Wales 2007; results thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bit from BBC Wales blog:

A pro-Labour coalition Lib Dem: "Nick Bourne has seen off all his enemies and put the Tories back in power for the first time since 1898. Now he'll squeeze us to death".

1. political death is what they deserve (well, most of them. Not the ones who opposed this sh*t whoever they are. They don't deserve the fate that may well await them, even if they are probably more likely to suffer it...)

2. The bit about 1898 is silly and ill-informed though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Really, this is a consequence of Labour angering everyone in the UK with ttheir policies.

No it bloody isn't. This is about opportunism and greed. That's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The second choice of most non-Labour voters in Wales is the Labour Party. Labour certainly had no right to rule alone after these elections (which were bad, even if we won them), but that's not the same thing at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Snap elections can IIRC only be called if 2/3rds of AM's want one. I suspect this government may fall at some point. Well, I hope so anyway.

There are local elections next year though. And Westminster elections in a few years time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Welsh Labour Party does not even come close to comparing with the Serbian Radicals.

According to all polls during the election, a plurality (or was it actually a majority?) of Welsh voters wanted a coalition between Labour and another party (though were undecided on whether this should be Plaid or the LibDems).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well the LibDems have decided to suspend all talks with Labour and go for a crooked three party coalition with Plaid and the Tories instead.

Bastards.

"There lived a man on Highgate Mount, he won the votes but did not count."

Horace Cutler to Andrew McIntosh the day after the 1981 GLC elections. Not quite the same situation o/c, but the quote more-or-less fits (except for Highgate Mount, obviously).

I told you that supporting the Iraq war was a bad idea.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I told you that supporting the Iraq war was a bad idea.

But Rhodri Morgan (who I think you'd quite like if you knew anything about him) didn't support the Iraq war, Iraq wasn't an issue during the election, and Iraq isn't the reason for this crooked little deal by greedy political pygmies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I told you that supporting the Iraq war was a bad idea.

But Rhodri Morgan (who I think you'd quite like if you knew anything about him) didn't support the Iraq war, Iraq wasn't an issue during the election, and Iraq isn't the reason for this crooked little deal by greedy political pygmies.

Would you have called it a crooked deal if the Conservatives hadn't gotten to form a government after the last Canadian election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I told you that supporting the Iraq war was a bad idea.

But Rhodri Morgan (who I think you'd quite like if you knew anything about him) didn't support the Iraq war, Iraq wasn't an issue during the election, and Iraq isn't the reason for this crooked little deal by greedy political pygmies.

Would you have called it a crooked deal if the Conservatives hadn't gotten to form a government after the last Canadian election?

The two situations don't quite compare, but yes actually.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The two situations don't quite compare, but yes actually.

Interesting. You must really really really hate the Whig's 1836 campaign strategy.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Welsh Labour Party does not even come close to comparing with the Serbian Radicals.

From the perspective of ideology, no, but certainly from the perspective of current political situation. Also, you have conveniently ignored the other three examples I provided, including one which benefited the self-same Labour Party!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From the perspective of ideology, no, but certainly from the perspective of current political situation.

No... it... really... isn't...

It's similer in one respect o/c, but other than that...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't conveniently ignore them, I just ignored them. And I'd dispute that 1923, a tactical ploy by the ever shrewed Baldwin, benefited Labour that much. Not when you consider what happend next.

[Democratic Hawk]

If there must me regional seats why can't they be allocated proportionally as per any particular parties share of the vote in any particular region?

That would be much more acceptable than the whole "top-up" thing

This system would mean, given all five regions have four additional seats, the following results [allowing for a minimum of 0.50 to secure additional representation]

South Wales Central:

Lab 33.99% - 1 seat [1.3596]
C 21.67% - 1 seat [0.8668]
PC 15.46% - 1 seat [0.6184]
LD 14.05% - 1 seat [0.562]

South Wales East:

Lab 35.78% - 2 seats [1.4312]
C 19.96% - 1 seat [0.7984]
PC 13.63% - 1 seat [0.5452]
LD 11.02% - 0 seats [0.4408]

South West Wales:

Lab 35.77% - 2 seats [1.4308]
PC 17.67% - 1 seat [0.7068]
C 16.06% - 1 seat [0.6424]
LD 12.40% - 0 seats [0.496]

Mid and West Wales:

PC 31.00% - 1 seat [1.24]
C 22.86% - 1 seat [0.9144]
Lab 18.43% - 1 seat [0.7372]
LD 13.27% - 1 seat [0.5308]

North Wales:

Lab 26.38% - 2 seats [1.0552]
PC 25.74% - 1 seat [1.0296]
C 25.59% - 1 seat [1.0236]
LD 7.78%  - 0 seats [0.312]

Total proportional seats: Lab 8; PC 5; Con 5; LD 2

Total FPTP seats: Lab 24; PC 7; Con 5; LD 3; Ind 1

Total Assembly seats: Lab 32; PC 12; Con 10; LD 5; Ind 1

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point of having the top-up seats is to make it hard for any single party to win a majority, so as to create a political setup based on consensus and so on.

They should have gone with STV. Or the Aussie system. Anything but what we're stuck with now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And now, to bed. I doubt I'll be any less angry about this in the morning, but I think I'll be calmer.

[Democratic Hawk]

The point of having the top-up seats is to make it hard for any single party to win a majority, so as to create a political setup based on consensus and so on.

They should have gone with STV. Or the Aussie system. Anything but what we're stuck with now.

No, any single member FPTP-post majority system would have sufficed nicely

Dave

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't conveniently ignore them, I just ignored them. And I'd dispute that 1923, a tactical ploy by the ever shrewed Baldwin, benefited Labour that much. Not when you consider what happend next.

It gave Labour legitimacy and took legitimacy away from the Liberals. Sure, they lost big in subsequent elections, but it was the Liberals who really got torn apart, partially because of their own internal problems but also because, after a Labour government, Labour, and not the Liberals, were viewed as the main non-Tory party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gotta love Paul Flynn at times:

"A Liquorice Allsorts coalition with Ieuan as Bertie Bassett  squeaking for the nation is a demeaning dispiriting prospect"

[bullmoose88]

Are the Tories really supporting one of those nationalist parties?

Seems like they're being really whorish.

[afleitch]

Are the Tories really supporting one of those nationalist parties?

Seems like they're being really whorish.

I have to say I'm suprised; whats happening in the Assembly, with deals and one-upmanship etc is what happens in town halls up and down the country and that's fine. But the Assembly isn't a town hall; it's a national body and this attitude isn't healthy. If Labour can't form a majority then let it form a minority administration. I'm not a believer in ''minority = unstable'' they can be both stable and productive but also popular.

[bullmoose88]

I'm just surprised that a supposedly pro-union party (or so I thought the Tories to be) would be that excited to support a nationalist government (to get some power and stick it to Labour)...

[Harry Hayfield]

On the subject of PR, could someone do the following maths:

An 80 member assembly elected by STV
Each parliamentary constituency elects 2 members.
Each party is allowed to nominate two candidates per constituency (one of which must be a woman)

[afleitch]

If there is to be STV in Wales (and Scotland for that matter) it would be best to have 20 constituencies elected 3 or 4 members, depending on whether you want a 60 or 80 member chamber. (I would prefer 80)

Of course what could also happen is have some seats elect 3 members and other 6 for example. This could happen if each unitary authority is treated as a seat and elects a number of members proportionate to its electorate. Of course this means smaller parties would stand a better chance of getting a seat in Cardiff more than Cardigan. It also means that the seat/UA boundaries never change, just the number of members they return which I think is favourable. Under this system it is likely, though I’m not sure about Wales, that some authorities may only be entitled to one member, depending on the desired size of the Assembly. Here we would see what would essentially be a FPTP race.

I think having an STV system based on local authorities is ideal for both Scotland and Wales. However, as you may know I’m not fond of the existing authorities So I’d prefer they did something about that, and quickly, before introducing STV

[Јas]

Under this system it is likely, though I’m not sure about Wales, that some authorities may only be entitled to one member, depending on the desired size of the Assembly. Here we would see what would essentially be a FPTP race.

Surely though with (at least) 4 parties competing, multiple counts may be required to get someone above 50% in this scenario, which would leave condierably different results than a simple FPTP would give.

If Westminster elections were held on a single seater but transferable vote scenario, would the constitution of the chamber not be quite different?

[afleitch]

Well there’s no need to reach 50% ; there certainly isn’t in Scotland. In 4 member seats the quota was 25% and in 3 member seats 33.3% (as in my ward, which is why I found it tough to get in!)

So for example, if we used local authorities as constituencies

Anything County (4 seats) – First round.

LAB 1 25.2
CON 1 25.1
CON 2 21.7
LAB 2 17.5
IND 10.5

As the quota for a 4 seat county is 25%, then one Conservative and one Labour candidate is returned. The votes then flow down; bearing in mind the first result the other Labour and Conservative candidates should get in, though the Indy has a chance.

EDIT: May I also add, as 50% is not needed to win under FPTP it shouldn't be required under STV

[Јas]

Well there’s no need to reach 50% ; there certainly isn’t in Scotland. In 4 member seats the quota was 25% and in 3 member seats 33.3% (as in my ward, which is why I found it tough to get in!)

So for example, if we used local authorities as constituencies

Anything County (4 seats) – First round.

LAB 1 25.2
CON 1 25.1
CON 2 21.7
LAB 2 17.5
IND 10.5

As the quota for a 4 seat county is 25%, then one Conservative and one Labour candidate is returned. The votes then flow down; bearing in mind the first result the other Labour and Conservative candidates should get in, though the Indy has a chance.

EDIT: May I also add, as 50% is not needed to win under FPTP it shouldn't be required under STV

Sorry, didn't know that about your quota system. I was working on the Irish system whereby the quotas are 25% for 3-seater; 20% for 4; 16.6% for 5 - and I suppose 50% for 1 (By-elections and Presidency).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just a thought; we'll be having some leadership elections soon. I don't think that Rhodri will want to stick around for much longer after being stabbed in the back like this (especially as this isn't the first time that he's been, to use his own choice of words, "shafted" during his political career...), and that'll probably be the case even if this coalition falls through, and Mike German isn't safe as LibDem leader. Frankly I don't care who runs against him, so long as they beat him.

[minionofmidas]

I can't say I'm happy. I think it is unfair and improper for the largest party not to form an administration.

There's nothing unfair or improper about that. (In fact, there's something rather unfair and improper, not to mention unpractical, about the assumption that the largest party should form the government, in fractured party systems.)
There certainly is something unfair and improper about forming a coalition not talked about before the election and not wanted by your voters when the option wanted by your voters is available though.
I'd've preferred a Labour-Plaid deal.