Spent some time watching the BBC coverage of the election in the UK Tonight (thank you C-SPAN). A couple questions, if you please:
1-How can they get the votes counted so damned fast? After our debacle in Florida, I see hundreds of local constituencies announcing results within a couple of hours! Are the totals accurate? How can they be sure?
2-The commentators refered to something called “the swing” in some races, speaking gravely of consequences of “The huge Liberal Democrat swing in East Thwackmore” or “A slight swing to Labour in Jerkington South”. Why is this significant?
3-I think it is very fascinating how they line up the candidates and announce their results LIVE. Fascinating to see their faces and reactions to the number of votes they get. But what if there is a close vote (one race I saw the margin of victory was only about 47 votes) - do they have recounts?
4-I believe I saw one candidate dressed as a lobster. Could this be somebody standing for election from the looney party. Please explain.
On (1), bear in mind that the ballot is for one race only - the local member of Parliament. No Presidents/Vice-Presidents; no Senators; no municipal officials; no state officials; no dog-catchers. As with the Canadian election last fall, it’s much easier to count when you’re only counting one race.
On (2), I’m guessing that the districts in question were one of two things: a bellwether riding, the kind that tends to be representative of general trends, or a reasonably safe seat. In these two kinds of districts, a change in the voting patterns can be significant, as an early indication of how the overall results will turn out.
Loal councils see the opportunity to be the first to announce their election returns as a way to generate a little positive publicity.
The geography of some constituencies makes it easier to get all the ballot boxes from the polling stations to the local counting depot very quickly.
On election night they employ plenty of people just for that time.
The presidencial election in the US is almaost akin to having just one constituency the size of the whole of the UK, it would take some considerable time to get all the ballot boxes from say some of the Scottish islands to the vote count station, in fact some areas such as the ones named take a day or so to get their final totals but by then so much of the rest of the country has been counted that it rarely matters in the overall political balance.
Certain seats are seen as representatvie of the majority of the population, you could say they are exceptional in their averageness, some seats have high profile politicians as their incumbants but may only have fairly small majorities from the previous election, and there is always the chance that a major scalp will not be re-elected.
If a seat has been in the hands of a certain party for a long time, decades maybe, and possibly due to demographics the lead has been whittled away it is a small piece of history in the making when it finally goes to the other main party.
When the pundits look at the election picture they set markers as to which seats a party must win to take power and they draw up a ranking table. Somewhere along that table there will be one seat that represents the overall majority needed to make the new government and such seats are seen as crucial though the truth is these only matter exactly as much as every other seat.
We have recounts, I think there have been one or two results overturned when recounted, the local municipal elections with their very low turnouts are most likely to be affected since majorities are regularly very slim, maybe just a handful of votes out of a total of maybe 20% or less of the electorate.
1 The UK is pretty small (about 55,000,000 people in an area roughly 600 miles by 200).
Low turnout.
Standard ballot paper.
2 The TV commentators are hoping that the change in voting from last time (= the swing) will be similar for each contest.
But of course there are the individual swings in the 659 constituencies, plus the overall average to consider.
Basically they’re trying to show the trend, but also want something to say while they wait for the next result.
3 I think there is an automatic recount (or perhaps a candidate can insist on one) if the margin is close.
I remember one contest being recounted several times.
4 Anyone can stand for election. You just need a deposit (returned if you get a certain % of the vote) and the signatures of a set number of electors in that constituency.
We had a minor pop star called Screaming Lord Sutch, who ran the Monster Raving Looney party (or possibly the Raving Monster Looney party ), which was not seen as an interference, but as an amiable eccentricity.
Other stuff:
two brothers fronted the coverage on the two main rival TV channels
we now wait to see if Hague (leader of main opposition party, who made no real progress) will be overthrown).
Stop Press: HE’S GONE!
I just turned on the TV (it’s 0800 local time), and he’s giving his resignation speech.
Now the race is on for his successor…
One: the UK is a geographically small country with a decent transport network and is relatively urbanised. The more remote constituencies – such as the Scottish islands – have yet to declare, and this may take a day or two.
Two: the swing is the change in vote between the two main rivals for a seat. Taken nationally it’s a good indication of the changing public support for particular parties. A big swing usually indicates that either one party is doing very well or that it’s doing very badly; either way it’s fairly informative regarding their appeal.
Three: recounts are held. I don’t know if it’s automatic or at the returning officer’s discretion. I’d imagine the former. Guildford, among others, had a recount last night as a close-run race saw the Liberal Democrats take it from the Conservatives.
Four: “silly” parties aren’t unusual: if you have the £500 to stand, off you go (example: the surgically-enhanced tits-out specialist Jordan, who stood in one seat on a manifesto of free plastic surgery for all). One of the surprises last night was a constituency where a local independent, unaffiliated to any party, won the seat from Labour. He campaigned on a single issue: the closure of a local hospital.
Five: William Hague’s departure was no surprise. It’s not outrageous to suggest he was set up as a fall guy from the start. The Conservative Party grandees knew they couldn’t win and picked a figurehead to take the blame, saving their “best” candidates for leader until the 2006 election when they would hope to have sorted out their policies and the electorate would have forgotten the dislike that led to the 1997 result. What’s surprising is that the Tories did even worse than they expected. The main runners for leader would seem to be Michael Portillo (not publically popular but a more experienced politican than Hague) and Ken Clarke (more publically popular but not at all popular in the party itself). The deciding factor will be Europe; the Tories are split over their attitude towards European integration - Portillo has the edge in that more of the party are anti-Europe, and Clarke is a well-known pro-European.
Six: the low turnout will be the big story. BBC polls suggested that most non-voters had decided that the election was meaningless, and that any vote would result in pretty much the same result. It’s a damning indictment of the electorial system, IMHO.
The Swing can be an early significant indication of the mood of the country – if ‘the swing’ - as indicated in the early results - is uniform across the country, it’s easy to extrapolate into a national picture of who will win.
In this election it was probably more useful as an measure of how tactical voting influenced results in marginal constituencies.
Recounts – I don’t believe they are automatic but rather are conducted at the request of the candidates. I can’t recall how many times they can request a recount but all results are validated by the officially appointed Returning Officer in every constituency.
The Lobster – Could well be the most convincing leader the Tory Party could appoint at the moment given their policies.
Low Vote / Apathy – I’m still minded to think the way the media has characterised the low vote as ‘apathy’ is a misnomer.
IMHO, where Labour supporters were apathetic (almost exclusively in safe seats) it was largely a warning to get on with the damn job (investment in the National Health Service and Education), where Tory’s failed to turn out, a condemnation of Hague and / or the Tory policies (primarily tax cuts and muddled on Europe).
In addition, there was not a headline issue to motivate the young voters – neither main Party offered them very much on the Environment and only the Lib Dems offered something significant on further education tuition fees.
My interpretation of the result: I find it hard to imagine a greater mandate for investment in Education and the National Health Service. These two issues dominate the UK social and political landscape today while Europe, as important as it is, won’t be addressed by the majority of the electorate until prior to a Referendum.
Almost everything else seems either peripheral to the electorate in this election (Asylum Seekers) or there’s so little difference between the Party’s as to neutralise the issue (the Environment, Transport).
Anyone see a similarity between William Hague’s political sensibilities and Kevin Keegan’s comprehension of international football ?
The result was predictable, of course, which might go some way to explaining the low turnout. (I know, I know, I can’t criticize people for not voting, I spoiled my paper… but at least I went down to the polling station to do it.)
So… Tony Blair now has a mandate to continue his economic and social policies (which are actually John Major’s economic and social policies, given a quick respray in 1997). Not necessarily a bad thing… except that the lack of change in this election means Blair has no reason to re-evaluate anything he’s done or proposes to do… which means imbecile ideas like privatising air traffic control remain on the agenda. Overall, I suppose it’s not bad news. I can’t imagine what a Hague government would have been like. (I don’t think anybody could - and I think that intrinsic implausibility is one of the main things that did him in.)
And as for Hague’s resignation: the swine! Oh, of course he had to go… but I wanted to see a proper Tory leadership struggle, with lots of backstabbing, blood on the carpet, and tears before bedtime! Instead, all I get is “Computer? Deactivate the Emergency Leadership Hologram.” It’s not fair!
The chances of Ken Clark becoming leader of the Tory party are probably pretty small, even though he is far and away the most popular candidate amongst Conservative voters, but Conservative voters are not necessarily paid up members of the party.
The reason is because of the Tory party constitution which means that two candidates are selected by the elected MP’s who are then put up for election among the local Tory constituency members.
The front runners among the candidates likely to be selected to run are Micheal Portillo 42%, Anne Widdecombe 21% and Ken Clarke is at around 13%.
Odd things do happen such as where someone will drop out of the early rounds,these might just be testing the waters for a more realistic candidate who will assess things before making public their candidature.
Ken Clarke is seen as being too far toward the centre of British politics and that region has been well and truly taken by New Labour, which is anethema to much of the old reactionary right of the Tory party.
Agreed about Clarke’s unpopularity within the party, but I’m not sure that centrist moves are that unlikely. As the BBC pundits (especially Anthony King) were pointing out last night, one of the drivers behind the result last night may be that Labour has cornered the market in the centre. The Tories lost badly because Hague’s soundbites indicated a slightly more right-wing agenda (on immigration, criminal justice and the Euro, at least). That’s not to say that the public wants something more left-wing, but that the majority of votes are more central: undecided on the Euro, undecided on immigration and can’t see the difference between Labour and the Tories on crime.
I cant remember the constiuency, but one of the more “comic” entries actually polled more than the BNP. I nearly wet myself.
On a different note, did anyone see Mandy’s acceptance speech? I thought he was going to have an anyurism on stage!!
Yup, Twusted – . Definitely Mandy’s ‘Gloria Gaynor moment’. Of course, his sexual orientation is irrelevant but damn, he was so close to revealing far more of his emotional side than, in retrospect, he’d have been comfortable with. It kind of tied in (for me) with how he got into his troubles in the first place in as far as it seemed almost compulsion in the same way, it’s been reported, is his fondness for the rich and famous.
Very interesting to see him as emotional as that when we’re used to such controlled presentation.
“I loved pounding the streets of Hartlepool day after day on the stump and in glorious sunshine…” Yeah, of course you did.
If the Tory’s are to find their way back to the centre ground (as did he Labour Party after the early 1980’s), the only precedent is to cut adrift the extreme - there’s no easy way, IMHO.
The problem with that for me is that there might actually be a potential right wing audience for a new Party focusing on an immigration / anti-Europe platform. Support might be very geographically patchy but areas like Oldham and the Channel seaport constituencies suggest a worrying potential.
He didn’t just win it, he walloped his opponents. And while Dr Taylor was not affiliated with a major party (he ran for the “Kidderminster Hospital Party”), the LibDems didn’t run a candidate and supported him instead.
), which was not seen as an interference, but as an amiable eccentricity.