Labour faces accusations over plan to reform voting system
 |
| JACK STRAW: Is said to have warmed to the AV system. |
Gordon Brown's government was last night accused of "fiddling with the voting
system for partisan advantage" after reports suggested the Prime Minister and his
colleagues are looking seriously at the adoption of a different electoral system for Westminster.
The Ministry of Justice, headed by Jack Straw, is to publish a draft Constitutional Reform Bill today, which, among other things, will include proposals for reforming the House of Lords. Ministers are said to be fearful that by modernising the upper chamber to create a Senate of around 400 paid representatives elected under a proportional representation (PR) system, they might give it greater legitimacy, which could be regarded by some as a challenge to the authority of the Commons.
Thus, Whitehall is due to begin - after May's local elections - a consultation, which, it hopes, will lead to greater voter engagement and turnout.
Among issues being considered are compulsory voting, opening polling stations at weekends and using the Alternative Vote (AV) system instead of the traditional first-past-the post (FPTP).
Under the AV system, voters do not mark an "x" next to a candidate's name but number the candidates in order of preference - depending on the number of would-be MPs. The candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes are reallocated according to voters' second preferences. This process continues until one candidate has more than 50%.
While this system retains the constituency link and provides the winning candidate with a technical majority, it also means that a seat will probably be decided upon by the second preferences of voters who supported the least popular candidate.
Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary and a known opponent of PR, is said to have warmed to AV, particularly as it keeps the constituency link. Significantly, perhaps, Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats, ardent advocates of PR, have been told about Labour's proposals and might be prepared to accept AV if it were promoted as a staging post to their preferred goal.
However, some critics might sense deja vu. Recently, it was suggested in a Lords debate that the only reason Labour in 1997 offered Scottish devolution using PR was as a sweetener to the LibDems should there have been a hung parliament at Westminster.
Research has shown that because AV is a more proportionate system than FPTP, it could damage the Conservatives. Equally, however, the research also showed the Tories could gain an overall majority under AV with a smaller share of the vote than FPTP.
Nonetheless, Nick Herbert, for the Opposition, said: "It's a sure sign Labour fear they will lose the election when they now want to move the electoral goal posts to rig the result.
"Rather than fiddling with the voting system for partisan advantage, ministers should focus on rebuilding trust in politics, returning power to people and communities and tackling electoral fraud which is undermining the integrity of British democracy."
Last night, a Ministry of
Justice spokeswoman told The Herald: "The government announced a significant programme of constitutional reform last July and plans to publish a draft constitutional renewal bill in due course.
"There are no current plans for specific papers on compulsory voting or the Alternative Vote system."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:46am Tue 25 Mar 08
labour has had a great run in scotland, with 40% of the vote getting 80% of the seats. the snp got about 15% of the seats with almost a third of the vote in the seventies. labour did not complain then!
the problem now is that with 34% of the vote and the snp a similar figure, that option to bolster numbers in scotland will be gone.
and if snp get to37 and labour 30 then we reach a tipping point. the tory vote holding up to at least 20% is crucial in this analysis as well.
it has always been stated that without a majority of seats from westminster the snp do not have a mandate. not 50% of the vote but a majority of the seats.
that is possible next time, if tipping point reached, based on the voting system of the last 100 years, so it needs to be changed so that the snp do not win the majority of the seats in scotland.
by doing this the tories will be shut out in england for evermore, assuming a deal is done by libs and labs, and that is almost certain based on recent history.
let me explain.
with the libs as a whole more likely to vote for labour as a secvondary option than the tories, or that is assumed to be the case, then alternative vote would mean that they could still get over the line in constituencies where they would be hammered under first past the post. it could be mandated by libs so votes are transferred automatically.
the union clique voting for each other against the demon snp is the same process tried in australia to stop extremist views from the one nation party. it worked.
they would win the most popular party vote, say 35%, but would lose on preferences which are organised by the parties in advance. maybe 60-40%, so not even close. virtually nobody gave one nation any preferences.
therefore unless the snp get close to 50% they would not get seats, as the vote would automatically transfer to libs from lab or reverse way if they finished 2nd.
in theory the snp could have 35-40% of the vote and end up with no seats.
if the combined liberal/labour vote was over 50% they would win all the seats. throw in 2 libs as a governm,ent of the people and brown survives.
as the snp could not do a deal with anyone, then the tories as well as the snp would lose out in scotland.
straightforward and understandable that labour would try to do this as their vote in scotland and england collapses.
if the liberals had balls they would focus in england on attacking labour and trying to become the 2nd party after the tories; they are only 8 points behind and labour is in free fall. it would require libs to ferociously attack labour, which they are showing few signs of doing.
labour has had a great run in scotland, with 40% of the vote getting 80% of the seats. the snp got about 15% of the seats with almost a third of the vote in the seventies. labour did not complain then!
the problem now is that with 34% of the vote and the snp a similar figure, that option to bolster numbers in scotland will be gone.
and if snp get to37 and labour 30 then we reach a tipping point. the tory vote holding up to at least 20% is crucial in this analysis as well.
it has always been stated that without a majority of seats from westminster the snp do not have a mandate. not 50% of the vote but a majority of the seats.
that is possible next time, if tipping point reached, based on the voting system of the last 100 years, so it needs to be changed so that the snp do not win the majority of the seats in scotland.
by doing this the tories will be shut out in england for evermore, assuming a deal is done by libs and labs, and that is almost certain based on recent history.
let me explain.
with the libs as a whole more likely to vote for labour as a secvondary option than the tories, or that is assumed to be the case, then alternative vote would mean that they could still get over the line in constituencies where they would be hammered under first past the post. it could be mandated by libs so votes are transferred automatically.
the union clique voting for each other against the demon snp is the same process tried in australia to stop extremist views from the one nation party. it worked.
they would win the most popular party vote, say 35%, but would lose on preferences which are organised by the parties in advance. maybe 60-40%, so not even close. virtually nobody gave one nation any preferences.
therefore unless the snp get close to 50% they would not get seats, as the vote would automatically transfer to libs from lab or reverse way if they finished 2nd.
in theory the snp could have 35-40% of the vote and end up with no seats.
if the combined liberal/labour vote was over 50% they would win all the seats. throw in 2 libs as a governm,ent of the people and brown survives.
as the snp could not do a deal with anyone, then the tories as well as the snp would lose out in scotland.
straightforward and understandable that labour would try to do this as their vote in scotland and england collapses.
if the liberals had balls they would focus in england on attacking labour and trying to become the 2nd party after the tories; they are only 8 points behind and labour is in free fall. it would require libs to ferociously attack labour, which they are showing few signs of doing.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:49am Tue 25 Mar 08
re compulsory voting, here in oz it gets the donkey vote out, and they are more likely to vote for labour in uk at this time.
re compulsory voting, here in oz it gets the donkey vote out, and they are more likely to vote for labour in uk at this time.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 12:49am Tue 25 Mar 08
Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.
Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.
Posted by: John F on 1:05am Tue 25 Mar 08
From the Labour Party 1997 Manifesto
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
The Labour Party 2001 manifesto did not make such a commitment.
From the Labour Party 1997 Manifesto
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
The Labour Party 2001 manifesto did not make such a commitment.
Posted by: Ronald, Glasgow on 1:17am Tue 25 Mar 08
Er... OOR WULLIE... racism is NOT an admirable trait . Fact is very many migrants to this country are way too smart to vote for this far-right bunch of NEW LABOUR racist scumbags, who, if you can remember OOR WULLIE have drafted legislation upon legislation
ATTACKING imigrants !
Er... OOR WULLIE... racism is NOT an admirable trait . Fact is very many migrants to this country are way too smart to vote for this far-right bunch of NEW LABOUR racist scumbags, who, if you can remember OOR WULLIE have drafted legislation upon legislation
ATTACKING imigrants !
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:24am Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ronald[/bold] wrote:
Er... OOR WULLIE... racism is NOT an admirable trait . Fact is very many migrants to this country are way too smart to vote for this far-right bunch of NEW LABOUR racist scumbags, who, if you can remember OOR WULLIE have drafted legislation upon legislation
ATTACKING imigrants ![/quote] Ron - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism. Wullie's outspoken on some issues, but if you have kept up with his posts you will noted that Wullie is not opposed to immigration but uncontrolled immigration. He suggests here that labour are encouraging mass immigration as a gerrymandering tactic - I agree with that conclusion.
Ronald wrote:
Er... OOR WULLIE... racism is NOT an admirable trait . Fact is very many migrants to this country are way too smart to vote for this far-right bunch of NEW LABOUR racist scumbags, who, if you can remember OOR WULLIE have drafted legislation upon legislation
ATTACKING imigrants !
Ron - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism. Wullie's outspoken on some issues, but if you have kept up with his posts you will noted that Wullie is not opposed to immigration but uncontrolled immigration. He suggests here that labour are encouraging mass immigration as a gerrymandering tactic - I agree with that conclusion.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:25am Tue 25 Mar 08
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:46am today
Good post man - got me thinkin!
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:46am today
Good post man - got me thinkin!
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 9:45am Tue 25 Mar 08
Scunnert[quote]Ron - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism.[/quote] He's not scientific either:[quote]Flood the country with immigrants, they [bold]tend[/bold] to vote liebour. Fact.[/quote] Taking a category and generalising doesn't constitute a fact.
One could just as easily say, immigrants tend to vote for the party in government in an attempt to demonstrate an affiliation to their new country ... in which case, in Scotland they will vote SNP.
Scunnert
Ron - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism.
He's not scientific either:
Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.
Taking a category and generalising doesn't constitute a fact.
One could just as easily say, immigrants tend to vote for the party in government in an attempt to demonstrate an affiliation to their new country ... in which case, in Scotland they will vote SNP.
Posted by: searcher, central on 9:45am Tue 25 Mar 08
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:46am today
This happened in the mid 70's in Tasmania, Australia.
The election was between R Sherry, labor, (sitting member) and Bruce Goodluck, Liberal,(garage proprietor) in the city of Hobart.
This would have been a two horse race, FPTP and on polls at the time ,Sherry would have walked it.
But at the last minute for candidates to register, up steps Max Bounds,(Communist) and joins the fray.
Now with three candidates it becomes a proportional election as in AV.
Now Max had'nt won an election in 30 years of trying, lost his deposit mostly, and if I recall correctly did'nt reach a thousand in this one.
BUT, all Sherry's 2nd preferances went to Goodluck, as you had to mark a preference for all candidates or your vote was invalid, the result was inevitable, the effect being to transfer all votes for Sherry to Goodluck.
So Goodluck won.
But to this day, dont think anyone knows why Max decided to stand, but after the hilarity died down, many people thought it was a fix, but it was a legal one.
So any election system can be fiddled, just needs a cunning, or very luckey politician to do it !!
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:46am today
This happened in the mid 70's in Tasmania, Australia.
The election was between R Sherry, labor, (sitting member) and Bruce Goodluck, Liberal,(garage proprietor) in the city of Hobart.
This would have been a two horse race, FPTP and on polls at the time ,Sherry would have walked it.
But at the last minute for candidates to register, up steps Max Bounds,(Communist) and joins the fray.
Now with three candidates it becomes a proportional election as in AV.
Now Max had'nt won an election in 30 years of trying, lost his deposit mostly, and if I recall correctly did'nt reach a thousand in this one.
BUT, all Sherry's 2nd preferances went to Goodluck, as you had to mark a preference for all candidates or your vote was invalid, the result was inevitable, the effect being to transfer all votes for Sherry to Goodluck.
So Goodluck won.
But to this day, dont think anyone knows why Max decided to stand, but after the hilarity died down, many people thought it was a fix, but it was a legal one.
So any election system can be fiddled, just needs a cunning, or very luckey politician to do it !!
Posted by: rob4i, Scottish Borders on 11:17am Tue 25 Mar 08
Let New Labour fiddle with the voting system at everyone else's peril.
Let New Labour fiddle with the voting system at everyone else's peril.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 11:30am Tue 25 Mar 08
So what's new?
They fiddled with ours!
So what's new?
They fiddled with ours!
Posted by: PaulW, Borders on 12:14pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Very worrying indeed. If this was a developing country, UN observers would be asked to take a look at plans. They should put the changes in their manifesto - if voters support that(under the current system) then fair enough, even though I disagree with it. Sounds undemocratic to me and no way should they get away with this skullduggery without having given the people a referendum on it or put it to a general election. Profoundly undemocratic - mind you it would be funny if a public campaign was created to the effect that no one put Labour as a second preference - wipeout (and richly deserved)!
Very worrying indeed. If this was a developing country, UN observers would be asked to take a look at plans. They should put the changes in their manifesto - if voters support that(under the current system) then fair enough, even though I disagree with it. Sounds undemocratic to me and no way should they get away with this skullduggery without having given the people a referendum on it or put it to a general election. Profoundly undemocratic - mind you it would be funny if a public campaign was created to the effect that no one put Labour as a second preference - wipeout (and richly deserved)!
Posted by: Paulo, Glasgow, Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM on 12:34pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Wullie[/bold] wrote:
Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.[/quote] When one chooses to support a party with the word 'Nationalist' in it
it's only a matter of time before the racist remarks spill out.
The mask is slipping Wullie...need to find a new ewe i fancy!!
Wullie wrote:
Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.
When one chooses to support a party with the word 'Nationalist' in it
it's only a matter of time before the racist remarks spill out.
The mask is slipping Wullie...need to find a new ewe i fancy!!
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 12:35pm Tue 25 Mar 08
From Wikipedia
Quebec has had a very large influx of English speaking immigrants over the last 15 years. Quebec had an independence referendum in 1995 it was rejected by a slim majority (50.6% NO to 49.4% YES); a clear majority of French-speaking Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty.
The referendum was enshrouded in controversy. Federalists complained that an unusually high number of ballots had been rejected in pro-federalist areas, notably in the Greek riding of Chomedey (11.7 % or 5,500 of its ballots were spoiled, compared to 750 or 1.7% in the general election of 1994)The federal government was accused of not respecting provincial laws and of having accelerated the naturalization of immigrants in Quebec before the referendum in order that they could vote, as naturalized citizens were believed more likely to vote no. (43,850 immigrants were naturalized in 1995,
whereas the average number between 1988 and 1998 was 21,733.)
The same night of the referendum, an angry Jacques Parizeau, then premier and leader of the "Yes" side, declared that the loss was due to " the ethnic vote".
From Wikipedia
Quebec has had a very large influx of English speaking immigrants over the last 15 years. Quebec had an independence referendum in 1995 it was rejected by a slim majority (50.6% NO to 49.4% YES); a clear majority of French-speaking Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty.
The referendum was enshrouded in controversy. Federalists complained that an unusually high number of ballots had been rejected in pro-federalist areas, notably in the Greek riding of Chomedey (11.7 % or 5,500 of its ballots were spoiled, compared to 750 or 1.7% in the general election of 1994)The federal government was accused of not respecting provincial laws and of having accelerated the naturalization of immigrants in Quebec before the referendum in order that they could vote, as naturalized citizens were believed more likely to vote no. (43,850 immigrants were naturalized in 1995,
whereas the average number between 1988 and 1998 was 21,733.)
The same night of the referendum, an angry Jacques Parizeau, then premier and leader of the "Yes" side, declared that the loss was due to " the ethnic vote".
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:45pm Tue 25 Mar 08
scunnert and searcher, thank you for your comments.
i very much agree the system can be manipulated. and clever of brown to see this, no wonder he is keen on it, i would be if i was in his shoes as well.
[bold]perhaps settle should write about the outcomes dependent on what changes in preferential voting are suggested.[/bold]
doing my sums, and it is dependent on other factors as well, but in simple terms the tories would get wiped out in england unless they reached a tipping point of 42% and a split on unmandated 3rd party votes if that is allowed. labour would win with about 31% or more.
if tories get 42% on fptp then labour is wiped out so i can see their concern in trying to get liberal support pretty quickly.
scotland is a little different with a 4 party system so sno threshold to get seats is lower, unless brown gets everyonemandated to vote for the union first and snp last preference, which would be attempted in much the same way as his review, by ignoring the snp even exist and continuing regardless despite his unpopularity..
i am sure discussions have already taken place, as both parties likely to support it are in trouble, but the outcome if approved is not necessarily more democratic. and the compulsory tactic would bring out young indifferent giro voters.
in australia the number of spoilt ballots in high immigrant areas at general elections such as in fairfield and cabramatta in sydney is massive, as they are made to vote yet do not understand the system and what to do.
labour would continue to win the great unwashed in lanarkshire by this process.
if the tories and liberals double crossed brown on this and worked together that would blow labour away for 20 years, but lib-lab pacts at westminster are only just under the surface.
the libs as 2nd choice would win the west country of england under this system. assuming a 70-30 preference split if not mandated fully at 100-0 then labour would still have the tories reduced to less than 200. this and every future election, which was the idea in scotland until these pesky nats went and baulked the system.
the tassie communist example shows how this can be done. just transpose a liberal candidate in the mix, say a green party candidate who also provides preferences to labour and see what happens.............
.!
scunnert and searcher, thank you for your comments.
i very much agree the system can be manipulated. and clever of brown to see this, no wonder he is keen on it, i would be if i was in his shoes as well.
perhaps settle should write about the outcomes dependent on what changes in preferential voting are suggested.
doing my sums, and it is dependent on other factors as well, but in simple terms the tories would get wiped out in england unless they reached a tipping point of 42% and a split on unmandated 3rd party votes if that is allowed. labour would win with about 31% or more.
if tories get 42% on fptp then labour is wiped out so i can see their concern in trying to get liberal support pretty quickly.
scotland is a little different with a 4 party system so sno threshold to get seats is lower, unless brown gets everyonemandated to vote for the union first and snp last preference, which would be attempted in much the same way as his review, by ignoring the snp even exist and continuing regardless despite his unpopularity..
i am sure discussions have already taken place, as both parties likely to support it are in trouble, but the outcome if approved is not necessarily more democratic. and the compulsory tactic would bring out young indifferent giro voters.
in australia the number of spoilt ballots in high immigrant areas at general elections such as in fairfield and cabramatta in sydney is massive, as they are made to vote yet do not understand the system and what to do.
labour would continue to win the great unwashed in lanarkshire by this process.
if the tories and liberals double crossed brown on this and worked together that would blow labour away for 20 years, but lib-lab pacts at westminster are only just under the surface.
the libs as 2nd choice would win the west country of england under this system. assuming a 70-30 preference split if not mandated fully at 100-0 then labour would still have the tories reduced to less than 200. this and every future election, which was the idea in scotland until these pesky nats went and baulked the system.
the tassie communist example shows how this can be done. just transpose a liberal candidate in the mix, say a green party candidate who also provides preferences to labour and see what happens.............
.!
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 12:53pm Tue 25 Mar 08
And we know that the majority of people who vote liebour in their heartlands tend to have Irish roots. I remember when ex communist Dr Death ,John Reid proudly proclaimed to the whole world that he knew every song in the IRA song book. He was trying to ingratiate himself with the Sinn feinn voters of Northern Ireland. It was sickenening.
Heres a strange thing, the liebour party are defenders of the union but they dont organise in northern Ireland. Why not. Because at their core they want a united Ireland. Liebour has a completely opposite view towards Scotlands independence. Why is that. Because liebour needs Scottish liebour votes to get power in London. So liebour are two faced.
Ireland independence good.
Scotland independence bad.
And we know that the majority of people who vote liebour in their heartlands tend to have Irish roots. I remember when ex communist Dr Death ,John Reid proudly proclaimed to the whole world that he knew every song in the IRA song book. He was trying to ingratiate himself with the Sinn feinn voters of Northern Ireland. It was sickenening.
Heres a strange thing, the liebour party are defenders of the union but they dont organise in northern Ireland. Why not. Because at their core they want a united Ireland. Liebour has a completely opposite view towards Scotlands independence. Why is that. Because liebour needs Scottish liebour votes to get power in London. So liebour are two faced.
Ireland independence good.
Scotland independence bad.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 1:12pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Scunnert
We all know what this is really about. Liebour are gerrymandering the whole country. Bring in immigrants, give them the red carpet treatment, free health care,free housing, free benefits and hey presto, fresh liebour voters replenished. ( I dont think asylum seekers are going to vote tory or liberal do you ? )
Its the elephant in the room, we all know its happening but the left wing facists are bullies like Paulo and shout '' racist '' to shut up folk. George Orwell predicted this with the thought police, you are not allowed to say this word or that word because it might offend people , even though its the truth.
Scunnert
We all know what this is really about. Liebour are gerrymandering the whole country. Bring in immigrants, give them the red carpet treatment, free health care,free housing, free benefits and hey presto, fresh liebour voters replenished. ( I dont think asylum seekers are going to vote tory or liberal do you ? )
Its the elephant in the room, we all know its happening but the left wing facists are bullies like Paulo and shout '' racist '' to shut up folk. George Orwell predicted this with the thought police, you are not allowed to say this word or that word because it might offend people , even though its the truth.
Posted by: subrosa on 1:27pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[italic]Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 1:12pm today
Scunnert has a completely opposite view towards Scotlands independence. Why is that.[/italic]
And of course our oil. They need that.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 1:12pm today
Scunnert has a completely opposite view towards Scotlands independence. Why is that.
And of course our oil. They need that.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:58pm Tue 25 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Los Angeles[/bold] wrote:
Scunnert[quote]Ron - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism.[/quote] He's not scientific either:[quote]Flood the country with immigrants, they [bold]tend[/bold] to vote liebour. Fact.[/quote] Taking a category and generalising doesn't constitute a fact.
One could just as easily say, immigrants tend to vote for the party in government in an attempt to demonstrate an affiliation to their new country ... in which case, in Scotland they will vote SNP.
[/quote] Yes, yes, LA . Wullie sometimes uses the word "fact" when he really means "mibae". I still don't think he's a racist tho'. Provocative - yes - intolerant - sometimes - humorous - occasionally - racist - never.
I just don't like that word. It slips off the lips of some folks far too easily.
Los Angeles wrote:
ScunnertRon - I read nothing in Wullie's post that could be classed as racism.
He's not scientific either:Flood the country with immigrants, they tend to vote liebour. Fact.
Taking a category and generalising doesn't constitute a fact.
One could just as easily say, immigrants tend to vote for the party in government in an attempt to demonstrate an affiliation to their new country ... in which case, in Scotland they will vote SNP.
Yes, yes, LA . Wullie sometimes uses the word "fact" when he really means "mibae". I still don't think he's a racist tho'. Provocative - yes - intolerant - sometimes - humorous - occasionally - racist - never.
I just don't like that word. It slips off the lips of some folks far too easily.
Posted by: ditchgazza on 3:33pm Tue 25 Mar 08
"fiddling with the voting system"
Sounds appropriate in the run up to the fiddlers rally in Aviemore.
"fiddling with the voting system"
Sounds appropriate in the run up to the fiddlers rally in Aviemore.
Posted by: florence, Edinburgh on 3:38pm Tue 25 Mar 08
I'm always very wary about anything Jack Straw gets his muddy paws on. A champion in the art of skulduggery and dirty tricks as is his boss.
Beware!
I'm always very wary about anything Jack Straw gets his muddy paws on. A champion in the art of skulduggery and dirty tricks as is his boss.
Beware!
Posted by: George Laird, Glasgow on 3:46pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Dear All
So Labour want to rig the next election in their favour.
Certainly seems like "change is what we do" to me.
Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, how can a man who was involved in the Norman Scott affair passing restricted documents to then Prime Minister be trusted?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Dear All
So Labour want to rig the next election in their favour.
Certainly seems like "change is what we do" to me.
Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, how can a man who was involved in the Norman Scott affair passing restricted documents to then Prime Minister be trusted?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Posted by: Luigi, Aberdeen on 4:27pm Tue 25 Mar 08
No wuckin furries about this at all - every time they try and fix the system, it comes back to haunt them - think of the real reason why PR was oroginally set up in Scotland to prevent the SNP getting in - trouble is the silly beggars didn't envisage the possibility of a thriving SNP minority government (without PR and the second vote, this would never have happened) - trouble is, it has happened and there is no turning back now - what an absolute nightmare this must be for the unionists LoL.
Whatever they do, they always seem inadertently to speed up the move to independence!
LABOUR'S 'CLEVERNESS' - THE SNP' GREATEST ASSET
No wuckin furries about this at all - every time they try and fix the system, it comes back to haunt them - think of the real reason why PR was oroginally set up in Scotland to prevent the SNP getting in - trouble is the silly beggars didn't envisage the possibility of a thriving SNP minority government (without PR and the second vote, this would never have happened) - trouble is, it has happened and there is no turning back now - what an absolute nightmare this must be for the unionists LoL.
Whatever they do, they always seem inadertently to speed up the move to independence!
LABOUR'S 'CLEVERNESS' - THE SNP' GREATEST ASSET
Posted by: Strathturret, Montrose on 10:19pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Wullie,
It was George Galloway who said that Reid knew the IRA songbook by heart.
And George always tells the truth.
Wullie,
It was George Galloway who said that Reid knew the IRA songbook by heart.
And George always tells the truth.
Posted by: highlander45, Highlands on 4:15pm Wed 26 Mar 08
more labour lying cheating & fiddling!!!
more labour lying cheating & fiddling!!!
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (25)
