UK Politics MCMXXXIX: Should I stay or should I go now?

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 minutes ago, The EnglishBear said:

Apparently so, it's a sort of way of them proudly showing they aren't jewish.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/crafty-online-anti-semites-have-discovered-a-way-to-reverse-parentheses.html

That's just bizarre.

[Maltaran]

I just saw a tweet saying the Conservatives aren't going to run in the by-election.

[Northernmonkey]

15 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Oh, I doubt many will be directly inspired in his name. 

It's more that this will raise levels of fear/anxiety, and how that manifests itself. It may not make sense to you or I, but for many the response to generalized anxiety is to seek authoritarian answers and increase levels of norm/same seeking (ie xenophobia). I agree on an overt level the reaction you describe is more likely. Is the referendum vote public or private?

Possible, but maybe this will motivate people on the Leave side to turn up and vote as a show of solidarity with Jo Cox and her values. 

It might also make the Leave side think twice about being so blatantly anti-immigrant. Farage's new poster suddenly looks even more repulsive than it did before. 

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Gylfi Gylfi Gylfi said:

Possible, but maybe this will motivate people on the Leave side to turn up and vote as a show of solidarity with Jo Cox and her values. 

It might also make the Leave side think twice about being so blatantly anti-immigrant. Farage's new poster suddenly looks even more repulsive than it did before. 

The closest comparison I can think of is the murder of Anna Lindh, four days before the Swedish Referendum on joining the Euro.  It did not affect the result.

[ab aeterno]

4 hours ago, Maltrouane Fellaini said:

I just saw a tweet saying the Conservatives aren't going to run in the by-election.

I think that's what they've announced now. I understand why they're doing it, but I disagree with the decision. While superficially that seems like a "respectful" decision, in actuality it becomes a partisan one, equating her with her party, and it removes all choice from the electorate. 

 

ETA: Whether or not the guy yelled "Britain First," there seems to be mounting evidence that he was a right wing extremist, with the SPLC saying that he had books including weapons manuals from a neo-Nazi group in the US, and the police apparently finding Nazi regalia in his house.

[Maltaran]

46 minutes ago, ab aeterno said:

I think that's what they've announced now. I understand why they're doing it, but I disagree with the decision. While superficially that seems like a "respectful" decision, in actuality it becomes a partisan one, equating her with her party, and it removes all choice from the electorate.

The Lib Dems and UKIP have now made the same announcement.

[HexMachina]

1 hour ago, ab aeterno said:

I think that's what they've announced now. I understand why they're doing it, but I disagree with the decision. While superficially that seems like a "respectful" decision, in actuality it becomes a partisan one, equating her with her party, and it removes all choice from the electorate. 

 

ETA: Whether or not the guy yelled "Britain First," there seems to be mounting evidence that he was a right wing extremist, with the SPLC saying that he had books including weapons manuals from a neo-Nazi group in the US, and the police apparently finding Nazi regalia in his house.

I agree with this. It's a bit odd seeing all of these statements about how fragile our democracy is and then making a by-election that can't truly be democratic. I mean I understand the reasoning of course, I just don't agree with it

[VarysTheSpider]

Political parties aren't obliged to contest all seats. It would be a bit weird if they were.

[ab aeterno]

They're not of course, but this is a seat that the Conservatives would usually contest, as would UKIP and the Lib Dems. As above, the disagreement is with their reasoning for not contesting the seats, not purely the fact that one or more parties have chosen not to. Single candidate elections are somewhat undemocratic, and arguably a waste of government time and money. 

 

ETA: I imagine there'll be an independent or minor party candidate or too, but in practice that doesn't really help the situation much. 

[Sophelia]

12 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I agree with this. It's a bit odd seeing all of these statements about how fragile our democracy is and then making a by-election that can't truly be democratic. I mean I understand the reasoning of course, I just don't agree with it

Yeah, I am very uncomfortable with this too (I'm a Labour voter currently and also very sad about what happened).  Again I appreciate the gesture and accept that there is no obligation to field candidates, but to me tributes to Jo Cox and the replacement election are separate issues: the people should decide who they want to represent them, not have it chosen for them.  I think it's unfair both to all the voters and to the Labour candidate who replaces her.  In principle they could parachute in somebody totally objectionable.  Aside from that, people are deprived of their democratic vote.

[VarysTheSpider]

Oh, I wouldn't have thought it disrespectful if they had have contested it mind you, but ultimately it's their decision to make and if that's what they thought best, that's fine by me. It often happens that the person/party you want to vote for doesn't stand for your local/national/mayoral election. That's doesn't mean the election itself is undemocratic.

[williamjm]

54 minutes ago, VarysTheSpider said:

Political parties aren't obliged to contest all seats. It would be a bit weird if they were.

The result would surely be a foregone conclusion anyway so I don't see much reason for them to contest it, although I also don't think there would be anything wrong with them putting up candidates.

There is precedent for major parties not contesting seats, voters in the Speaker's constituency probably have far more reason to complain about being denied their democratic rights.

[Chaircat Meow]

I agree with everyone who feels that the seat ought to be contested.

[ab aeterno]

The Times has endorsed the Remain campaign. Somewhat surprising given the tone of some of its recent coverage. Guardian link because of the paywall.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't see a problem with the decision not to contest. Voters in the constituency had a choice in the general election, and voted for Mrs Cox for the next term on the expectation that she'd serve the full term. Whomever ends up being the Labour candidate will face a contested race at the next general election, whereas it might feel wrong for the other parties to try and gain a seat in the present circumstances. In any case, it's far less problematic than the Speaker's constituency.

Mind you, the last time this happened, the Liberal Democrats not only contested Eastbourne after Ian Gow's murder, they actually picked it up.

[ab aeterno]

4 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I don't see a problem with the decision not to contest. Voters in the constituency had a choice in the general election, and voted for Mrs Cox for the next term on the expectation that she'd serve the full term. Whomever ends up being the Labour candidate will face a contested race at the next general election, whereas it might feel wrong for the other parties to try and gain a seat in the present circumstances. In any case, it's far less problematic than the Speaker's constituency.

Mind you, the last time this happened, the Liberal Democrats not only contested Eastbourne after Ian Gow's murder, they actually picked it up.

I don't think it's any less problematic than the Speaker's constituency. The Speaker (at least in theory,) is supposed to be impartial, so competing in a partisan race would create a conflict of interest which could be seen to undermine the democratic system (because of the Speaker's influence in Parliament). So while it's quite problematic in that it creates an undemocratic situation in that constituency, the reasoning behind it is to uphold the integrity of the broader democratic system. 

The situation with Jo Cox's seat on the other hand does entirely the opposite, I would argue. It seems to assume that people voted not for Jo Cox herself, but for the Labour party, that she just happened to be its candidate, and that because the Labour party won they are entitled to select the next MP for themselves. Not only does it run entirely contrary to democratic principles (by denying voters choice,) it also undermines the principle of voters choosing the best candidate, rather than the party. In my opinion, failing to contest the seat actually belittles Mrs Cox. rather than respecting her, because it belittles her personal agency as a candidate and and an elected MP. 

 

[ants]

4 hours ago, ab aeterno said:

I don't think it's any less problematic than the Speaker's constituency. The Speaker (at least in theory,) is supposed to be impartial, so competing in a partisan race would create a conflict of interest which could be seen to undermine the democratic system (because of the Speaker's influence in Parliament). So while it's quite problematic in that it creates an undemocratic situation in that constituency, the reasoning behind it is to uphold the integrity of the broader democratic system. 

The situation with Jo Cox's seat on the other hand does entirely the opposite, I would argue. It seems to assume that people voted not for Jo Cox herself, but for the Labour party, that she just happened to be its candidate, and that because the Labour party won they are entitled to select the next MP for themselves. Not only does it run entirely contrary to democratic principles (by denying voters choice,) it also undermines the principle of voters choosing the best candidate, rather than the party. In my opinion, failing to contest the seat actually belittles Mrs Cox. rather than respecting her, because it belittles her personal agency as a candidate and and an elected MP. 

 

I not only think it's ok, I think the other parties are doing the right thing. There can NEVER be any suspicion of a party gaining from an event like this. Otherwise you create the possibility of someone assassinating someone in the future - especially if parliament is evenly split. It might suck a little for the constituents, but it is better for democracy 

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, ab aeterno said:

I don't think it's any less problematic than the Speaker's constituency. The Speaker (at least in theory,) is supposed to be impartial, so competing in a partisan race would create a conflict of interest which could be seen to undermine the democratic system (because of the Speaker's influence in Parliament). So while it's quite problematic in that it creates an undemocratic situation in that constituency, the reasoning behind it is to uphold the integrity of the broader democratic system. 

Our Speaker is supposed to be impartial too - but we've never had the uncontested Speaker tradition of Britain, to the point where two incumbent NZ Speakers lost their seats in the 1990s. Screwing over the inhabitants of a particular area for a decade or more at a time feels unfair.

The situation with Jo Cox's seat on the other hand does entirely the opposite, I would argue. It seems to assume that people voted not for Jo Cox herself, but for the Labour party, that she just happened to be its candidate, and that because the Labour party won they are entitled to select the next MP for themselves. Not only does it run entirely contrary to democratic principles (by denying voters choice,) it also undermines the principle of voters choosing the best candidate, rather than the party. In my opinion, failing to contest the seat actually belittles Mrs Cox. rather than respecting her, because it belittles her personal agency as a candidate and and an elected MP.  

To be entirely honest, Mrs Cox would not have won the seat if she had been, say, an independent, rather than a candidate for a major party. You also really don't want to set the precedent of politically motivated assassins taking out a series of MPs in conveniently marginal seats.

[Chaircat Meow]

BMG poll for the Herald. Fieldwork 10-15 June.

Lead for Remain in the Phone Poll, 46/43 for Remain but bigger Leave lead in the online poll, 51 (+ 6)/41 (- 2).

This will give hope to Remain because BMG think their phone poll is more accurate. However, it does look like an outlier compared to other recent phone polls.

[ab aeterno]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Our Speaker is supposed to be impartial too - but we've never had the uncontested Speaker tradition of Britain, to the point where two incumbent NZ Speakers lost their seats in the 1990s. Screwing over the inhabitants of a particular area for a decade or more at a time feels unfair.

 

 

To be entirely honest, Mrs Cox would not have won the seat if she had been, say, an independent, rather than a candidate for a major party. You also really don't want to set the precedent of politically motivated assassins taking out a series of MPs in conveniently marginal seats.

I agree that it's grossly unfair about the Speaker, but I do find the reasoning at least somewhat comforting. 

That's a fair point about not winning as an independent, but I think that just as we don't want to set a precedent of politically motivated assassination, we also don't want to set a precedent of parties potentially cutting backroom deals to decide who is the next MP, or in an even worse scenario, dividing up seats between them or even fixing seats through selective non-contestation. They would be extreme cases, to be sure, but I think the assassinations are quite extreme too.