Political and Social Blog. A Magazine Forum on public and private thoughts, meanderings, and odds and ends. (Disclaimer: The views held on this blog are our views, and not necessarily the views of any organisation we are involved with or represent)
I hate to defend Lamont but you do him an injustice. The Kingston seat was merged with Surbiton and Lamont sought the nomination for the new seat, only to lose to the Surbiton MP. He then sought a new constituency, taking so long it looked like he was the flying Dutchman of UK politics! I wouldn't call this a chicken run by any sense of the term!
Unfortunatley Tim I think you are right, I seem to remember something like that now you come to mention it. Damming tho, that he couldn't get the nomination for the Surbiton seat!
Daming a bit, but when two seats held by the same party become one then invariably someone has to lose (or retire). And I think there was more of Surbiton going into the seat, at least CA wise.
Something similar happened in Croydon with one seat being lost and Central being fought by two sitting MPs for an equally hollow prize, although the unsuccessful MP went on to get the Mole Valley nomination (which isn't far away and can be reached on a direct train from West Croydon). It can sometimes be good for an area to have an experienced MP succeed another rather than some hack who's spent all their time since finishing education in "Central House".
One reason why I am partial to STV for Westminster elections (albeit only partial) is that if the constituencies were large enough (start with say 5-6 MPs in each) then rather than boundary reviews throwing up these problems, the number of MPs could be adjusted - something far easier and more objective to do than have all the main parties, the county, district and parish councils and umpteen locals arguing endlessly about whether particularly villages should be moved around for the numbers game! (The village of Banstead and neighbouring wards have a history of nearly always being moved as the Boundary Commission's solution to every numbers problem in eastern Surrey!) That said, the wider problems of uber parochialism and limit manoeuvre for government cancel this advantage out.
6 comments:
Just seen the first Labour gain - Edgbaston, now here comes Portsmouth. Should I stay up for Southgate?!
Actually my favourite was Lamont losing his seat, and indeed Edgbaston
Sorry, forgot. Lamont did a futile chicken run from Kingston
I hate to defend Lamont but you do him an injustice. The Kingston seat was merged with Surbiton and Lamont sought the nomination for the new seat, only to lose to the Surbiton MP. He then sought a new constituency, taking so long it looked like he was the flying Dutchman of UK politics! I wouldn't call this a chicken run by any sense of the term!
Unfortunatley Tim I think you are right, I seem to remember something like that now you come to mention it. Damming tho, that he couldn't get the nomination for the Surbiton seat!
Daming a bit, but when two seats held by the same party become one then invariably someone has to lose (or retire). And I think there was more of Surbiton going into the seat, at least CA wise.
Something similar happened in Croydon with one seat being lost and Central being fought by two sitting MPs for an equally hollow prize, although the unsuccessful MP went on to get the Mole Valley nomination (which isn't far away and can be reached on a direct train from West Croydon). It can sometimes be good for an area to have an experienced MP succeed another rather than some hack who's spent all their time since finishing education in "Central House".
One reason why I am partial to STV for Westminster elections (albeit only partial) is that if the constituencies were large enough (start with say 5-6 MPs in each) then rather than boundary reviews throwing up these problems, the number of MPs could be adjusted - something far easier and more objective to do than have all the main parties, the county, district and parish councils and umpteen locals arguing endlessly about whether particularly villages should be moved around for the numbers game! (The village of Banstead and neighbouring wards have a history of nearly always being moved as the Boundary Commission's solution to every numbers problem in eastern Surrey!) That said, the wider problems of uber parochialism and limit manoeuvre for government cancel this advantage out.
Post a Comment