Double Standards
As Labour celebrates a convincing victory in the Barnsley by-election little comment has been made - so far at least - on the poor turnout.
Which was really quite shocking because only 36.5% of the electorate bothered to vote - compared to 56% at the May 2010 general election.
Now this is very interesting because only last month the Labour party were proposing - in the House of Lords - that a national referendum on voting reform should require a turnout of at least 40%.
Failure to achieve the 40% threshold would mean the result being declared null and void - no matter what the size of the majority - see post below 'Food For Thought' dated 17 February 2011.
I've no doubt that Labour believes the result in Barnsley reflects the public mood - so why the double standards when it comes to a referendum on voting reform?
"Food For Thought - 17 February 2011"
"Lord Jeffrey Rooker - the former Labour MP - has been up to mischief in the House of Lords.
The former Labour minister moved an amendment to the government's legislation on electoral reform which - if successful - would have imposed a minimum turnout of 40% in the referendum planned for May 2011.
So if less than 40% of the electorate actually bothered to vote - no matter how big the majority, even a majority of 10 to 1 - the result would have been null and void.
The same argument - about the need for a voting threshold - was used by various Labour MPs in the 1970s to scupper a Yes vote on devolution for Scotland.
Now would Lord Rooker take the same view in trade union strike ballots - for example - where the turnout of union members often struggles to get above 40%?
Would he take the same view in the ballots to elect trade union leaders - or in the votes to set up an affiliated political fund - in which only 10-15% of union members normally bother to vote?
I think we should be told - because otherwise people like Lord Rooker just look like hypocrites.
Worse still - from Lord Rooker's point of view - he might have actually given the coalition parties and the government - some food for thought."
Which was really quite shocking because only 36.5% of the electorate bothered to vote - compared to 56% at the May 2010 general election.
Now this is very interesting because only last month the Labour party were proposing - in the House of Lords - that a national referendum on voting reform should require a turnout of at least 40%.
Failure to achieve the 40% threshold would mean the result being declared null and void - no matter what the size of the majority - see post below 'Food For Thought' dated 17 February 2011.
I've no doubt that Labour believes the result in Barnsley reflects the public mood - so why the double standards when it comes to a referendum on voting reform?
"Food For Thought - 17 February 2011"
"Lord Jeffrey Rooker - the former Labour MP - has been up to mischief in the House of Lords.
The former Labour minister moved an amendment to the government's legislation on electoral reform which - if successful - would have imposed a minimum turnout of 40% in the referendum planned for May 2011.
So if less than 40% of the electorate actually bothered to vote - no matter how big the majority, even a majority of 10 to 1 - the result would have been null and void.
The same argument - about the need for a voting threshold - was used by various Labour MPs in the 1970s to scupper a Yes vote on devolution for Scotland.
Now would Lord Rooker take the same view in trade union strike ballots - for example - where the turnout of union members often struggles to get above 40%?
Would he take the same view in the ballots to elect trade union leaders - or in the votes to set up an affiliated political fund - in which only 10-15% of union members normally bother to vote?
I think we should be told - because otherwise people like Lord Rooker just look like hypocrites.
Worse still - from Lord Rooker's point of view - he might have actually given the coalition parties and the government - some food for thought."
