30/30 Vision doesn't make sense.

The current proposal  (or consultation) by  Welsh Secretary (for now) Cheryl Gillian , to change the boundaries of the Welsh Assembly to bring them in line with those 30 constituency seats proposed for the Westminster Parliament  (down from 40) could result in a total farce.


The Plan is to mirror the proposed  Westminster Constituencies of 30 seats ant have the other 30 AM's elected on the Additional Member System


Of course this depends on the Westminster changes coming about.


What would happen if it's decided Wales should have 28 or 32 seats? Is  anyone guess and even if (as is likely) the changes go through. We could see Wales  being allocated extra seats, ten  years on from the election due to demographic changes .


A rough estimate based on the Local Council elections  assessment could see the  Assembly  Constituency Seats falling in this manner 


Plaid 2/4 Current 5
Lib Dems 01/  current 1

Cons 0/2 Current 6

Lab 24/26 Current 28

So despite  a loss of 10 constituency seats Labour will comfortably be in a lead here .

The Topup seats  are more difficult.. The system is not truly proportional.

However:

Assuming Labour get around 44% of the vote  Con and Plaid between about 20% each  LibDems 8% and others 8%

This could see the allocation for the top up could be

Plaid 8/12

Con 8/12

LibDem 2/3

Lab 2/4

Other 2/3 

The Polls may change dramatically on the next couple ot years and it is not impossible for Labour to win all 30 constituency seats ;But 28 is clearly not beyond their aspiration.

Where will leave the other Parties with only 2 Constituency seats . Labour will argue that they have no real mandate. One Party will hold nearly all the Constituency seats could  and even fail to get any Top up seats.

Supposing then Labour were denied power by a Grand Coalition which mainly consisted of AM's elected under the Top up system. Much as I'm no fan of Labour Hegemony in Wales. I would feel very uncomfortable with a Government comprising of AM's mainly from regional seats.

But  I would feel equally uncomfortable with a system as proposed by Peter Hain of 30 seats of two members elected under the first past the . Which could se Labour winnining over 50 of the 60 seats with less than 50% of the vote.

It will come as no surprise that I see STV as the solution what worries me is that the Parties in the Assembly that claim to support this system have not vigorously argued for in the Senedd. 

Perhaps Plaid and the LibDems should unite on this and start a All party campaign for STV for Wales?

We are not going to get change if we accept 30/30 as a done deal.

West Briton Labour shows its true colours

West-Britain Labour,have backed their leader Peter Hain over the man who pretends to be leader Carwyn Jones, over the idea that if the number of Welsh Westminster seats are cut 30.Then the Welsh assembly seats should be cut to mirror them and should  elect two members by the First oast the Post system,

The Anniuncement read.....

Welsh Labour united over Assembly voting system

 Tory Secretary of State must accept UK Government has “No mandate for change” 

Welsh Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones and Shadow Secretary of State Peter Hain today (Saturday November 11) issued a clear message to the Tory-led UK Government – “You have no mandate to change the current electoral system in Wales.” 

In a joint statement issued following a meeting of the Welsh Labour Executive Committee they said:

“Welsh Labour is at one on this issue. The Tory-led UK Government has absolutely no mandate to change the voting system here in Wales. Any attempt to do so without a clear mandate from the people of Wales would be deeply disrespectful to both them and the Welsh Government.

“As such, after consultation with Party members across Wales, we are calling on the Tory Secretary of State to rule out any changes to the Assembly voting system without such a mandate.

“However, Welsh Labour also realises the need for a clear position should the Tory-led UK Government press ahead with proposals for change, to properly inform debate and push for an outcome that best serves Wales.

“Therefore if, as expected, proposals for change are made along the 30 new Parliamentary boundaries, Welsh Labour’s preference would be for a 60 member Assembly, comprising 30 two member seats. This position reflects the preference for first past the post expressed by an overwhelming majority of the electorate in the referendum on the alternative vote for Westminster in May 2011.

“The message from Welsh Labour could not be any clearer. The Tory-led Government have absolutely no mandate for change, but should they attempt to bypass the people of Wales, Welsh Labour is united behind a common goal of securing a voting system that best serves the people of Wales.”

Of course they qualify thus with IF the Welsh seats are cut, and as the delay in the proposed Boundary changes goes on it could well be that the commission are finding reducing the number of Welsh seats  to 30 an impossible task withou having  constituencies that  have no relevance to the constituents. So it could be that the number of Welsh seats will actually be over 30 when we see the proposals. Which would mean either increasing  the number of AMs to 62 or 64 say and would make the other ingestion of 30 seats elected by FPTP and 30 by the current top up system impracticable.

A privious attempt  to attempt to rearange the Welsh consituenies  to fit the ConLib requirements led to farcical  which I commented on with a special regards my own ward. here

But the major problem with West- Briton Labour  is the way they are proposing an even more undemocratic solution to the redrawn boundaries by proposing  Welsh Assembly seats be redrawn on this basis and  should elect  2 members by FPTP and try and twist the facts by stating.

Welsh Labour’s preference would be for a 60 member Assembly, comprising 30 two member seats. This position reflects the preference for first past the post expressed by an overwhelming majority of the electorate in the referendum on the alternative vote for Westminster in May 2011.

This referendum had nothing  to do with the way the Welsh Assembly is or could be elected . It was a vote on the Westminster system and I have seen no indication that the Welsh electorate should like to see  a change to the way the Assembly would be elected even to my preference of STV.

And as I have already commented on in a previous post basing the Welsh Assembly  seats on Westminster ones does not take into account demographic changes that could see Wales loosing or gaining a seat in future Boundary Commission revues.

What West -Briton  Labour has shown is whose in charge (Peter Hain) and that idea of A "Welsh Labour" Party is a myth .

There is in fact  NO Party registered  as "Welsh Labour" possibly because it would have to disclose to what extent it is funded beyond Wales. It is only a nme they use for electoral purposes to disguise the actual control come from their London HQ.

What West Briton Labour has shown is like it ConLib counterparts that they have no interest in having a truely democratic voting system or making the Welsh Assembly a true legislature  but are little more than emissaries for their London Masters.

Can this be why Cameron and the Tories opposed AV?

Before I began I must admit to taking the information fro Britain Votes and Better Nation. I hope they will forgive me for borrowing their info.

 On Thursday there was an by-lection  for  Edinburgh City Council, City Centre . The last election which was held under STV  resulted in the following 1st round preference votes.
 SNP 20.4%
Con 20.2%
LD 19.9% 
Lab 18%
Grn 17%
SSP 1.8%
Ind) 1.6%
Lib) 1%

After the Elimination counts with he Lib Dem Charles Dundas being elected first (taking most of the Green votes)   – with the SNP’s David Beckett elected next, and the Tories’ Joanna Mowat only returned once  Labour  were eliminated  in the last round.

So Thursday  byelection was also under the same rules as STV though you can argue it co responded to an Election under AV. The SNP who had hekd the seat were somewhat at a disadvantage because the former councillor David Beckett had done a Adam Price and resigned his council  seat to attend a course at Harvard   (prehaps they will meet up?) and there might have been a bit of resentment from a electorate who felt they had been snubbed.

Any way the voting went as follows  turn out was 23.4%
 
Round 1
Con 837 (24.2% + 4.0)
 SNP 797 (23.1 +2.6)
 Lab 682 (19.7 +1.7)
 Green 494 (14.3 -2.7)
 Ind 394 (11.4 +9.8)
LD 251 (eliminated) (251 -12.6)

Round 2
Con 904 (67 votes from LDs)
SNP 825 (28 votes from LDs)
Lab 716 (34 votes from LDs)
Green 576 (82 votes from LDs)
Ind 402 (8 votes from LDs) (eliminated
)

Round 3
Con 1043 (139 votes from Ind)
SNP 893 (68 votes from Ind)
Lab 745 (29 votes from Ind)
 Green 635 (59 votes from Ind) (eliminated)

Round 4
Con 1110 (67 votes from Greens)
SNP 1084 (191 votes from Greens)
Lab 968 (223 votes from Greens) (eliminated)

Round 5
SNP 1368 (284 votes from Labour) – ELECTED
Con 1264 (154 votes from Labour)

So the Tories has  led in most of the counts and had received  more second preference votes from the Independent . Failed to win the seat at the last hurdle . When the majority Labour prefernce voter went to the SNP.

What can we read from this not to much  .

That the Libdem vote collapsed  is clear and the fact that the majority of twhat must be a hardcore of Liberl Democrat  loyalist second preference  went to the Greens. Which may result in some gains for the latter next may.
A surprising large percentage of Labours preferences went to the Tories.
It would have been intresting to see what the SNP second preferences were?
But the real question might be can the Tories win a election under these rules (ie virtual AV)? and could it be the reason why they where so vehement against AV. Whould the anybody but a Tory (ABAT) result in them being wiped out particularly at local level?

STV for Wales in 2016.

You don't have to be a Conservative supporter to think that it is patently absurd that their leader lost his seat because his party had won an extra constituency seat.

The current method of Constituency and Regions which Top up parties is plainly not working.

Firstly there was the original spectacle of rejected candidates at a constituency level being elected on the regional list. Although this was clearly not particularly democratic. It was somewhat even more undemocratic for Labour through Peter Hain.to unilaterally change the rules in Wales to prevent candidates for standing in constituencies from also standing on the regional list.  a situation which did not affect Labour because of its strong showing at consistency level. Though strangely (or not)  they did do so so in Scotland where Labour candidates who were defeated at constituency level were more likely needing the regional list option to get elected.

Labour also changed the rules for the recent election  to simplify the ballot paper for the regional list by not placing the candidates names. We were told that the names would be displayed at the polling station, but at the one I voted in there was  no display of the list candidates and when I queried this, I was only shown the list of people who signed the nomination papers. The political parties did not help us by failing to tell us who was on the list in their election communications. So unless you were like myself a political junkie you may not have known who you were voting for

Then we had the case of .parties like the Greens and UKIP  contesting only the regional list. This meant that the concept of Top Up did not apply to them . Nevertheless the possibility of Parties getting AM's from the regional list and yet not standing in any constituency was there, which despite the fact I would have liked to see a Green AM (But not UKIP) this somewhat goes against the intention of the two ballot system.

In a true "British Democracy"  manner this does not happen in Northern Ireland where STV is used.

As a supporter of STV . I rejected the AV choice last week because it was in reality no better than FPTP and whilst I accept out current  system is better than FPTP it is hardly the best option especially when we consider that.

It was introduced in Scotland to ensure that the SNP could't get a majority and use this as mandate for independence. Well that hasn't worked.

It was introduced in Wales to placate Non -Labour voters who were afraid of a huge Labour majority  whilst ensuring Labour remained the dominant party.

It seems that Labour had considered STV  but had rejected it because  Ron Davies is quoted that......

"Had we done that of course we would have had to have had a Boundary Commission and that process would have taken forever and a day and that would have frustrated our overall political timetable. So we had to settle on the existing constituency arrangements, parliamentary constituencies and European Constituencies"

We have 5 years before the next Assembly elections.In the meantime the Westminster Constituencies will be considerably redrawn despite the rejection of AV and the number of Welsh seats will be reduced. So by  20166 the Welsh Assembly Constituencies will no longer be the same as those at Westminster. So the boundary commission will be now obliged to redraw separate constituencies for the two legislators on a regular basis.

Taking in to account the inadequacies of our current system, any understanding that either Plaid or the LibDems  have with Labour government without a overall majority should include the introduction of STV for the 5th Welsh Assembly in 2016.

. 

Greens show why we should have STV in Wales.

The Greens have produced their best (or worst) leaflet I've seen from them for the Assembly Election..

Best because it's professional and Bilingual (I suppose the Welsh is accurate) and well laid out.

Worst because they resort to negatice campaigning.

 

As you can see they are pointing out  that Labour because of the amount pf constituencies they will win in South Wales Central they are unlikely to win a "Top Up" on the Regional List and  the Greens then claim that it is a wasted vote. They can't claim this of the other "main" parties as Plaid, Conservatives and Libdem will all probably need a "Top up".

Hang on a minute! I was under the impression that the reason for the Regional  list,was to Top up the vote of Parties that have fought constituencies and have not received the number of seats that the percentage of votes under PR  would have entitled them.

So although I would welcome the election of a Green AM, it seems to me wrong that a Party that does not contest Constituencies  should only stand in the regional list and then argue for another Parties top up votes  in the way the Greens are doing .

It all means that they can fight relatively cheap elections and if they do not include the name of candidates on the leaflets can print them weeks before the election (probably cheaper) and not worry that a candidate may die or resign before the election nominations are in.


But although they are more professional they seem to have  joined in the Bar Graph "we can win here" game although they seem to have mixed up the labels on the small.Bar Graph they show above .

The reality is that if a Green or UKIP member is elected to the Assembly it will not be in the true spirit of the idea of the "Top Up" and is another argument that as in Northern Ireland elections for the assembly should be under STV, in which  the Greens can win seats on a more legitimate basis.

AV is not the answer Kirsty and you know it.

Subordinate Central reports Welsh Liberal Democrat Leader, Kirsty Williams (La Pasionaria) has written to the First Minister seeking his agreement to setting up a cross-party campaign to fight for a ‘yes’ vote in Wales’ second referendum next year, on fair voting.


She does this in an effort to get support for a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV).

Before we look at la Pasionaria’s argument in favor of AV let us look at one result that shows the absurdity of the First past the post system . That of Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber 1n the 1992 election

The Winning candidate Russel Johnson received only 26% of the vote  and the fourth place candidate was only 3.4% behind. If AV had been used would the result have been any "fairer". Would the electorate have been happy if the fourth pace candidate had eventually won I doubt it.

La Pasionaria claims in her letter to Carwyn Jones

• All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.

Not entirely trueI.In reality MP’s can at least claim that MP’s have the half hearted support of most of the electorate. However AV would not in reality have given anyone in the Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber elected under this system any more legitimacy.

• It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.
Yes but it will obviously penalise progressive parties such as the Greens and Meybyon Kernow and anyway where does fairness come in if in is the case it excludes a Party with a sizable vote.

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.
Actually it just makes tactical voting more complex, as people have to work out who is likely to finish First ,Second or Third. In Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber  it would have been a nightmare  as people try and work out the possible result and how to vote,and of course it would mean the Lib-Dems still using thier little bar charts to convince people they were in a chance of winning a seat no matter how misleading.

• It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the tendency for negative campaigning.
I doubt very much this will be the case it might be more subtle but if it were true it will lead to bland conservatism with candidates playing it safe and even more pandering to "Middle England".

What La Pasionaria is trying to do is to cover her Party tracks and hoping that if the referendum rejects AV then she can blame other Parties.

She knows full well that her Party should be supporting the Single Transferable Vote and AV is a Blind Alley that if it accepted or rejected would put back a fairer voting system back decades. Those Parties who truly support fairer votes should not endorse a Yes campaign but fight for a write in vote on the referendum ballot paper in order to give they support for a true affair system of voting not some piss poor Lib-Dem face saver.

Mr Clegg's weasel words.

So the proposal to hold a referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote (AV) for UK elections has passed it’s first hurdle with an easy win for the coalition government on last night vote (6t Sept).
To read some Lib-Dem blogs you would have thought this was always their policy those at Aberavon and Neath Liberal Democrats claimed.

“Our two Parties have different views on the future of our voting system. But we both recognise that there are genuine concerns about the current system. And we emphatically agree that the decision is not, in any case, for government alone.
It should be taken by the people themselves That is why both our parties support putting this question to a referendum next May, just one example of the power shift we are determined to deliver. Fixing parliament also means tackling the unfairness in the geography of MPs' constituencies by making sure votes count equally wherever they are cast. The coalition also proposes to cut the number of MPs to 600”.

If as they claim that it should be taken to the people themselves , then why not have an open referendum and give those who support STV (including presumably themselves) the chance to vote for this option.

As for the “Fixing” parliaments with regards re forming constituency boundaries. Then they got that right, because its nothing but a move to give the Tories the opportunity  to gerrymander the current set up.

I don’t often agree with Labour MP Kevin Brennan but when he asked .

“whether plans for constituency changes were included in the same bill as the price of Conservative support for the referendum. Mr Clegg replied that, as they were "two issues that relate to how we are elected to this House", it had been "natural to bring them together".

Mr Clegg defended plans to reduce the number of MPs and to redraw constituency boundaries so they each represented about 76,000 people each, saying it was "patently obvious that individuals' votes should carry the same weight".

But you don’t have to be a genius to work out that the Tories would clearly love to see AV fail at the referendum but see the cut in the number  seats pass (which we will not be allowed to vote for) guaranteeing them a larger majority if the percentage votes for the Parties at the next General Election remained roughly the same.

How can you have two bills combined when only one goes to a  referendum?

In their efforts to get their backsides on the seats of ministerial cars Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems have sold parliamentary reform down the river and given their Tory bosses exactly the electoral advantage they are seeking.
 Because the bboundary changes are guaranteed to pass but the AV referendum may well fail.

No amount of weasel words either from Lib-Dems at Westminster , or Aberavon and Neath will hide this.

Cornwall and the Cost of Democracy.

Dick Cole of Mebyon Kernow) has posted an interesting analysis on the expenditure of the political parties For the St Austell and Newquay constituency, where he stood so please look at this here before continuing with my piece.

The amount spent by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is staggering, and if we were to take into account that all six Cornish constituencies are Con-Lib marginal, then we are talking each of these parties spending about £200,000 in Cornwall alone and as Dick points out this is what they declared in the immediate run up to the election from January 1st 2010 to polling day on May 6th 2010.

It does not take into account the number of election leaflets masquerading as news letters that the people of Cornwall were subjected to between the 2005 election and the last one.

I have argued before that we need much more scrutiny of electoral expenditure.

What I would like to see is the power of the Returning Officer be increased and he/she should be a constituency representative of the commission.
They should have the power to.

 

• Rule that any Party leaflet between elections that mentions a candidate for forthcoming election will mean the cost of the leaflet will be included in the election expenses of that candidate.

• Have the power to fine a party for misleading, or offensive material during this period the cost of the fine being included in the election expenses.

• Publish the full expenses of this candidate dividing the expenses between that spent during the campaign and any spent in the period between.

 

 

 

Also there should be a National and Regional assessment of the amount spent on advertising. 

 

This would mean for instance that in Cornwall the amount of Party advertising in the whole of Cornwall that is not constituency specific should be taken into account and that divided between the constituencies in that area. This would mean that if the Lib-Dems were to spend 100,000 on such advertising then this would be divided and added to their electoral expenses for each constituency.

 

Of course this would be much easier to administer and monitor if we had STV bit then we will not be getting it because the Lib-Dems have sold out on their ideals.

 

 

 

Super Thursday? Oh lets just give up now. (NO)

Dafydd Elis-Thomas has written to Cheryl Gillan yo state he has no "constitutional objections" to it taking place on 5 May when the assembly elections and UK voting referendum are held.


Cost was the "overriding issue", he said.

And at Welsh Home Daran Hill has lent his support he wrote

“that if the Rubicon was indeed to be crossed, then why not go the whole damn hog? Why not hold the Assembly powers referendum on the first Thursday in May too? If we are to have a referendum on Assembly election day, then why not make it one that is at least related to that election? Let’s have a Super Thursday in May 2011”.

This is a rather defeatist argument. I would agree that on balance a Super Thursday would be better that having two referendums within a few months. However, as I have argued in earlier posts there is absolutely no reason to hold a vote on AV next year. 2012 would give ample time to prepare for the next General Election.. I could see an argument that if it would be on STV then time would be needed to prepare the new constituencies: But by its very nature AV does not even need tweaking of the boundaries.

It is in the interest of democracy that the Assembly elections and referendum should not be overshadowed by a UK issue. What price does Dafydd Elis Thomas place on this? When does it become too expensive?
We should have been having the referendum on Assembly powers this Autumn.

Actually.Why are we have a referendum just to fix a constitutional mess, seeking to transfer powers via a complex and baffling system?

Perhaps the referendum ballot paper should read something like this.

Do we really need a referendum just to clean up an over complex system?