Liberal Burblings

Archive for September, 2010

From a pub in deepest West Berkshire. The ball is dangling on a string and spins round when……..you get the picture.

I’ve been going through Labour’s detailed voting numbers from their leadership election.

It is absolutely correct to say that it were the Brothers in the Unions wot won it for Brother Ed. Just look at the summary:

A stonking win by Ed in the Union vote cancelled out modest leads for David amongst Labour MPs/MEPs and members. (And, by the way, it’s been calculated that about 7 more MPs voting for David would have won it for him).

The election was a mammoth exercise in waste paper creation. I hope they’ll be recycling the unused ballot papers somehow. 2,747,030 ballot papers were distributed to affiliate members. Only 247,339 or 14.6% came back. And 14.6% of those were spoilt!

Ed Miliband was a whacking 12 points ahead of David Miliband in the first preference affiliate voting:  35.4% to 23.5%.

The margin between the two brothers on first preferences was 29,396 votes (Ed got 87,585 while David got 58,189).

That margin is easily accounted for by the margin with which Ed won the first preference votes of just two unions - Unite the Union and GMB - compared to David:

Indeed, the Unite margin accounts for 87% of Ed’s margin over his brother on first preferences.

When you look at the fourth round of voting, when the other candidates were eliminated, the margin on all preferences voting by affiliates for Ed over David was 39,139.  That margin was virtually all accounted for by the first preferences of members of just four unions:

Labour have not released the lower preferences for the affiliates. But a massive 65.5% of Ed’s winning margin in the affiliates was due to Unite first preferences alone. By the look of it, the lower preferences from the eliminated candidates went relatively evenly to the two brothers, so I think its safe to assume that about 90% of Ed’s winning 39,139 margin on all preferences was from Unite the Union members – that would have been about the same proportion as for first preferences.

So I think we can say relatively categorically that it was Unite the Union wot won it for Brother Ed.

As a footnote, 15,836 spoilt Unite union votes were ‘cast’ in the election, which was 14% of the 111,270 Unite union votes cast. That’s one heck of a lot of spoilt ballot papers. I would now be fascinated to read what sort of things were written on these spoilt ballot papers! Only 10.5% of Unite union members bothered to vote, by the way.

Hat-tip: (re: spoilt ballot papers) Slugger O’Toole

Taken earlier this afternoon.

From the Press Association:

A senior Liberal Democrat MP is being investigated by police following allegations he tried to seduce a vulnerable female constituent, it has been disclosed.

Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, was reportedly approached by the 36-year-old single mother with problems about noisy neighbours and inadequacies in her healthcare.

Over a number of months, the married politician took the woman to dinner, bought her gifts, including perfume, clothes and a teddy bear, and sent her intimate text messages, the Sunday Times said.

In a number of letters Mr Hancock wrote on behalf of his constituent, her mental health problems were freely acknowledged, the newspaper added.

Detectives were said to be alerted by the unnamed woman’s family support worker. Mr Hancock was unavailable for immediate comment.

He told the newspaper that “under no circumstances” had any sexual activity taken place between them but he had taken her out to dinner and bought her gifts “to cheer her up”.

“It would be a very sad day indeed where MPs cannot act in a holistic and friendly way that helps their constituents,” he added.

A Hampshire Police spokeswoman confirmed an investigation had been launched by officers after they received a complaint.

She said: “Information regarding the welfare of a female from the Portsmouth area was passed to us by a third party on August 5 this year. No offences were disclosed at the time but the information remained on file. On Friday, September 24 we received contact from a female in relation to the matter and inquiries are now in hand.”

A Lib Dem spokesman said: “The police are investigating. It’s a private matter. The party is unable to comment.”

From PoliticsHome:

Hancock investigated after…claims

Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock is being investigated over claims he tried to seduce a mentally ill female constituent.

More behind the paywall in the Sunday Times.

It’s fascinating to see here the Labour leadership election votes at the various stages of the counting. Ed Mili was more than 3 points behind David Mili on first preferences. Ed Mili did very well out of Diane Abbott’s votes (picking up 3 points compared to 1 by his brother), not so well out of Andy Burnham’s votes (level with his brother at 4ish points) and then a bit better out of Ed Balls’ votes (9ish compared to 7ish for his brother), but just enough to take him over the line.

In many ways, it is a delight for fans of proportional voting, with the very major reservation that the whole Labour leadership contest is a bit of a charade given that people have multiple votes if they belong to different constituencies (such as the unions and affiliated associations). So, it’s possible to contend that this election was swung by a few people being members of unions as well as being members of the Labour party. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

• Round 1: David Miliband 37.78%, Ed Miliband 34.33% Diane Abbott eliminated
• Round 2: David Miliband 38.89%, Ed Miliband 37.47%. Andy Burnham eliminated
• Round 3: David Miliband 42.72%, Ed Miliband 41.26%, Ed Balls eliminated
• Round 4: David Miliband 49.35%, Ed Miliband 50.65%. Ed Miliband wins.