Even had Paddick recommended a second preference vote for Ken, it’s unlikely to have swayed many voters. The evidence is that Lib Dems split their second preferences more or less evenly.

Face it, people were tired of the government and wanted to kick them; and they were tired of Ken and wanted a change.

I really don’t like ‘progressive’ labels (though I’d probably be included as one) for the reason that this abrogates the responsibility to decide what this means in reality for oneself as the temptation to turn the label quickly turns into an easy method for manipulation - which is either something this site is either lying to its audience about or foolishly failing to recognise.

Neutrality is not just about avoiding tribalism, but also promoting trenchant non-allignment and independence by resisting policy delineation and the territorialism of the more powerful.

The alternative balance is only an interim solution that ultimately fails the audience; the Beeb is balanced, and is therefore a hostage to accusations of bias, which is why it cannot staunch the flow of viewers to competing outlets - it is still the most trusted for now, though it cannot be and will never be fully trusted.

The personal party preferences of the editorial staff at any newspaper or media company (especially at ES and the national polemic sheets like the guardian and DM) will probably surprise most outsiders - it’s an everyday debate encountered in their professional life where sense must prevail occassionally in their minds, but they recognise the need to survive in an environment where commercial imperatives rule. This form of separation is the prime reason why criticisms of Rupert Murdoch founder, however much anyone might disagree with the particular line taken by NewsCorp outlets.

LC clearly operates according to a different model and therefore doesn’t need to undertake the same ’shepherding’ exercises which you or others may favour or oppose.

I’d even go so far as to say directing policy of the site will be in the face of the audience (and therefore hindering well-intentioned coalition-building possibilities) because this fails to exploit the potential of the medium.

While there has been much discussion since 2004 US presidential election about how “it woz the blogs wot won it” the traditional MSM has gradually (though ungraciously) conceded the point while simultaneously trying to limit the influence of the newcomers (the title of this thread harks back to the ancient 1992 GE, which, if it’s true, draws a dry comparison about how society and politics has regressed). So if LC really does want to move things forward by opening up current debates and stop people being shut out of discussions it can’t be up to the staffing editors, only the participating audience - for which you need the largest and best-informed audience possible.

You’ve had a go at me for obsessing over labels before, but I humbly point out that it is your retention for your prefered label that is preventing your influence from growing.

Regarding your point about specific newspapers:

if individuals perceived the Times to be conservative, then biased news reporting may not influence public opinion at all. On the other hand, if individuals perceive the Post as more neutral, they may be more likely to be influenced by the reporting.

Do you believe the Evening Standard is perceived to be neutral or biassed?

Why can’t contributors to Liberal Conspiracy be honest about what happened on 1 May?

Well, yes, I do say that in the piece, too. Labour are shit nationally, Ken had a particular talent for irritating people, etc. etc. There’s rarely a simple cause–effect thing going on in politics.

It’s worth noting, though, that the “Washington Post” effect I cite in the quotes used in the piece is a *net* effect; i.e. after controlling for everything that can be controlled for. Its calculated pro-Dem swing is that *over and above* the (also anti-Bush, as you say) one experienced by Washington Times readers.

“… pushing for the forces of liberal-left-progressivism.”

Haha! Tell me, do you write Private Eye’s Age of Change spoof column? Are you fighting against the running dogs of Blairite-Campbell-Capitalism…?

DK

the month prior to the post-election survey was a difficult period for President Bush, one in which his overall approval rating fell by approximately 4 percentage points nationwide. It appears that heightened exposure to both papers’ news coverage, despite opposing ideological slants, moved public opinion away from Republicans.

As MANY have pointed out already, sometimes parties on the left work together to fight the right. Its not usual but it does happen when they can get over their sectarian bickering and the right-wing candidate has a good chance of winning.
Its the norm in countries where you have PR or similar sort of voting systems.

Let’s assume that we bring in PR and all the parties collapse to around a third of the vote. What will the Libdems do then? Hold out until they get selected by themselves, and until then tell the others to screw themselves?

Now, I accept that Labour behaviour on this has been pretty snooty towards the Libdems too. Thats a foregone conclusion. But look at how the two Green AM candidates extracted green policies out of Ken in return for their support. Surely thats the sort of alliance building politics we should be looking forward towards?

Spot on.

I concur as well. As I said a couple of months ago when the Greens came out in support of a second preference for Ken, this is a *normal* occurance under the alternative vote, as we see in Australia.

The decision not to come out with a preference recommendation is entirely to do with lib dem politics where they ‘play’ tory in some seats and ‘play’ progressive in others and nothing to do with principle.

calling people childish isn’t exactly mature itself.

Try looking at his choice from his vantage, rather than your own.

Personally I also disagree that it was the best choice, but it is the most rational choice from his position and highly justifiable (though I’d've though an experienced politician would sense how this might be perceived by some potential allies and conclude it’d therefore be better to avoid answering).

Maybe you’re getting cabin fever in there and are unconsciously starting to propagandise, so perhaps you could be more careful not to expose your own ignorance and biases if you don’t want to lose any respect for your opinions.

Spot on.

Jennie:
This might seem counterintuitive to members of other parties, who tend to be ridiculously tribal

Actually, it looks from here that Libdem’ers are just as tribal. That’s not a bad thing in itself, and I take your point about not telling how other LD’ers to vote. But the point here is about Brian Paddick himself. He voted for Lindsey German! Jesus! Its just really childish.

Donald: “It’s that a party that has campaigned for years for preference voting made a point of turning up its nose at the distaste of casting a 2nd preference.”

We’re liberals. We believe in people being free to make a choice. This might seem counterintuitive to members of other parties, who tend to be ridiculously tribal (in fact, it took me a while to get my head around it) but the party would not DREAM of telling it’s members what to do. The members tell the party what to do.

Thus, the members are (or should have been) informed about the way the system works, but the party would never tell them who to put their second preference vote for, or even (in a properly proportional system) how to rank the candidates, other than “we’d really rather like it if you put our candidate first, although obviously if you have personal reasons not to, we’ll understand”.

> all one’s worst suspicions of Labour types

Of course, you couldn’t possibly know this, but last week was the first time I recall ever voting Labour (if a 2nd pref for Ken even counts). I was once a LibDem member, and have voted for either you, or the Greens, or spoiled my ballot for as long as I can remember, including my LD cross last week in the Assembly top-up vote. I also have an active (i.e. doing stuff) and passive (i.e. just writing stuff) history of electoral reform campaigning. So your psychological profile is off the mark. Anyway….

…. your 2., and the shenanigans over the mayoral 2nd preference, would certainly make me pause before voting LD again. In London, no chance; for Westminster, perhaps.

Your 3. is just the nature of the beast in the world of preference voting. Personally, I don’t see much case for a ‘plague on both your houses’ approach: it was some bloke off the telly (who, btw, I find likeable) versus someone with a track record of concrete achievements for Londoners, particularly in transport. As if improvements in infrastructure, in Londoners’ daily lives, are somehow cancelled out by the fact that he’s a bit of a git and occasionally asks other gits to come to town.

LibDems are constantly complaining over “wasted votes” in Westminster elections, yet when your wannabe mayor has the chance to cast a non-wasted vote as well, he chooses (and gleefully admits on radio) to wasting it. It’s ridiculous. At the very least, he’s abstained. In fact, I’d diagnose it as worse than that: given the state of the pre-poll polls he has essentially acquiesced to BoJo’s coronation.

> what motivation does that give Lib Dem voters to put ken 2nd, exactly

Oh, dunno, maybe because they’d stop and think for a second that he might make a better mayor than BoJo, given that the race was a straight choice between those 2 and only those 2? I hadn’t realised the only reason LibDems campaigned for STV was so they’d have something to horse-trade with.

BTW, it’s not just Paddick’s refusal to endorse Ken 2nd that I find ridiculous. It’s that a party that has campaigned for years for preference voting made a point of turning up its nose at the distaste of casting a 2nd preference.

> it’s extremely hard to get them to consider another point of view, sadly

Meh, I change my mind on things all the time. Wide of the mark again, but you couldn’t possibly know that, obviously.

Ok, I’ll bite.

1. Please, can you not hear yourselves when you say this kind of thing? It just confirms all one’s worst suspicions of Labour types - convinced of their own ineffable rightness even in the light of huge numbers of people telling them they’re wrong etc - to be piously instructed on one’s “duty” to keep Boris out at all costs. The Lib Dems are not here to tender to either Labour or Tory whims, whether either party likes that or not.

2. The abstract objection at 1, fundamentally about message and manners rather than substance, is before you take into account the fact that some Lib Dem voters (not including me) were perfectly happy to give Boris their second preference. The poll we held on LDV showed us as pretty evenly split between Boris and Ken for 2nd pref. That’s democracy, I’m afraid. I’m not happy about it either, but tough cookies - you’re fundamental assumption that “none of us wanted” Boris is simply wrong.

3. All the arguments I read suggesting that we should give Ken our second preferences were pretty much along the lines of “Yes, our man is a crooked bastard… but the other guy would be much worse” which to be honest isn’t much of a rallying cry and just compounds the irritation one felt at the constant pious injunctions about “duty” as outlined at 1.

4. How many times does this tedious fact need to be aired - Ken announced his intention to give his second preference to Sian Berry, and many Ken supporters presumably followed suit. Fine, their business. But what motivation does that give Lib Dem voters to put ken 2nd, exactly? Especially when said alliance quickly gave rise to Ken using Sian to get at Brian, rather in the manner of an Emmerdale plot. Again, Labour’s arrogant assumption that the Lib Dems would be happy to give them something for nothing just exacerbates the irritation one feels at being lectured.

5. Point of information. Brian wrote to the Times on 23 (I think) of April to dispel the myth that he was leaning Boriswards. He said specifically that he would not be prepared to work for either administration. This isn’t a new thing.

But I don’t hold out a great deal of hope that any of this will change your perception. Once someone has it in their head that a given course of action is the “grown-up” thing to do, it’s extremely hard to get them to consider another point of view, sadly.

I didn’t vote for Ken or for Boris. I voted for Ken eight years ago - yes, with my grubby outer-suburb not-really-London vote! - and he’s used my mandate to espouse causes that I passionately disagree with and people I strongly dislike. He clearly shares Donald S’s contempt for the outer boroughs because unlike Boris, who visited my borough five times during the course of his campaigns, Ken didn’t come to this borough once.

To give him credit, Ken accepted that the fact that more people didn’t vote for him was his failing and not theirs. He clearly understands democracy considerably better than some of the people who write for this site.

There’s a delicious irony in your chosen handle.

And you obviously just turned up 5 minutes ago or you’d realise that you won’t find many (maybe any) here crying over the troubles of New Labour.

> a paper that simply reported what he had done

ha ha ha ha ha ha . That’s a joke, right? ha ha ha ha ha.

What paper in the world *ever* simply reports what happened? You can’t even be bothered to read the post, follow the links etc. etc. Why bother even leaving a comment? I’m surprised you haven’t trotted out “ZaNuLabour”. Back to the drawing board for you.

@ 18 peezedtee

> What happened is that the right won because it was not divided as it was before

That still begs the question: why? And that Yale study convinces me that it’s plausible the ES had a significant effect. Or potentially could have. And as Chris (@4) above says, I also think there’s significant evidence LibDems either voted for Johnson 2nd or didn’t bother. Or maybe, like Brian, they all voted for the Left List 2nd, I dunno.

@16 ad

> Newspaper reader: “Say, the Evening Standard hates Ken, so however bad he is, they will want to make him look worse. Better allow for that.”

You have to read the Yale paper I cite. That (you’re correct, valid) effect is covered in there, too.

he lost.

Convincingly.

Back to the drawing board.