voting to stop SNP.

[Ally Bongo]

50 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

50 seats would be absolutely stunning,,

Not really if the SNP get near the same percentage of votes as GE15

The way voting intentions go it is likely they will better that so will probably at max lose 2 seats if any discounting fluffy's

Here is the real comparison

[ErsatzThistle]

38 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I always considered banff and buchan the home of the snp

That's really quite insulting to SNP activists across Scotland. It's a national party, not a regional issue party. It has no "home", and it owes no one area of Scotland any more than another area of Scotland. 

You seem to forget that there were tens of thousands of people well outside the North East who for decades returned home from work and got their arses out there for hours on the streets in freezing wind and rain campaigning for the SNP. From Dumfries to Inverness, Midlothian to Ayrshire, delivering leaflets, putting up posters, talking to the public, putting up with abuse, getting more often than not usually bugger all in return at the ballot box. For the old timers, this success right across the country is a sweet reward for them.It's them who deserve out thanks for their perseverance and loyalty, we got where we are today because of them.

Dunno if you even new this or not but the first four Westminster seats the SNP ever won were not even in the North East - Dr. Robert McIntyre in Motherwell 1945, Winnie Ewing in Hamilton 1967, Donald Stewart in the Western Isles 1970, Margo MacDonald in Glasgow Govan 1973. Not to mention the near misses of Prof. Douglas Young in Kirkcaldy Burghs during 1944, George Leslie in Glasgow Pollok during 1966, Dr. Robert McIntyre in Stirling & Falkirk during 1971,  Gordon Wilson in Dundee East during 1973.

[Ally Bongo]

Currently at 41% before any campaigning

The polls were similar before 2015, granted 3 months before the election

http://www.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-peak-snp-i-dinnae-think-so-1-4439647

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Ally Bongo

[hampden_loon2878]

7 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

That's really quite insulting to SNP activists across Scotland. It's a national party, not a regional issue party. It has no "home", and it owes no one area of Scotland any more than another area of Scotland. 

You seem to forget that there were tens of thousands of people well outside the North East who for decades returned home from work and got their arses out there for hours on the streets in freezing wind and rain campaigning for the SNP. From Dumfries to Inverness, Midlothian to Ayrshire, delivering leaflets, putting up posters, talking to the public, putting up with abuse, getting more often than not usually bugger all in return at the ballot box. For the old timers, this success right across the country is a sweet reward for them.It's them who deserve out thanks for their perseverance and loyalty, we got where we are today because of them.

Dunno if you even new this or not but the first four Westminster seats the SNP ever won were not even in the North East - Dr. Robert McIntyre in Motherwell 1945, Winnie Ewing in Hamilton 1967, Donald Stewart in the Western Isles 1970, Margo MacDonald in Glasgow Govan 1973. Not to mention the near misses of Prof. Douglas Young in Kirkcaldy Burghs during 1944, George Leslie in Glasgow Pollok during 1966, Dr. Robert McIntyre in Stirling & Falkirk during 1971,  Gordon Wilson in Dundee East during 1973.

It shouldn't be insulting thats just how i thought while growing up, rightly or wrongly. They have held this constituency longer than i have been alive. I appreciate that the snp's history and electoral success goes further back than banff and buchan and i am in no way saying that it all due to this constituency . I always remember as a kid wondering why the rest of Scotland never voted snp & why other parts of scotland looked at us like fanatical flag waving NATS.Yes there were other pockets of snp support but it was banff and buchan where it was concentrated and where Alic had the safety and Freedom to build a party up so the importance of the area should not be underplayed and the unionist will throw everything at it with its significance to the party 

[slasher]

Talk of Labour forming a coalition with the Tories in North Lanarkshire to keep the SNP out.

If true it just goes to show they have learnt absolutely nothing, especially if this is replicated elsewhere.

[phil]

On 5/7/2017 at 4:58 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

Nationalism is a connection with one nation and that is just as evident in those seeking to preserve the union as it is those seeking independence (that is the brush everyone is tarnished with even though that may be incorrect it is the way of the world). You claim the union has worked - perhaps it did but not now. It is obsolete, past its sell by date and many people do not see it as the way forward.

I get it you don't feel Scotland is up to running its own affairs and country which I find is a very sad indictment on Scots and this country. Just look at things at present - stats show Scotland's NHS is out-performing the rest of the UK (okay not great but still doing better under a SCOTTISH government who back independence). Prison service are imploding in this union you feel is working (not in Scotland). So you see the signs are definitely there that Scotland can do things better alone and with MP's solely focused on Scotland and not having to bother about passing bills/laws in the South of England or in Anglesey. 

You’re still not really getting my point. I’m not talking Scotland down. I’m sure as many talented people are born in Scotland as anywhere else, the problem is they don’t stay……

 

it's estimated that 30,000 young Scots leave every year for England or abroad. Of course, it's good that our young people go to live and work in foreign countries. It's the time of life to see the world, broaden the mind and develop new skills. It's just a pity that, in the main, Scotland won't benefit.

Most of the 30,000 probably intend to return to Scotland. Few of them will.

So many will find that it's much, much easier to leave Scotland than to return. Once a job is found elsewhere, a career path beckons. Training opportunities are offered, promotions gained. Alternatives in Scotland are limited or non-existent.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13183494.Ten_of_thousands_will_still_leave_Scotland_forever/

I oppose independence for mainly practical reasons – though the flag waving ‘wha’s like us’ stuff leaves me cold too. The above trend won’t be reversed, but probably accelerated, by independence. Setting up the new/renewed nation will be ruinously expensive. That and the loss of revenue from the UK government would have to be made up from hefty tax hikes on the rich, or massive borrowing.

Neither is attractive. If it’s the former then the wealthiest could just up and run. It’s not as if they’d have far to go. If it’s the latter, the interest rates would be crippling. You’ll say this Project Fear propaganda but I’ve seen these points put to SNP spokespeople many times, and they never have a convincing answer.

The UK works in the sense that the least economically productive areas, e.g. remote parts of Scotland, are subsidized by the wealthiest, which, like it or hate it, means the City of London, home incidentally to 800,000 Scots.

Can’t see these hard facts changing anytime soon so…….

Far better to argue for more local decision making – if that’s what you think is needed – within the existing UK structure.

[glasgow jock]

2 hours ago, slasher said:

Talk of Labour forming a coalition with the Tories in North Lanarkshire to keep the SNP out.

If true it just goes to show they have learnt absolutely nothing, especially if this is replicated elsewhere.

Pathetic & sad if true !!

[Dave78]

2 hours ago, phil said:

 

The UK works in the sense that the least economically productive areas, e.g. remote parts of Scotland, are subsidized by the wealthiest, which, like it or hate it, means the City of London, home incidentally to 800,000 Scots.

 

Can’t see these hard facts changing anytime soon so…….

 

Far better to argue for more local decision making – if that’s what you think is needed – within the existing UK structure.

 

 

Presumably phil you've thought about why it's the South-East of the UK that is the wealthiest?

As for 'local decision making within the existing UK structure', the only way Scotland would ever be able to reach a per-capita par with the South East is with full fiscal autonomy and economic policy suited specifically to Scotland, not the UK.

But that's unacceptable to a unionist. These are the economic handcuffs that unionists put on the Scottish parliament, simply due to their own red white and blue nationalism.

[sbcmfc]

4 hours ago, slasher said:

Talk of Labour forming a coalition with the Tories in North Lanarkshire to keep the SNP out.

If true it just goes to show they have learnt absolutely nothing, especially if this is replicated elsewhere.

Is that to stop the SNP holding an independence referendum to break North Lanarkshire away from their oppressive southern neighbours in Hamilton?

Surely at local level party politics aren't necessary...

[Parklife]

3 hours ago, phil said:

 

You’re still not really getting my point. I’m not talking Scotland down. I’m sure as many talented people are born in Scotland as anywhere else, the problem is they don’t stay……

 

 

it's estimated that 30,000 young Scots leave every year for England or abroad. Of course, it's good that our young people go to live and work in foreign countries. It's the time of life to see the world, broaden the mind and develop new skills. It's just a pity that, in the main, Scotland won't benefit.

 

Most of the 30,000 probably intend to return to Scotland. Few of them will.

 

So many will find that it's much, much easier to leave Scotland than to return. Once a job is found elsewhere, a career path beckons. Training opportunities are offered, promotions gained. Alternatives in Scotland are limited or non-existent.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13183494.Ten_of_thousands_will_still_leave_Scotland_forever/

 

I oppose independence for mainly practical reasons – though the flag waving ‘wha’s like us’ stuff leaves me cold too. The above trend won’t be reversed, but probably accelerated, by independence. Setting up the new/renewed nation will be ruinously expensive. That and the loss of revenue from the UK government would have to be made up from hefty tax hikes on the rich, or massive borrowing.

 

Neither is attractive. If it’s the former then the wealthiest could just up and run. It’s not as if they’d have far to go. If it’s the latter, the interest rates would be crippling. You’ll say this Project Fear propaganda but I’ve seen these points put to SNP spokespeople many times, and they never have a convincing answer.

 

The UK works in the sense that the least economically productive areas, e.g. remote parts of Scotland, are subsidized by the wealthiest, which, like it or hate it, means the City of London, home incidentally to 800,000 Scots.

 

Can’t see these hard facts changing anytime soon so…….

 

Far better to argue for more local decision making – if that’s what you think is needed – within the existing UK structure.

 

 

So still.... 

Too wee, too poor, too stupid to be a real country. 

[Bannannan]

42 minutes ago, Parklife said:

So still.... 

Too wee, too poor, too stupid to be a real country. 

[slasher]

45 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

Is that to stop the SNP holding an independence referendum to break North Lanarkshire away from their oppressive southern neighbours in Hamilton?

Surely at local level party politics aren't necessary...

A lot of these guys even at local level have wider political ambitions. Plus I think you underestimate the pathological hatred some in Labour have for the SNP. 

Sad, but true ?