# Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't think even the most obsessed electoral reformer would say this is as big an issue as the cuts etc - but still, we finally have a chance to move on from the FPTP system that works to exclude the emergence of new forces to challenge the two (or two-and-a-bit) party system.

Few people think AV is the best alternative.  But it's likely to be the only one on offer.  It means that people can vote for a green or left/independent candidate without that meaning their vote is "wasted" and won't help to keep out the Tory (or Tory/Lib).

Let's 'AV it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2010)

And yet it means the "green, left or independent" candidate is no more likely to get elected than under the current system, if anything they will be less likely to get in given the way it favours the really big parties. 

If I bothered voting in this referendum I would probably vote no.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

need to be careful not to assume people would vote the same way under a new system - in any case change has its own dynamic and the big parties aren't necessarily in control eg. once you've moved to preference voting for national elections the logic suggests adopting it for locals in England and Wales where there is already multi-member seats (NI and Scots already have this) - this means PR would be in across the board at local council level and offers increased opps for the left.  

A vote for the status quo is a vote of approval for the party politics we have now.


----------



## past caring (Jul 2, 2010)

So is a vote for AV.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

Boycott any such referendum.

There are more and more arenas of democratic participation :- area assemblies, local regeneration board elections, mayoral elections, assembly elections, community policing boards, local mayoral elections... 

This legalistic struggle - beloved of greens and liberals - is a dead end.

AV is another long process for soft liberals and no doubt some socialists to argue over, but it's completely hollow. As is full PR.

Win and the implementation takes 10 years, efforts for economic democracy are sidelined into 'wait until you have better political democracy, you will be happy then', when AV fails to deliver what people want 'oh, the old system was better, damn the Independent readers for undermining the traditional british way of doing things, let's go back to the old way'.
Lose and it's a case of 'democracy is how you wish it, be happy'.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 2, 2010)

I have no hope of it really changing anything for the better, but I'll vote yes anyway on the grounds of wanting to make SOME kind of change to this rotten system.  I can't help feeling that perpetually refusing to vote to change anything will simply guarantee that nothing ever changes.

Waiting for the poll, by the way...

But put a "sell-by date" on the poll, because you'll want to take another sounding at some point in the future and compare them.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 2, 2010)

Yes, for the same pragmatic reason as kabbes.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 2, 2010)

Eiffel Tower!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't want to see a voting system that gives the Lib Dems any more MPs. They must be annihilated.


----------



## past caring (Jul 2, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I have no hope of it really changing anything for the better, *but I'll vote yes anyway on the grounds of wanting to make SOME kind of change to this rotten system. * I can't help feeling that perpetually refusing to vote to change anything will simply guarantee that nothing ever changes.
> 
> Waiting for the poll, by the way...
> 
> But put a "sell-by date" on the poll, because you'll want to take another sounding at some point in the future and compare them.





kyser_soze said:


> Yes, for the same pragmatic reason as kabbes.



Thinking like this is how we ended up with the LibDems in power.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

What's wrong with AV? It's better than PR which is really just party reprresentation where the party leaders decide who gets elected. And better than FPTP -- how can Caroline Lucas claim to represent the people of Brighton Pavillion when only 31% of those who voted voted for her, ie 69% voted against her?


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2010)

I was in favour of AV before the election, but now I think we face the possibility of the Tories and Lib Dems stitching up the next couple of elections. If the coalition lasts Tories will be happy to vote Lib Dem, and the loyalist Lib Dems will be happy to vote Tory. So for pragmatic reasons I would vote no. Although I am open to arguments.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 2, 2010)

Looking beyond the immediate future, however, I think that FPTP is the thing that keeps the Tories their long-term power base.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2010)

However, ten or fifteen years in them in power could shift the whole country to the right even more.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 2, 2010)

> It's better than PR



It's one form of PR you dolt, as are system like STV. You're only talking about the Party List variant of PR.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 2, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> What's wrong with AV? It's better than PR which is really just party reprresentation where the party leaders decide who gets elected. And better than FPTP -- how can Caroline Lucas claim to represent the people of Brighton Pavillion when only 31% of those who voted voted for her, ie 69% voted against her?



Simples - you can have open list PR where you get to choose both party and candidate. 

And I don't know how you can jump to the conclusion that 69% of voters were against Caroline Lucas because they didn't vote for her, when tactical voting is such a massive part of the electoral process.

From my own perspective AV is shit and nowhere near as proportional as I'd like but it gives voters more power and stops perverse outcomes like a minority candidate sneaking in because politically similar frontrunners have split the vote. So it's better than nothing.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> It's one form of PR you dolt, as are system like STV. You're only talking about the Party List variant of PR.



No it's not - AV may give a more proprotional outcome - but on some (rarer) ocassions it might be even less proportional than FPTP would be.  But it's better than no change.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 2, 2010)

Does a yes vote for this piece of voting reform make future voting reform more or less likely?  Tough question.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Boycott any such referendum.



That is a consistent and honourable position if you boycott all electoral intervention as a point of principle. 

But if you don't - and I don't (which doesn't make me a liberal any more than it made Lenin or Gramsci liberals) - then you have there are tactical judgements to be made about whether changes to the electoral system are conducive to increasing the size and nature of left representation.  

I don't see why campaigning for electoral reform in any way precludes principled and militant campaigning against the cuts and for the class interests of working people?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Does a yes vote for this piece of voting reform make future voting reform more or less likely?  Tough question.



It is a tough and imporant question - there is a strong argument that says if this falls then no party will future reforms with a barge pole for a number of years - as their opponents will say "voters had the chance to scrap FPTP and they chose not to"....

If we get it, it will make PR for local govt more likely (see argument above) and the STV(Lords)/(AV commons) is better than where we have been stuck for so long?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 2, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Does a yes vote for this piece of voting reform make future voting reform more or less likely?  Tough question.



Possibly. It's a shit idea for a referendum. As ever in any poll, there needs to be a neither/none of the above option. If you want full pr or stv, how do you vote?


----------



## lewislewis (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm honestly tempted to vote 'No', I don't think it opens up the door for further reform, it just delays real PR.

Having it on the same day as Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary elections is also pretty disrespectful and a blunder!


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2010)

I think a lot of people who were formerly in favour of some reform will also just vote no to 'punish' the Lib Dems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 2, 2010)

lewislewis said:


> Having it on the same day as Scottish and Welsh Parliamentary elections is also pretty disrespectful and a blunder!



Why?

Expecting people to turn out twice to vote in quick succession would be a blunder.


----------



## past caring (Jul 2, 2010)

articul8 said:


> That is a consistent and honourable position if you boycott all electoral intervention as a point of principle.
> 
> But if you don't - and I don't (which doesn't make me a liberal any more than it made Lenin or Gramsci liberals) - *then you have there are tactical judgements to be made about whether changes to the electoral system are conducive to increasing the size and nature of left representation. *
> 
> I don't see why campaigning for electoral reform in any way precludes principled and militant campaigning against the cuts and for the class interests of working people?



Agreed. But my view is that AV is likely to make it more difficult for radical working class organisations to get candidates elected.

How does AV work? The electorate lists candidates in order of preference (in some AV systems, such as that used in some Australian elections, a failure to list all of the candidates equates to a spoilt ballot) and the candidate with over 50% of the votes cast is elected. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, with their votes being reditributed according to second preferences. The candidate who is now over 50% (or the candidate furthest over 50% if more than one) is elected. Still no-one over 50%? The process continues.....

So say we end up in the following position;

1. radical working class candidate - 40%

2. NuLabour - 25%

3. Libdem - 20%

4. Tory - 15%

Even acknowledging that the entirety of the electorate may well not cast their second preferences in the way the parties themselves ask them to (and it's a given that all of the establishment parties will ask for second preferences to go to one of the other establishment parties if there appears to be any realistic chance of the radical working class candidate doing well) it's a fairly safe bet than none of the Tory votes are going to the radical working class candidate. 

I think that's also going to be true whichever way you cut the cake (i.e. - true of LibDem and NuLabour votes).


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 2, 2010)

It's looking apparent that this might be empty grandstanding anyway. 




			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> Should voters back AV in a referendum, he [Cameron] could still hold a 2015 election under first past the post if a boundary review equalising constituencies is not complete.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/01/voting-reform-ballot-planned-for-may


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> It's one form of PR you dolt, as are system like STV. You're only talking about the Party List variant of PR.


Yes, I was and it's the only kind of PR likely to be introduced in Britain as it already exists for Wales, Scotland and London.

I'd have thought that, as an expert on election systems, you'd have known know that STV is not a PR system but AV applied to multi-member constituencies (or, from another angle, AV is STV in single member constituencies). It exists in Scotland for local elections (and in the north of Ireland for all elections) but as it's only for 3 or 4 member wards it doesn't help minority parties only the 4 main ones there. Perhaps someone from Scotland can confirm this.

The case for AV is that it retains the link between a geographical area and its representative (or, even, in different circumstances, delegate). A variant of it exists in England for the elections of mayors where they're elected. presumably because no one thought they could justify the election of a mayor with only 31% of the votes.

 Any PR system demands larger constituencies which weakens this link to breaking point and, yes, in effect does hand over the power to nominate MPs, MEPs and councillors to the Party leaders.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

past caring said:


> 1. radical working class candidate - 40%
> 
> 2. NuLabour - 25%
> 
> ...



Spot on. ^^ Above = Labour Victory.


----------



## Gromit (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd vote if the reform proposals had been worked up by someone completely independant.

But seeing as they are proposed by the government in power then they are always going to be a blatant manipulation to give them a future advange rather than the fairest possible system.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 2, 2010)

I will, regretfully, abstain. Partly because AV is just the kind of pointless watered down nonsense that calls itself PR but fails to really make a dent on the political system. Partly because it will block the way to real change in the future. Partly to show my disdain for the libdems. And partly...er... because.. beacuse I feel like it.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

> Originally Posted by past caring View Post
> 1. radical working class candidate - 40%
> 
> 2. NuLabour - 25%
> ...


No, not necessarily. If after the redistribution of the Tory votes the Lib Dems end up 2nd and NuLab 3rd, then the chances are that enough of the NuLab votes could be transferred to the "radical working class candidate" to beat the Libdem.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, not necessarily. If after the redistribution of the Tory votes the Lib Dems end up 2nd and NuLab 3rd, then the chances are that enough of the NuLab votes could be transferred to the "radical working class candidate" to beat the Libdem.



i.e. permanent coattail politics with Labour 'you give me your second prefs and i'll give you mine'! lord have mercy!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2010)

I would support Irish style STV based on constiuencies with 4 - 5 seats, and as long as it didn't come with a reduction in the number of MPs or councillors, because it would genuinely open up space for the left, and for more independently minded mainstream party candidates* - but that is not on the cards.


*Obviously I don't think it would be a panacea or even worth fighting for, but if it was on offer it might be worth the small effort of going out and voting for it.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I would support Irish style STV based on constiuencies with 4 - 5 seats, and as long as it didn't come with a reduction in the number of MPs or councillors, because it would genuinely open up space for the left, and for more independently minded mainstream party candidates* - but that is not on the cards.
> 
> *Obviously I don't think it would be a panacea or even worth fighting for, but if it was on offer it might be worth the small effort of going out and voting for it.



We could look at what's happened to Ireland even with this system - the Irish Greens achieve some political representation and start betraying every single meaningful promise.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

In any case where is this fantasy scenario of a radical working class candidate getting 40% coming from?!  See TUSC votes at the last election - hopelessly squeezed by people wanting to keep out the tory so having to vote Labour.   Under AV you can start to see what people really think without such a lesser evil thing going on.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 2, 2010)

sihhi - who is arguing that STV (or any electoral system come to that) would instantly solve all our political problems and lead to a great socialist government?!  The question is whether it would open up opportunities, not whether it would guarantee they would be taken.


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 2, 2010)

articul8 said:


> need to be careful not to assume people would vote the same way under a new system - in any case change has its own dynamic and the big parties aren't necessarily in control eg. once you've moved to preference voting for national elections the logic suggests adopting it for locals in England and Wales where there is already multi-member seats (NI and Scots already have this) - this means PR would be in across the board at local council level and offers increased opps for the left.
> 
> A vote for the status quo is a vote of approval for the party politics we have now.



I think there should be two "no" options one for too far and one for not far enough, I think I'll vote yes only if we're given a vote on an Act that contains a requirement for local councils with all multi-member wards to switch to stv and for other councils to submit to a (fairly rapid hopefully, given the the fact that it could be done by combining three one-member wards) boundary review to impliment it


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 2, 2010)

sihhi said:


> We could look at what's happened to Ireland even with this system - the Irish Greens achieve some political representation and start betraying every single meaningful promise.



as are the british libdems under first past the post, what about the irish labour party?


----------



## past caring (Jul 2, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, not necessarily. If after the redistribution of the Tory votes the Lib Dems end up 2nd and NuLab 3rd, then the chances are that enough of the NuLab votes could be transferred to the "radical working class candidate" to beat the Libdem.



The IWCA's experience in Oxford is that NuLabour will pull out all of the stops to prevent a radical candidate getting elected, even to the extent of preferring a victory for the LibDems or Tories. This isn't to say people won't ever cast their second preferences differently to that asked by the established parties, but to my mind, those that are prepared to resist such calls - especially in the face of no holds barred NuLabour propaganda - are people that a radical party would, in any event, be hoping to persuade into giving first preference votes.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 2, 2010)

joevsimp said:


> as are the british libdems under first past the post, what about the irish labour party?



You prove past caring's side of the argument.
I hate the first past the post system - it leads to monstrosities such as the nightmare of our past dozen governments.

What about Irish Labour? We're waiting for your point.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2010)

sihhi said:


> We could look at what's happened to Ireland even with this system - the Irish Greens achieve some political representation and start betraying every single meaningful promise.



Yes of course, and any "radical" party especially one without a coherent critique of class and state is going to turn to shit once they get a snifter of power. However I was thinking more of the chance of getting some IWCA or SP type councillors or even an MP elected who could at least get widespread publicity for socialist/pro working class ideas.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

past caring said:


> The IWCA's experience in Oxford is that NuLabour will pull out all of the stops to prevent a radical candidate getting elected, even to the extent of preferring a victory for the LibDems or Tories. This isn't to say people won't ever cast their second preferences differently to that asked by the established parties, but to my mind, those that are prepared to resist such calls - especially in the face of no holds barred NuLabour propaganda - are people that a radical party would, in any event, be hoping to persuade into giving first preference votes.


Maybe but I don't think that NuLab or another other party can mobilise their voters in that way (and can you produce evidence that NuLab did tell people to vote LibDem or Tory rather than IWCA -- I take it IWCA councillors got elected because the "main party" vote was split 3 ways?)

Anyway, how do you explain the 39,678 2nd preference votes (as opposed to 9542 1st preference) that the IWCA candidate received in the 2004 London mayor elections?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 2, 2010)

Maybe our theoretical 'radical workers party' could work on drawing it support from the 30%+ of people who don't bother voting ever. They the goal of getting 50%+ from mainstream voters is much reduced.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 2, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Let's 'AV it?



No thank you. AV fails the simplicity test in that it means that you have to think how other people will rank the candidates. I prefer Approval Voting.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 2, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Maybe our theoretical 'radical workers party' could work on drawing it support from the 30%+ of people who don't bother voting ever. They the goal of getting 50%+ from mainstream voters is much reduced.



I agree that would make the most political and strategic sense.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

Quartz said:


> No thank you. AV fails the simplicity test in that it means that you have to think how other people will rank the candidates. I prefer Approval Voting.


As if FPTP didn't involve tactical voting, ie thinking about how others might be voting. I can't see how anyone can defend this system. Which those who vote "no" will be doing.

Just realised that AV does apply to some UK elections, ie assembly and local by-elections in N. Ireland and to local by-elections in Scotland. Here's the latest. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 2, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> As if FPTP didn't involve tactical voting, ie thinking about how others might be voting



True, but I didn't discuss FPTP, did I?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 2, 2010)

Quartz said:


> True, but I didn't discuss FPTP, did I?


No, but the choice is going to be between AV and the staus quo (FPTP) only. That's the problem with referendums: it's a yes or no to a single question. On the other hand, perhaps there could be a multi-choice referendum between FPTP, AV, STV and PR using AV to decide . . .


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 2, 2010)

I saw a list of polls with a small lead for AV but to be fair there as been no debate.A lot depends on which way nu labour swings


----------



## Azrael (Jul 3, 2010)

Gromit said:


> I'd vote if the reform proposals had been worked up by someone completely independant.
> 
> But seeing as they are proposed by the government in power then they are always going to be a blatant manipulation to give them a future advange rather than the fairest possible system.


On this idealistic reasoning, you'd never vote through any political change, ever. 

In this case, it doesn't benefit most of the government in power. The Tories would prefer FPTP, and accepted the AV referendum as a lesser-evil, & price of coalition. The Lib Dems would like PR, but thought something was better than nothing. 

I've not made up my mind about AV in isolation, but as its adoption would likely open the door for PR, which would wreck adversarial government, I'll likely vote for keeping FPTP.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 3, 2010)

AV will help the liberals most it will not be that important to labour and the tories in fact most of them will be against it.but come next many of the voters may not feel so ready to support the tory lapdogs the liberals so don,t put money on it being passed


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 4, 2010)

I think they're going to have big big problems getting a yes vote on this. Prior to the elections polls indicated there was a clear majority in favour of some form of electoral reform. Post election  that majority has been eaten away pretty rapidly. Some info on early polls on AV:



> The Sunday Times has a brief piece about a YouGov experiment on the AV referendum – rather than just asking straight voting intention in a referendum, they gave respondents 6 arguments in favour of AV, and 6 arguments in favour of FPTP – asked after this, support for AV fell to 33%, compared to 44% in standard YouGov polling at the time
> 
> YouGov did a similar exercise prior to the North East referendum, which proved very prescient in suggesting there might be a big movement in favour of NO once the arguments got a hearing.





> The key point that Peter Kellner draws out in his comments on the findings is that Labour voters are key. Lib Dem supporters support AV to start with, and remain supportive after being exposed to the pro- and anti- arguments. The Conservatives start negative, and remain so. The big shift in support is Labour voters, who change from 59% in favour in normal polls, to 58% against after exposure to the arguments.





> The Times yesterday also had some brief details from some Populus polling, which apparently showed 45% in favour of FPTP, and 44% in favour of a change of system.



So a failed vote, a lib-dem internal revolt, coalition collapse, constitutional crisis an government stasis, unable to push through further cuts or implement parts of the planned ones etc would be very nice. 

And for you PR supporters, a yes vote on AV will kill the chances of that forever, it's won't be a first step towards that golden day but the last - at least in your lifetime.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And for you PR supporters, a yes vote on AV will kill the chances of that forever, it's won't be a first step towards that golden day but the last - at least in your lifetime.


Sounds like another good reason to vote yes to AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

With the attendant boosting of the lib-dems and the coalition? I think not.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> With the attendant boosting of the lib-dems and the coalition? I think not.


I agree that this shows that referendums are not the best way of deciding issues. People will vote against a proposal just because it has been proposed by a government they oppose or to cause difficulties for it. I suspect that this may well happen this time, with many people voting "no" in the hope of bringing the coalition down. Which would mean that Labour's original proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as a general election made more sense. The Liberals are going to have to live with their choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

Labour's proposal was to hold it by October 2011 wasn't it? I'm sure that's what it was before the election anyway.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Labour's proposal was to hold it by October 2011 wasn't it? I'm sure that's what it was before the election anyway.


Maybe it was just a rumour but this is what the Observer reported on 26 July last year.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

That was a suggested tactical move for the last election. I just checked and the manifesto commitment was a to a ref by Oct 2011. They may well have offered more in the post-election negotiations with the lib-dems, in fact i'm sure they did, i think it was a later referendum on full PR but i'm not 100% sure right now.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

apparently there was a split in the lab negotiating team.  LDs demanded AV immediately (no referendum) inc. for all by-elections and next GE - and then further referednum on PR.

Adonis (ex SDP) would have gone for this - Balls said no way, our MPs wouldn't necessarily even vote for a referendum on AV.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2010)

Be more interested in this early next year but, in the mean time, the important question is will my second pref on the Referendum get transferred . . .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> apparently there was a split in the lab negotiating team.  LDs demanded AV immediately (no referendum) inc. for all by-elections and next GE - and then further referednum on PR.
> 
> Adonis (ex SDP) would have gone for this - Balls said no way, our MPs wouldn't necessarily even vote for a referendum on AV.



So the lib-dems demanded an undemocratic behind-closed-doors stich-up in the name of open modernised democracy.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

to be honest, a referendum isn't really needed on AV - it's best explained as a modification of how FPTP works ie. it doesn't need any fundamental shake-up in terms of boundary changes (the Tories are adding that in to gerrymander the system for their own benefit).   

That's no doubt why Clegg called it a "miserable little reform" when Brown suggested it


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And for you PR supporters, a yes vote on AV will kill the chances of that forever, it's won't be a first step towards that golden day but the last - at least in your lifetime.



I think it just as likely a no vote would result in that, tbh. 

"We went to the electorate offering electoral reform and it was overwhelmingly rejected"


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

yes I'd agree with that - but there's no reason to assume LDs would go all out for STV immediately for Commons once they have AV.  But it does make STV for locals more likely.  Which would be another step forward.  Ultimately we'll get a shockingly disproportionate result under  AV and a second wave of reform will get going.  There'll be no reversal to FPtP.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

I think I am going to vote FPTP. We have seen that it can deliver coalitions when needed, but most of the time it delivers a party to power and that is what we want no?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 5, 2010)

if it passed how do we think it would affect general election results?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I think I am going to vote FPTP. We have seen that it can deliver coalitions when needed, but most of the time it delivers a party to power and that is what we want no?



hmmm- in 1983/87?  When two thirds of the country backed broadly centre-left parties but got a whopping majority for Maggies' Tories, the destruction of the mines and the poll tax?  

Sounds great...


----------



## JHE (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> to be honest, a referendum isn't really needed on AV - it's best explained as a modification of how FPTP works ie. it doesn't need any fundamental shake-up in terms of boundary changes (the Tories are adding that in to gerrymander the system for their own benefit).
> 
> That's no doubt why Clegg called it a "miserable little reform" when Brown suggested it



Yes, a "miserable little compromise", apparently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-this-all-the-way-declares-clegg-1950668.html

At the time, the Lib Dems were saying they'd hold out at least for the Jenkins proposal of 'AV Plus' - that is, AV plus some topping up so that the system would be a bit more proportional.

AFAIK, the Tories are offering a referendum not on AV Plus, but just on AV.  The Lib Dems are utterly unprincipled to accept it.

AV is NOT PR.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> hmmm- in 1983/87?  When two thirds of the country backed broadly centre-left parties but got a whopping majority for Maggies' Tories, the destruction of the mines and the poll tax?



IIRC Blair did not exactly get a true majority.

I heard someone say that with AV some people will get more than one vote and compared to someone who only wants one party to win that is unfair. 

Imagine you are a died in the wool labour supporter and so you put a 1 against the labour candidate and don't vote for someone else. Perhaps a Tory voter puts a 1 against his/her first preference and then a 2 against the Lib Dem candidate. 

Assuming there is no outright winner in the first round, no one gets more than 50%, the tory voter gets their second preference taken into account (a second vote) but the labour supporter does not. 

Unfair?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

no - AV is a "single transferable vote" in 1 member constituencies.  ie.  Everyone has one effective vote.  it's just that rather than second guess which vote will count as effective, you can vote in order of preference and any non-effective preferences will drop out and your one vote re-allocated until it becomes effective ( ie,. until you've either backed the winning candidate or else another candidate has so much support no other can challenge them).

It's an improvement on FPTP.  Only probs are a) lack of choice between candidates of same part and b) doesn't guarantee the parties get represented in broad proportion to the votes they received nationwide.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

JHE said:


> AFAIK, the Tories are offering a referendum not on AV Plus, but just on AV.  The Lib Dems are utterly unprincipled to accept it.
> 
> AV is NOT PR.



Not really - they were wrong in slagging off Labour for not offering more.  They are utterly unprinciple for going back on their attacks on VAT, 6bn cuts etc.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

You have lost me there articul8 

Is it not true that: 

1) first preferences are counted and if one candiate has >50% they win, if not : 

2) second preferences are counted and added to first preference totals until if one candidate has >50% they win, if not: 

3) Third preferences are counted and are added to first and second votes until one candidate has >50% and wins, if not ... 

A week of counting has gone by, no one is interested any more !


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

no - the count is done on the night - all very straightforward.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> no - the count is done on the night - all very straightforward.



Don't be obtuse! is the count done in the way I described or not?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

all very straightforward.  A bit like London mayoral elections but without silly "straight to last 2" bit


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> yes, but all very straightforward.  A bit like London mayoral elections but without silly "straight to last 2" bit



So, just as I said, people with more than one preference get more than one vote. People who are died in the wool one party people only get one vote!


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

everyone gets one effective vote.  If your first prefs are for no hope parties the vote does not become effective unless/until it transfers to someone left in contention.

So going 
Respect 1
Tusc 2
Green 3
Labour 4

is not having any more effect than voting
Labour 1


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> everyone gets one effective vote.  If your first prefs are for no hope parties the vote does not become effective unless/until it transfers to someone left in contention.
> 
> So going
> Respect 1
> ...



nope, if it only goes to two rounds before a winner is selected (>50%) your vote for labour does not count at all.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 5, 2010)

weltweit said:


> You have lost me there articul8
> 
> Is it not true that:
> 
> ...


No, that's not right except for 1. If no candidate gets >50%, then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes distributed among the remaining candidates. If no candidate still hasn't got >50% then the next bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are distributed, and so on until one candidate does get >50%.

I don't think 3rd (and higher) preference votes are ever going to get counted, at least not under the version of AV that I assume is being proposed and is already used for local council by-elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland. In which case of course there's no real point in voting more than 1, 2. And if you want your candidate to win and couldn't care less who wins if they don't (a not unreasonable position in itself), then just vote 1.

Here again is an example of AV in operation in the UK. I take it that the "non-transferable" votes at the bottom of the table are the votes of those who voted only 1 for the eliminated candidates.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, that's not right except for 1. If no candidate gets >50%, then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes distributed among the remaining candidates. If no candidate still hasn't got >50% then the next bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are distributed, and so on until one candidate does get >50%.
> 
> ....



Aha, yes you are quite right.

So though, the second preferences of the losing candidates have more value than the second preferences of other voters.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

because someone whose 1st pref vote is for a party that is in contention at the end has no need for 2nd preferences because they have already got an effective vote.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

I assume that someone has done the maths / probabilities and that it is certain someone will get 50% eventually  

It's a murky business, I much prefer FPTP...


----------



## JHE (Jul 5, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, that's not right except for 1. If no candidate gets >50%, then the bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes distributed among the remaining candidates. If no candidate still hasn't got >50% then the next bottom candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are distributed, and so on until one candidate does get >50%.
> 
> I don't think 3rd (and higher) preference votes are ever going to get counted...



Third preferences can easily count.  Say your 1st preference is for the candidate who turns out to have least votes.  Your 2nd preference is then used.  If the candidate who is your 2nd preference is eliminated next, your 3rd preference is counted.

Realistic example:  If your 1st preference is for the SLP and your 2nd is for the TUSC and your 3rd is for Labour, you could easily end up with your vote helping to get the Labour candidate elected.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

Under FPTP BNP has won council seats on 26% of the vote - when overwhelming majority would rather have practically anyone else.  How is that fair?  Votes aren't inadvertently split under AV (or STV).


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

JHE said:


> Third preferences can easily count.  .



yes


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Under FPTP BNP has won council seats on 26% of the vote - when overwhelming majority would rather have practically anyone else.  How is that fair?  Votes aren't inadvertently split under AV (or STV).



If that happenned then the BNP candidate must have gotten more votes than any other candidate. That is the way it works. If the rest had wanted to win they should have united behind an opposing candidate not split their vote between loads of losers!


----------



## JHE (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Under FPTP BNP has won council seats on 26% of the vote - when overwhelming majority would rather have practically anyone else.  How is that fair?



It's not particularly fair.  Nor is it fair when a party that gets a significant vote in many constituencies ends up with no seats.

The solution is obvious:  a system of PR.  Personally, I'd prefer a party list system, but I'd settle for a mixed system as long as it was fairly proportional in its results.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

why should there be a trade off between choice and fairness?  Left candidates could stand under AV in the knowledge that they weren't inadvertently splitting the anti-reactionary vote.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

JHE said:


> It's not particularly fair.  Nor is it fair when a party that gets a significant vote in many constituencies ends up with no seats.
> 
> The solution is obvious:  a system of PR.  Personally, I'd prefer a party list system, but I'd settle for a mixed system as long as it was fairly proportional in its results.



I'd agree in general (5-6 member STV or AMS with lowish threshold- not really in favour of lists).

But question is AV vs. FPTP.  This seems a no-brainer.  AV is not where we want to end up.  But it's a (minor) step forward.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

Can people stop saying 'we' please. That's twice now and both 'we' wanted entirely different things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> why should there be a trade off between choice and fairness?  Left candidates could stand under AV in the knowledge that they weren't inadvertently splitting the anti-reactionary vote.



You mean the labour, tory and lib-dem vote? I do rather want to split them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

...and this just for the commons isn't it? Are any MPs elected on 26%?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the labour, tory and lib-dem vote? I do rather want to split them.



there' a distinction between differentiating them (i agree!) and splitting them if the beneficiary is the BNP.  

AV would differentiate the Labour vote (how many would really prefer lefts or greens?) and the LD vote (how many would prefer lefts or Labour?)


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and this just for the commons isn't it? Are any MPs elected on 26%?



not quite - I think not much over 30 odd.  BNP have had cllrs elected on 26 though.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 5, 2010)

JHE said:


> Third preferences can easily count.  Say your 1st preference is for the candidate who turns out to have least votes.  Your 2nd preference is then used.  If the candidate who is your 2nd preference is eliminated next, your 3rd preference is counted.
> 
> Realistic example:  If your 1st preference is for the SLP and your 2nd is for the TUSC and your 3rd is for Labour, you could easily end up with your vote helping to get the Labour candidate elected.


Yes, I think you must be right. Otherwise there'd be no point in voting above 1, 2, which can't be the case. Here's an example of the rules for counting under AV. Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

Norwich on 29.36% is lowest, next is Brighton pav 33.33% - Green vote obv made difference in both of these.Massive overwhelming majority are at 40%+. Almost every single of them if we drop down 1 or 2%.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 6, 2010)

Seems there tying it in with the constituency changes and less mp's i don,t think labour will wear that


----------



## articul8 (Jul 6, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.



 not unless they tie?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2010)

Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.



Yep.

Not that I care but I think Caroline Lucas would have been much less likely to win a seat under AV, in fact the seat would probably have gone Libdem


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2010)

I'm a NO.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

Is there any evidence AV encourages turnout, as in some thinking 'my vote might count for something now'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2010)

Would that matter to you?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

Might be an interesting by-product, might skew expectations. No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.



First of all, yes it is, the fact that huge numbers currently know they are disenfranchised is a very good thing indeed.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 7, 2010)

> :
> Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
> Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.





articul8 said:


> not unless they tie?


Having misinterpreted the regulations once I hesitate to be dogmatic about this but here's an extract from the ones I provided a link to (for STV by-elections in Australia, I think):



> 1.  The returning officer shall count the papers in each such parcel and shall credit each candidate with a number of votes equal to the number of valid papers on which a first preference has been recorded for that candidate.
> 2. If the vote for any one candidate equals or exceeds the votes of all the other candidates combined, that candidate shall be declared elected.
> 3.
> 1. If not, *the returning officer shall exclude together the two or more candidates with the least votes if the total vote of such two or more candidates does not exceed the vote of the candidate next above,* otherwise he/she shall exclude the candidate having the fewest votes
> ...


So, to take a realistic example, the last 3 candidates are:
BNP 1500
SLP 500
TUSC 400
this would seem to mean that the SLP and TUSC candidates would be eliminated together. I agree that this is an optional extra, presumably to save time counting which might not necessarily be included in the UK scheme (which is beginning to look increasingly unlikely as voters prepare to punish the Liberals by voting No).


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 7, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yep.
> 
> Not that I care but I think Caroline Lucas would have been much less likely to win a seat under AV, in fact the seat would probably have gone Libdem



no way, they'd have been eliminated before the tories and transfered mostly to Labour I think


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Might be an interesting by-product, might skew expectations. No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.



Well, if they merely *feel* more enfranchised, rather than actually *being* more enfranchised, I'd contend that it is indeed a "bad thing".


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

Which returns us to the original question of evidence regarding turnout . . .


----------



## articul8 (Jul 7, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Having misinterpreted the regulations once I hesitate to be dogmatic about this but here's an extract from the ones I provided a link to (for STV by-elections in Australia, I think):
> 
> So, to take a realistic example, the last 3 candidates are:
> BNP 1500
> ...



doesn't meant this - it means if people are 2 or more are *tied* for last place (assuming that isn't also a tie for first place!) then both get eliminated.     Agree wording is confusing - but in multi-member STV with lots of candidates but relative few voters you can frequently get a lot of people tying for last (ie. with 0 first prefs).  would make more sense.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.



*if* there was a chance even in medium-long term of significant Green or Left breakthroughs under FPTP (beyond freak individual cases like Lucas or Galloway previously) on 25-40% of the vote you'd have a point.  

BUT seeing as that isn't the case it's more important to free up Green/Left voters from the argument that they are only helping Tories (or yellow tories) if they vote anything other than Labour.   Greens know this themselves - they know that AV would show the true extent of their 1st pref votes currently masked by the need to tactically vote.  Once people get used to voting for a "left" in a GE they will also be more likely to vote the same way in a Euro election or local elections - *where it actually counts*.  ie even though the net effect in terms of MPs would be nil to begin with - it would help give alternatives to Labour space to grow meaningful alternative electoral platforms in the longer term.

If you're a NO man you're lining up alongside Cameron and Prescott - those well-known friends of the working class   At least have the good grace to stay at home!!!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 7, 2010)

articul8 said:


> doesn't meant this - it means if people are 2 or more are *tied* for last place (assuming that isn't also a tie for first place!) then both get eliminated.     Agree wording is confusing - but in multi-member STV with lots of candidates but relative few voters you can frequently get a lot of people tying for last (ie. with 0 first prefs).  would make more sense.


This is getting very technical but here's an example of an AV election where the bottom 3 of 6 candidates are eliminated in one go because the total number of their votes is less than that of the third candidate. 

Here's another (that of 18 September 2008) where this didn't happen (because there wasn't the gap between the votes for candidates) but which is interesting for other reasons, not least that most of the 2nd preference votes of the SSP were not transferred to Solidarity but directly to Labour and the SNP. Which would probably happen in a contest between the SLP and TUSC whichever finished last.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 7, 2010)

OK, interesting - but that is in the context of a by-election where STV is ordinarily used.  I honestly don't know whether that is a general rule under AV - perhaps it is.  I don't suppose it makes any difference except to shorten the count stages and make the results a bit simpler to follow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

articul8 said:


> *if* there was a chance even in medium-long term of significant Green or Left breakthroughs under FPTP (beyond freak individual cases like Lucas or Galloway previously) on 25-40% of the vote you'd have a point.
> 
> BUT seeing as that isn't the case it's more important to free up Green/Left voters from the argument that they are only helping Tories (or yellow tories) if they vote anything other than Labour.   Greens know this themselves - they know that AV would show the true extent of their 1st pref votes currently masked by the need to tactically vote.  Once people get used to voting for a "left" in a GE they will also be more likely to vote the same way in a Euro election or local elections - *where it actually counts*.  ie even though the net effect in terms of MPs would be nil to begin with - it would help give alternatives to Labour space to grow meaningful alternative electoral platforms in the longer term.
> 
> If you're a NO man you're lining up alongside Cameron and Prescott - those well-known friends of the working class   At least have the good grace to stay at home!!!



No, the point stands regardless of hypotheticals - 2nd, 3rd prefs will still go overwhelmingly towards those established parties. The anti-vote will just kick in at the 2nd round. It won' be the fist prefs where Greens (who i don't believe it's my responsibility to prop up) will notive a difference, it'll be in the 2nd and 3rds.

Anyway, my fundamental objections to this aren't on the grounds of potential outcome, but on the fact that putting a nice hat on the political system not only won't change anything substantial about the economic system (you know, the really important thing) but will act to re-legitimise both of them, and at a time where this has been and is going to be under severe strain.

I can understand the greens and the lib-dem voting idiots who think they're socialists getting all excited but those with wider ambitions and a more coherent critique really shouldn't be. No one really think that change can come through MPs and national parliaments, so why pretend?

So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts. Clegg's failure to get AV (and that it's only AV is already a damaging failure) will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down. That's far more important than a new hat.

And you should be ashamed of those last lines you really should


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

No to AV. Yes to PR. And yes to the collapse of the coalition.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

Yep, simple. And supporters of PR really should not be voting for AV on the small step basis. It might well be a small step, but it'll very likely be the last one.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

So how else might the 'big' step come?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, simple. And supporters of PR really should not be voting for AV on the small step basis. It might well be a small step, but it'll very likely be the last one.



It's not at all clear that it would be a small step in the right direction; AV can produce very unproprtional results. That AV is what's on offer is a sign of the LD leadership's greed and the weakness of the membership.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 8, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> AV can produce very unproprtional results.


Consistently more unproportional than FPTP though? I don't think so.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> So how else might the 'big' step come?



A referendum on PR. Future Labour party faced with the loss of Scotish seats following independence vote? 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Crispy (Jul 8, 2010)

If it's anything like the AV system for the London Mayor, then most people won't vote properly anyway. The 'minority' candidates for the Mayoral election get more secondary votes than primary votes, which doesn't make any sense if you actually want a minority candidate to win.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> Consistently more unproportional than FPTP though? I don't think so.



Consistently less proportional than PR and sometimes less proportional than FPTP.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> A referendum on PR. Future Labour party faced with the loss of Scotish seats following independence vote?


I don't need to say that's not, of itself,  an overly convincing strategy?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I don't need to say that's not, of itself,  an overly convincing strategy?



That was just off the top of my head, typing one handed while taking part in a phone conference at the same time.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

Crispy said:


> If it's anything like the AV system for the London Mayor, then most people won't vote properly anyway. The 'minority' candidates for the Mayoral election get more secondary votes than primary votes, which doesn't make any sense if you actually want a minority candidate to win.



That's just what i was suggesting above - the _safety_ vote is just as likely to be the first vote rather than the 2nd or 3rd as some AV supporters are assuming will be the case.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't know why people want proportional representation on a national scale. The House of Commons, originally House of Communes (and still is in French), is supposed to be a body of representatives from geographical districts. What one district chooses as its representative is up to it and AV is a fairer way of choosing this than FPTP. If FPTP has not been adopted for the election of London and other mayors why is it appropriate for electing a constituency's representative or delegate to parliament?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't know why people want proportional representation on a national scale. The House of Commons, originally House of Communes (and still is in French), is supposed to be a body of representatives from geographical districts. What one district chooses as its representative is up to it and AV is a fairer way of choosing this than FPTP. If FPTP has not been adopted for the election of London and other mayors why is it appropriate for electing a constituency's representative or delegate to parliament?



You're assuming that people who support PR want it on national rather than constituency scale.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2010)

We aren't going to be offered anything that breaks the domination of the three existing major parties, least of all anything that would readily allow working class people back into politics. Whatever is offered my first reaction will be to vote against it.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're assuming that people who support PR want it on national rather than constituency scale.


Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole? 

And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole?
> 
> And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.



Your second paragraph doesn't make sense; a geographical district may well have a majority view (although not neccessarily - could just be lots of minority views) but also a sizeable minority view (particularly in big districts). A multi member approach could reflect this.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole?
> 
> And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.



Well there you go - you recognise at least two different ways of doing it. My point was that you're assuming (without any good grounds that i can see) in that post i replied to  that people here are supporting one type rather than another.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> a geographical district may well have a majority view (although not neccessarily - could just be lots of minority views) but also a sizeable minority view (particularly in big districts). A multi member approach could reflect this. Louis MacNeice


I'd have thought that, in terms of closeness of the representative/delegate to their electors, 5 smaller constituencies would be better than one big one.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 8, 2010)

What worries me most is how it will get much harder it will be with AV to interpret results from a fairness angle in terms of how well the votes expressed the will of the people. At least with FPTP the injustice of the vote-share/seat-share disconnect quite clearly. Under AV it will get much murkier and harder to interpret. Probably to the benefit of the big 3 parties trying to legitimise their mandate to govern.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'd have thought that, in terms of closeness of the representative/delegate to their electors, 5 smaller constituencies would be better than one big one.



You're presuming a very close geographical/poltical match.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You're presuming a very close geographical/poltical match.


I'm just assuming that single-member constituencies are better than multi-member constituencies which PR requires and which is part of the case against PR and for AV.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 8, 2010)

Single-member constituencies preserve the link between elector and elected, which is good. Party list systems don't.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 8, 2010)

The link between elector and elected has become a running joke though. Parachuting? The party whip? The truth is that you the individual are as anonymous to your local MP as you would be in any party list system.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 8, 2010)

The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics.  By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time.  _Then_ and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Single-member constituencies preserve the link between elector and elected, which is good. Party list systems don't.



It's only "good" insofar as the elected representative has *any* intention of representing the opinions of the majority of his constituents.
As we know, this is mostly not the case. Party interests predominate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2010)

kabbes said:


> The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics.  By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time.  _Then_ and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.



Why on earth would that mean you'll be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 8, 2010)

OK, fair point.  It means that you won't definitely not be represented by someone with your contituency's needs at heart.  Better?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

kabbes said:


> The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics.


Maybe, but PR institutionalises "modern party politics" -- you just get to vote for party lists, as for the European Parliament, or, for the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London, it's the vote for the party lists that really counts. Another reason why PR is no good.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Maybe, but PR institutionalises "modern party politics" -- you just get to vote for party lists, as for the European Parliament, or, for the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London, it's the vote for the party lists that really counts. Another reason why PR is no good.



Since this is, in fact, what we get in practice anyway, I'd rather that they were honest and up-front about it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 8, 2010)

To be honest it's all just deck chairs on the Titanic stuff anyway.

Here's the political reform I'd like to see - 

1. Create an elected national Economic and Financial Affairs Assembly (NEFAA) (with say 600 members elected on the basis of open regional lists), that is given control over the Bank of England, the FSA and BIS. Fight within that for it to pave the road towards socialisation of all banks, lenders, insurance companies and the like in to credit unions and coops controlled by elected joint committees of staff and customers on a one member one vote basis. Also give it full control over policing Debt Collection and Bailiffs. Turn the FSA into an organisation with the power to carry out criminal invstigations of lenders and collection agencies with the power to arrest and bring to a special financial court with the power to sequester personal and business accounts and imprison felons.

2. Abolish the House of Lords.

3. No elected public official can earn more than the median wage in their area.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> with say 600 members elected on the basis of open regional lists.


Sorry, not on offer this time. You'll have to go to Belgium for that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Sorry, not on offer this time. You'll have to go to Belgium for that.



What Belgium has a an Economic and Finance Assembly?

But yes in the here and now I will very certainly be voting against introducing AV. I think its pointless.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 8, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What Belgium has a an Economic and Finance Assembly?


Actually yes sort of, but not elected.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts.


mine too



> Clegg's failure to get AV... will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down.



Agree with all this too EXCEPT the likely more likely outcome of the LDs getting smashed out of existence is a big TORY majority and the cuts getting worse still.    

Ironically, Labour needs the LD vote to hold up in Lib/Con marginals to stand a change of getting back in.



> No, the point stands regardless of hypotheticals - 2nd, 3rd prefs will still go overwhelmingly towards those established parties. The anti-vote will just kick in at the 2nd round. It won' be the fist prefs where Greens (who i don't believe it's my responsibility to prop up) will notive a difference, it'll be in the 2nd and 3rds.



Really don't think this is the case - there will be a disagregation at 1st round level of the Labour and Lib Dem votes - Greens will benefit, as potentially might a broad based new left formation.   Won't send any tremors through the system in the first instance but it's a little acorn...which is better than no trees and no acorns but two big party squirrels getting fatter.

more later as I'm rushing


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2010)

When is the referendum on it? Have they announced a date yet?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2010)

kabbes said:


> The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics.  By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time.  _Then_ and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.



Then AV or any other type of electoral reform is pointless. It's not dealing with the problem. The problem is the dominance of party politics over representative democracy. The solution is to find some means by which we can create a better chance of electing representatives who will act independently of political parties.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually yes sort of, but not elected.



So you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> putting a nice hat on the political system not only won't change anything substantial about the economic system (you know, the really important thing) but will act to re-legitimise both of them, and at a time where this has been and is going to be under severe strain.



This is just a way of saying "don't vote it only encourages them" and would suggest a principled abstention from electoral politics at every level.  If that's the case you want to make fine - let's have that debate.  But if - like the IWCA - you choose to stand candidates in elections, then it is logical to take steps to prevent the rules of electoral systems from closing down the space for you to develop support.



> I can understand the greens and the lib-dem voting idiots who think they're socialists getting all excited but those with wider ambitions and a more coherent critique really shouldn't be. No one really think that change can come through MPs and national parliaments, so why pretend?



Well, yes and no.  I'm assuming that you recognise that the not everyone who takes a strategic interest in electoral politics is automatically a parliamentary cretin?  There is an argument that says developing a socialist movement inside and outside parliament produces a more effective platfrom and agency from which to demonstrate the limitations of parliamentary legitimacy at a subsequent stage.  To be sure that argument hasn't played out in the historical development of the Labour party/movement.  But that is why institutional change and democratic reform are needed to break (and transform) the influence of Labourist attitudes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> This is just a way of saying "don't vote it only encourages them" and would suggest a principled abstention from electoral politics at every level.  If that's the case you want to make fine - let's have that debate.  But if - like the IWCA - you choose to stand candidates in elections, then it is logical to take steps to prevent the rules of electoral systems from closing down the space for you to develop support.



Except that AV will do no such thing, it will change nothing whatsoever for groups like the IWCA. And worse, it again confuses the real driver of the system for it's hat.



> Well, yes and no.  I'm assuming that you recognise that the not everyone who takes a strategic interest in electoral politics is automatically a parliamentary cretin?  There is an argument that says developing a socialist movement inside and outside parliament produces a more effective platfrom and agency from which to demonstrate the limitations of parliamentary legitimacy at a subsequent stage.  To be sure that argument hasn't played out in the historical development of the Labour party/movement.  But that is why institutional change and democratic reform are needed to break (and transform) the influence of Labourist attitudes.



Everyone of the people i've pointed to in that quote _is_ most definitely a parliamentary cretin - or, more accurately, _would be_ if they wanted genuine change and thought this was the way to get it. They don't. They just want a new hat. 

Taking 'a strategic interest' alone isn't enough - it's not a good enough justification. Saying 'i take a strategic interest therefore i'm right' is not good enough. I've outlined _my_ strategic interest and why it leads to different conclusions than those you've reached. 

This is something that's starting to piss me off about this and it's already creeping into your posts - people like the ERS and other soft and liberal lefts adopting the EU's position on referendums. Painting those with a different view to them as troglodytes, enemies of modernisation, tribalists etc in order to browbeat people into shameful agreement. Do that and you and Clegg will lose your vote.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2010)

I think that winning the AV vote will be a hugely difficult task, because it is likely to become a referendum on this coalition and the LDs role in it, the budget etc pretty much on the lines you are suggesting ought to be the case.  It is hard (but still possible) to be totally against the LDs in terms of what they are doing but still side with them on this very particular question.  

But suppose it does fall, what will be the result?  Clegg will be damaged (good) and the LDs will have little to gain from the coalition (again good).  BUT the tories boundary stitch up will have happened and reduced no of seats in Wales, Scotland, and urban seats (ie mostly Labour).  The LDs wouldn't dare pull out of the coalition despite them getting nothing out of it, as the last think they'd want is a GE where they will get smashed out of sight.  So it won't accelerate the end of the coalition.   When the GE eventually does come the collapse in LDs in the South (especially SW) will hand the Tories another wedge of seats.  In other words the collapse of the LDs might very well not lead to a turn to the left but to a consolidation of the right.  Now, you might say this will lead to riots in the streets, total collapse in authority of parliament, some kind of pre-revolutionary situation.  Will it?

Oh, and losing a referendum on the voting system will mean we won't get a referendum on PR for decades to come - cementing Labour's continuing to pose as the only alternative.

If there was a YES vote, there would be more Ld/Con fights in the GE after and Labour would suffer less from boundary gerrymander.  Voters could disagreggate their first preferences from Labour and - although it would change nothing in the short term- there would be a medium-long term basis for the emergence of independent w/c, green or left candidates.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> If there was a YES vote, there would be more Ld/Con fights in the GE after and Labour would suffer less from boundary gerrymander.  Voters could disagreggate their first preferences from Labour and - although it would change nothing in the short term- there would be a medium-long term basis for the emergence of independent w/c, green or left candidates.



This presupposes the emergence of some sort of green or left alternative that has a shred of credibility. So far as I can see the green alternatives are basically refugees from the main parties. The left alternatives are more interested in manouevring for control in the case of a large scale left wing party emerging than they are concerned about the welfare of working class people.

So basically it's a shit idea in the short term, and pointless in the medium-long term.

But it's something that other people have to do, as opposed to working to produce a viable alternative to the current parties, so that's all right then. We stay up shit creek, but it's somebody else's fault.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 10, 2010)

I have carefully been arguing that it offer greater space for, more of a basis for, the emergence of an alternative.  But as the example of PR in Scotland shows, the left can still fuck it all up.  It doesn't absolve us of responsibility.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 10, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?


I was only talking about the election system you proposed (open party list system where you can vote for individuals on the list and so change the order) not about the body you were proposing should be elected.

On the wider issue, I'm defending AV as the best system, from the point of view of democratic theory, for electing a mandated and recallable delegate. I realise that in the real world of capitalism what electoral system there is isn't going to make much difference. And if you want to think tactically I think Butchers scenario is more realistic than Articul8s : a No vote has a good chance of bringing down the coalition and calling into question the cuts they plan to introduce after 2011. Whether any other likely government (Lab, Lib-Lab or Tory) really would abandon them is another matter.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I have carefully been arguing that it offer greater space for, more of a basis for, the emergence of an alternative.  But as the example of PR in Scotland shows, the left can still fuck it all up.  It doesn't absolve us of responsibility.


Where is that alternative in Australia?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 11, 2010)

joevsimp said:


> no way, they'd have been eliminated before the tories and transfered mostly to Labour I think



Green votes to their TORY founders more likely.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 11, 2010)

I think the vote on AV will probablly turn into a vote on the LD treachery.Clegg sold his party down the river very cheaply


----------



## sihhi (Jul 11, 2010)

> He said next May's referendum on the alternative vote system for the election of MPs, announced by him this week, "represents an opportunity finally to break this deathly grip of a first-past-the-post electoral system that made sense in the 50s when duopoly politics was its height."
> 
> *He appealed to Labour to back the change and disclosed he had tried to reassure Cameron and other Conservatives that AV was not an anti-Tory plot. He said: "I think the Conservatives will look at it and realise that because the old patterns of voting are not cast in stone, the system is as good or as bad for any other party."*
> 
> ...



Bye Bye AV. Bye Bye PR.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I was only talking about the election system you proposed (open party list system where you can vote for individuals on the list and so change the order) not about the body you were proposing should be elected.



so you admit there is not what I described in Belgium?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

> Alternative Vote is the more straightforward section. The referendum is May 5th and the question is *“Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the “alternative vote” system instead of the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”*. There is no minimum turnout or anything on the referendum and it is binding – if the referendum is won, the minister must bring the provisions introducing AV (which are all in the Bill) into effect.



Get to fuckeroo filth.

The actual Bill.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2010)

and? exactly what was expected.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 27, 2010)

im having a hard time working out what way to go on this. for me PR is the dream, but AV in practice is a step back as it does exactly the opposite of what I want PR to do, and thats take away votes from big parties to smaller parties. If Ive understood it right it does this because your first choice vote for a small party will get discounted and if you vote for a big party second they will get your vote. 

this gives the big parties a bigger sense of entitlement and claim of legitimacy - it tricks people into voting for the big parties. I want the big three to have less legitimacy, not more. So in principle i would vote No to AV.

THat said if i can be convinced that this is a step towards PR I will support it - im worried a NO win would mean politicians saying 'voters dont want the system changing' and any future referendums are shelved indefinitely. But that can be said of a YES vote too (that it will make it harder in the future  to get PR in).

Both Yes and No votes are poisoned chalices for me. Still not convinced either way.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 27, 2010)

Nu labour will oppose AV because the tories have bundled it with a vote on boundary changes,it still as to get through parliament


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 28, 2010)

I think I'm glad that this is dead for now (it is isn't it?) as I said, I'd only vote yes if it included holding local government elections that are already for mult-member wards by STV, and that wasw never on offer, and now that AV is off the agenda, pressure can continue to grow for more serious reform


----------



## kabbes (Jul 28, 2010)

Have I missed something?  Why is it dead for now?  Are there enough Tory rebels to scupper it?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 28, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Nu labour will oppose AV because the tories have bundled it with a vote on boundary changes,



The gerrymandering aspect,  the boundary changes being cynically bundled together with AV, is a pretty fair reason for opposing the Bill in its pesent form at least, and I post as someone who has no big problems with AV in itself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 28, 2010)

Haha. Every government gerrymanders and every opposition cries foul.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 29, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Haha. Every government gerrymanders and every opposition cries foul.



Doesn't mean the anti-bundling-together case isn't pretty strong though, and for good reasons beyond just party advantage ...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 29, 2010)

> The gerrymandering aspect, the boundary changes being cynically bundled together with AV, is a pretty fair reason for opposing the Bill in its pesent form at least, and I post as someone who has no big problems with AV in itself.



me too actually - they need to split the AV bit off from the gerrymander and have two separate bills


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

First yougov poll in which the no vote is largest. 37% -yes, 38% - no.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

there is still time to change/shape the public opinion, according to the FT, there will be an ad blitz in the next couple of months:  



> *Lib Dem hopes hit by AV vote rules*
> Financial Times (London, England) - Tuesday, August 10, 2010
> Author: Barker, Alex ; Pickard, Jim ; Stacey, Kiran
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

They can blitz who they like - the yes vote is associated with the lib dems primarily and then the coalition - the lib dems are on 12-15% the coalition on bare 50% national approval , the tories don't support AV. It's going down and it'll take the coalition with it.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They can blitz who they like - the yes vote is associated with the lib dems primarily and then the coalition - the lib dems are on 12-15% the coalition on bare 50% national approval , the tories don't support AV. It's going down and it'll take the coalition with it.


 
I would expect the Tories to put relatively little by way of finance into the NO campaign - they will fight it mainly in through their dominance of the right wing press.  I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the fixed term parliament legislation was drawn out, and Cameron would call a swift GE after a NO vote in the referendum - after the LDs had over stretched themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

little_legs said:


> some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.


 That argument is one that going to be aggressively  challenged over the next 10 months. It's had a piss easy ride thus far. All the polling (and that's all it is) shows the when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly - into areas where the referendum will be lost.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I would expect the Tories to put relatively little by way of finance into the NO campaign - they will fight it mainly in through their dominance of the right wing press.  I might be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if the fixed term parliament legislation was drawn out, and Cameron would call a swift GE after a NO vote in the referendum - after the LDs had over stretched themselves.


 
I don't think they have a fixed approach - i think it depends on what state the lib-dems are in at the time and what the polls say the outcome is looking like.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly


 
Quite a lot of AV modelling is based on the misleading assumption that first preferences will stay mostly the same as under FPTP.  This is far from self evident.  Obviously there is an issue in that the LDs are likely be the biggest winner, and people aren't in the mood to reward them at the moment.  The success of the campaign will depend on its ability to engage and bring on board forces otherwise opposed to the LDs politically.  Frankly, I think they are mishandling it terribly at the moment and it could well bite them in the arse.  But the biggest gainers from "no change" - aside from the Tories - are the pig thick tribalist Labourites.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

The polls have been based on explaining the role of second preferences and so on...that's exactly what's been explained. And when it has been support has dropped. 

Your lat last sentence sums it up though - the only winners of a yes will be the lib-dems. That's why people will vote against it.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 18, 2010)

i didn't say that - there are would be other winners in a slow burning way - if the Greens and (potentially) independent lefts or union candidates, and arguably Labour (although in ways that need more unpacking than "smash the Lib Dems").  However, yes in terms of the parliamentary forces the LDs have made a big mistake in isolating themselves, eg. from Scots and Welsh nats.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

Oh yes, the ICM guardian poll has yes and no both on 45%. (this is poll where they ignore that labour have drawn level with the tories in favour of hilarious spin about the cuts)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2010)

I won't be bothering to vote in this pathetic sop of a referendum. Worthless piece of crap: coke or pepsi, small or regular fries, cash or check?

FUCK OFF.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That argument is one that going to be aggressively  challenged over the next 10 months. It's had a piss easy ride thus far. All the polling (and that's all it is) shows the when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly - into areas where the referendum will be lost.


 
maybe you are right. we'll see who the lib dems will be using as the public figures/celebrities endorsing the 'yes' vote. it won't be michael caine that's for sure. it'll probably be the _klaxons_, or _mumford & sons_, not that that i have anything against them. this AV thing is doable, it takes the right money and the right spin doctor to spin it imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2010)

Yes it would



> Meanwhile, Mr Clegg has risked antagonising Liberal Democrat activists by insisting that he would not walk away from the Coalition if the country rejects electoral reform.
> 
> A referendum on introducing the alternative vote (AV) for parliamentary elections was among the largest concessions Mr Clegg gained from David Cameron in negotiations over their power-sharing deal.
> 
> ...




Off you fuck too. You are *already* dead in the water. Just waiting for cameron's dogs to come pick you up.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2010)

Vote no, Clegg will die.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 21, 2010)

clegg & co have embarked on lowering the expectations, i am glad he is conceding that he'll stay with his boyfriend regardless of the outcome of the referendum: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/20/nick-clegg-electoral-reform, this is just a polite form of saying i am a power hungry whore and my principles... ah well, fuck 'em.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

see that the head honcho of the Taxpayers Alliance is fronting up the NO campaign.  Makes you think that some vested interests are feeling a bit threatened.  A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron.  It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government.   Great stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

Tell me why that a) would be the outcome and b) how that would be worse than what we have now? Cameron couldn't be any fucking stronger as it is! 

Again with the childish and insulting _you're a tory if you vote against this_ stuff. I could just as easily point to the neo-liberals in the lib-dems - just as rotten as the tories neo-liberals - supporting this and say a victory for them is a victory for neo-liberalism. I could point out that your position as argued above is amounts logically to an argument in support of the coalition and against any move whatsoever that might bring it down. 

You will lose your vote with this approach, so more please


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government.   Great stuff.



I don't think it will destroy the coalition to be honest, but it will further sow divisions and cause some distraction from the business of governing (IE attacking us) and it will further seriously damage the Liberals. Enough Liberal MPs will stick with Clegg to avoid an election unless Cameron decides to take a gamble.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't think it will destroy the coalition to be honest, but it will further sow divisions and cause some distraction from the business of governing (IE attacking us) and it will further seriously damage the Liberals. Enough Liberal MPs will stick with Clegg to avoid an election unless Cameron decides to take a gamble.


 

...and look at the logic of that claim you're responding to - it means _we must support the coalition at all costs lest we get a full tory majority!_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and look at the logic of that claim you're responding to - it means _we must support the coalition at all costs lest we get a full tory majority!_



Tbh I don't understand why people think Cameron would risk an early election to form a single party government, when he already has one - that allows him to deflect hatred as well, it would be madness to call an early election.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I could point out that your position as argued above is amounts logically to an argument in support of the coalition and against any move whatsoever that might bring it down.



Nonsense.  How would a NO vote bring down the coalition?  Seems most unlikely. 

The principle forces of the NO camp are self-interested elites trying to pass themselves of as the voices of ordinary voters to preserve their privilege (tax payers alliance, former Rothschilds partners, Labour backbenchers in safe seats, Labour TU top dinosaurs like Paul Kenny)

No doubt you think that of the YES camp as well, and perhaps for the most part ( with honourable exceptions!) you are right!!!  which makes the question not one of principle, but of strategy and tactics  

I don't see any tactical advantage in a no vote - the LDs might crash at the next election but I don't know why the GE would be called anytime sooner.  And the net effect is that the Tories romp home in all their safe seats and can concentrate fire in the marginals.  Paradoxically, the best bet of shifting the LDs from government is making sure their vote holds up!!!

WHEREAS a YES vote would
- start to disaggregate first preferences from Lab and LD support - so that voters can indicate not just a single effective anti-Tory preference but their real pro Green/Left/Independent preference
- would smash the "voting for smaller parties only lets in the Tories" argument
- would lead to PR for local government in fairly short order and help get better local councillors elected.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

f course a no vote could bring down the coalition - it's preposterous to pretend otherwise. The lib-dems recognise the reality of this and have decided to lock Clegg into the garden shed as regards campaigning for a yes vote. A defeat for the yes vote weakens his position and strengthens those who would ditch him/pull out of the coalition. You damn well know this.

Cab you talk about why you think the coalition needs to be propped up please? The one in your earlier post today.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

You know full well that is a fatuous distortion of what I said.  My argument is that even if the coalition collapsed immediately following a NO vote (which I have no reason to believe it will - you seem to believe this as some kind of article of faith), the resulting election result would be catastrophic for the LDs [one of the key reasons that it won't happen], but precisely for that reason would make a Tory majority more likely because there are more LD/Tory marginals than LD/Lab and there is precious little sign that a future Labour leader will have done enough to recover much of the support they lost between 1997 and 2010.

The key thing is as far as destroying the coalition is to defeat the ideological consensus behind its programme by building a mass movement of resistance to the cuts.  And if the LDs crashed to defeat in THOSE circumstances then the Tories would be much less likely to reap the benefit.

There is NO necessary connection between supporting AV and supporting the coalition that has produced the referendum.  If the referendum happens back it, but pay no price in terms of political concessions to the coalition    And even i would vote against the Bill as it stands anyway so it's yet to be determined whether the referendum will actually come about in May at all anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You know full well that is a fatuous distortion of what I said.  My argument is that even if the coalition collapsed immediately following a NO vote (which I have no reason to believe it will - you seem to believe this as some kind of article of faith), the resulting election result would be catastrophic for the LDs [one of the key reasons that it won't happen], but precisely for that reason would make a Tory majority more likely because there are more LD/Tory marginals than LD/Lab.
> 
> The key thing is as far as destroying the coalition is to defeat the ideological consensus behind its programme by building a mass movement of resistance to the cuts.  And if the LDs crashed to defeat in THOSE circumstances then the Tories would be much less likely to reap the benefit.



No, it's  following through if the logic it contained. Here's your post:



> see that the head honcho of the Taxpayers Alliance is fronting up the NO campaign. Makes you think that some vested interests are feeling a bit threatened. A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron. It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.



A no vote might weaken clegg and be the start of the end of the coalition (something you scoff at a few posts later, love the consistency). This would lead to a tory majority govt, which would be worse. If that's worse then we need to support the coalition. I note also your belated and inaccurate insertion of 'immediately' into my argument - i want the fall out to drag on for months and leave the cutting plans in total disarray in fact. 

On the tory majority question - the number of lib-dem/tory margiunals is minute, the same as lib-dem/labour. There would be no tory automatic majority if lib-dems are wiped out. 

The last para i just have no idea what you're trying to say. Who would benefit? Who would form the govt, in those circumstances?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

We agree then that it is likely to persist beyond the defeat rather than smash the coalition.   But my claim is that it would start to unravel in the sense that we would have a supremely confident Cameron and a very much weakened Clegg.  Now how does that translate to "cutting plans in disarray"?  Clegg would be in choppy waters internally and might suffer defections etc.  but how does this become the tide that sweeps the Tories out of power?  

In terms of that GE without AV - there is a danger that this would be fought in 600 seats after the Tories had pushed through their boundary changes. Of these, the Tories wouldn't need to fight to hold any of their existing seats and could expect to sweep up in places like Eastleigh or Somerton and Frome from the LDs quite easily.  So they could massively concentrate resources on Con/Lab marginals - at a time when Labour is still near bankrupt, and the LDs not much better having lost their short money.   Labour needs AV to cushion the losses from the boundary changes and to keep LDs competitive in the South.  The cleverer types in Labour realise this.  But others like the fact that FPTP keeps them as "the only other game in town" even if they are in opposition for the forseeable future. 

At the same time AV would spell the end in the longer-term of the armlock Labour has on the left.   It would ease the process of seeing forces to its left emerge in greater numbers and help the rebalance the political centre of gravity.   

Ultimately this is a question of what kind of Labour party we see develop, what kind of left, and where any of this stands in relation to the electoral whole.  But of course it's easier to shoot down everything the coalition does, even the 1% that has something going for it.  Why not bank that and attack the other 99%?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm not backing 0.00000019% of anything the coalition does.  Ever.

I didn't say it was likely to persist, i said a long drawn out death would be _preferable_ - which isn't to say that's most _likely_. We've already got a supremely confident and a much weakened Clegg - the only things the lib-dems are able to push through is attacks on universal benefits and the extension of means testing, in effect being used by Cameron to defeat the left of his party after he's given the traditional right a good bludgeoning already. You seem to operating on some map for before thge election, some idea that the lib-dems are holding th tories back - they're not. I don't know how much more evidence you need to see this.

The next election won't be fought on those 600 seat boundaries if the no vote wins - you've argued against yourself. It will only be on those boundaries if the yes vote wins. If you're worried vote no.

AV would mean nothing of the sort - it would mean the selling down the river on the lib-dems careerism of any hopes for that to happen - this is the end of PR, yes vote or no vote. It would also mean the labour party inserted forever as the only possible left vote. 

I really cannot believe such naivety - i do hope it's professional rather than principled.


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it would
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i lol-ed at this.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The next election won't be fought on those 600 seat boundaries if the no vote wins - you've argued against yourself. It will only be on those boundaries if the yes vote wins. If you're worried vote no.


This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 *irrespective* of the outcome of that referendum.  Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.

But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better.  On the wider question the fact that Lib Dems are advancing this for purely cynical reasons in no way means it isn't worth having for totally other reasons.  I genuinely believe that if AV is all that is on offer it is worth taking.   A NO vote really would end the chances of PR, whereas a yes would bring PR into being for local government in relatively short order, with HoC following on in due course.

As for just slagging off everything the coalition does that is just silly juvenile posturing.  Where they are right (ID cards, prison numbers) we should say so but put it in context of all the other shit they are responsible for.   i want to smash the coalition politically/ideologically, but this isn't achieved by voting down electoral reform as even if it weakens Clegg's personal authority it leaves the basic assumptions behind the cuts drive intact.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 *irrespective* of the outcome of that referendum.  Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.
> 
> But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better.  On the wider question the fact that Lib Dems are advancing this for purely cynical reasons in no way means it isn't worth having for totally other reasons.  I genuinely believe that if AV is all that is on offer it is worth taking.   A NO vote really would end the chances of PR, whereas a yes would bring PR into being for local government in relatively short order, with HoC following on in due course.
> 
> As for just slagging off everything the coalition does that is just silly juvenile posturing.  Where they are right (ID cards, prison numbers) we should say so but put it in context of all the other shit they are responsible for.   i want to smash the coalition politically/ideologically, but this isn't achieved by voting down electoral reform as even if it weakens Clegg's personal authority it leaves the basic assumptions behind the cuts drive intact.



I'll take the correction on that.

You started out with the horror of a tory majority if there's a no vote - what about the possibility of tory majority if there's a less vote? It looks pretty much the same to me with the lib-dem and tory gerrymandering. Where goes your argument then? If that's the outcome that you hang everything on avoiding why support something that makes it far more likely?

No, it's not a vote on FPTP or something better - you've yet to show how it's better, i think you've been wrong and utterly unconvincing on everything that you've forwarded as a reason (i think the polls show this in the slide from strong support to neck and neck at best) - it's vote for more of the same or more of the same, with either result closing off PR. THat's what will happen.

Nope, not juvenile posturing - political reality, and far more politically effective than understanding hand-wringing. People are angry, they don't want this pathetic look at all sides crap - they want to tear people's heads off and they want to do that by the first option to hand. This vote is lost. And you'll make the loss that easier by calling those voting no tories or accusing them of bringing down the coalition. They _want_ to bring down the coalition. And quite right too - the long term plans of the lib-dems and London thinks-tanks be fucked.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 *irrespective* of the outcome of that referendum.  Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.
> 
> *But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better.*



This is where those-who-don't-give and you disagree. We don't think AV is better than FPTP. Both have weaknesses and strengths.
Both have weaknesses and strengths. You've still not made a case - other than "Keep Nick In". Is abstention unprincipled? I will vote how the IWCA encourages or not, btw.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 23, 2010)

> Nope, not juvenile posturing - political reality, and far more politically effective than understanding hand-wringing. People are angry, they don't want this pathetic look at all sides crap - they want to tear people's heads off and they want to do that by the first option to hand. This vote is lost. And you'll make the loss that easier by calling those voting no tories or accusing them of bringing down the coalition. They want to bring down the coalition. And quite right too - the long term plans of the lib-dems and London thinks-tanks be fucked.



Not being funny, but the first option to hand is straight away "Split the Lib Dem MPs away from Cleggites > minority government fail > markets jittery > new elections > auto-Labourism". That's exactly what the Milibands are arguing. Bringing down the coalition and stopping cuts are not one and the same thing.
There's still strong elements of business support for Labour against Tory decimation cuts but more careful restructuring and longer-term cuts - expressed by Blanchflower types.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Not being funny, but the first option to hand is straight away "Split the Lib Dem MPs away from Cleggites > minority government fail > markets jittery > new elections > auto-Labourism". That's exactly what the Milibands are arguing. Bringing down the coalition and stopping cuts are not one and the same thing.
> There's still strong elements of business support for Labour against Tory decimation cuts but more careful restructuring and longer-term cuts - expressed by Blanchflower types.



I'm not arguing vote labour to stop the cuts though - i'm arguing for whatever outcome is most likely to leave the system paralyzed and unable to push through the cuts - new elections after a referendum defeat with the coalition in disarray and riven by infighting, leading to another even more closely balanced outcome is the best we'll get _inside parliament._


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

but the win or lose the referendum there will be no GE for a good couple of years at least.  People do want to bring down the coalition.  Of course.  But do they want to replace it with a Tory majority?  I doubt it.  
This is not to say "keep Nick in" (i have never said that, nor would I).  It is to acknowledge that we may as well get what little positive change is on offer at the same time as attacking them for all the shit.  And booting him out whilst Cameron stays put isn't a step forward.  

To be honest, I don't see any argument that FPTP is better than AV coming from anyone other than vested interest groups affiliated to the Tories or the Prescott type Labourists.  AV isn't a major leap forward.  But losing the election is death to PR, while AV is a small but welcome step.  

Put it another way - why did the vote for the Greens, TUSC and all other small progressive parties get so squeezed?  It was the killer argument that voting for anyone but Labour helped the Tories.  AV would cut across that.  How is that not a gain?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

The tusc/left vote wasn't squeezed - there was no vote to squeeze. It wasn't the system that did for them.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

well we have no way of knowing.  Under AV people could give 1st prefs to the party of their choice whilst being sure they could switch to the best placed candidate to stop the tory, or tory/LD.   At the very least we would see if that were true or not.

I think the longer term effects of this could be more significant than you're acknowledging


----------



## sihhi (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not arguing vote labour to stop the cuts though - i'm *arguing for whatever outcome is most likely to leave the system paralyzed * and unable to push through the cuts - new elections after a referendum defeat with the coalition in disarray and riven by infighting, leading to another even more closely balanced outcome is the best we'll get _inside parliament._



I know you're not but if you're in a constituency that's 'Labour', which is where a lot of us are, it adds weight to the Labour argument to vote Labour. 'A strong Labour showing is needed to stop the Tories through the cuts'. 

Also, as you know, were things to require it, a national government would be formed. The system can't be paralysed by the results of any referendum.

This has happened before in microcosm in the local councils in the 1980s. The Labour councillors - including some very socialist people - had agreed together as a set of a dozen councils to go for deficit budgeting. Then Labour councillors break away from the main Labour groups and ally up with the Conservatives to set the budgets - game, set match.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well we have no way of knowing.  Under AV people could give 1st prefs to the party of their choice whilst being sure they could switch to the best placed candidate to stop the tory, or tory/LD.   At the very least we would see if that were true or not.
> 
> I think the longer term effects of this could be more significant than you're acknowledging


 They could. That would be labour, tory or lib-dem then.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> I know you're not but if you're in a constituency that's 'Labour', which is where a lot of us are, it adds weight to the Labour argument to vote Labour. 'A strong Labour showing is needed to stop the Tories through the cuts'.
> 
> Also, as you know, were things to require it, a national government would be formed. The system can't be paralysed by the results of any referendum.
> 
> This has happened before in microcosm in the local councils in the 1980s. The Labour councillors - including some very socialist people - had agreed together as a set of a dozen councils to go for deficit budgeting. Then Labour councillors break away from the main Labour groups and ally up with the Conservatives to set the budgets - game, set match.



If we get a national govtgovt we're already in a significantly different area than we are now - a real crisis of the state. I don't follow your wider argument here in all honesty. I'm in a safe labour seat - i try to make clear that an anti-cuts movement needs to be anti-labour, anti-system too it can't just be anti-lib-dem and tory cuts etc


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

> They could. That would be labour, tory or lib-dem then.



yes but the basis would there for revealing the true extent of green/left support and help those parties target more accurately for local elections - even under FPTP.  And when there is PR for local government - as would almost certainly follow the move (for consistency of voting method if nothing else) the basis would be there for slow but steady gains - not a magic wand but better than keeping FPTP in perpetuity


----------



## sihhi (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well we have no way of knowing.  Under AV people could give 1st prefs to the party of their choice whilst being sure they could switch to the best placed candidate to stop the tory, or tory/LD.   At the very least we would see if that were true or not.
> 
> I think the longer term effects of this could be more significant than you're acknowledging



I'm not sure why you're so keen to think the Greens do anything much useful anyway.
Yes we do - we have London Assembly elections under Additional Member. BNP carrying on up onward. Left blasted out of the water.

How is the left perceived? The left is seen, like it or not, as people who stir things up but let others carry the can.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> yes but the basis would there for revealing the true extent of green/left support and help those parties target more accurately for local elections - even under FPTP.  And when there is PR for local government - as would almost certainly follow the move (for consistency of voting method if nothing else) the basis would be there for slow but steady gains.



The basis is already there. This is the true extent of support (and i'll not try and drop the greens and left into one (w)hole). And, as argued earlier on london voting evidence, people voted big party first - the small parties 2nd or 3rd if at all.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

Well leaving aside whatever issues we might have with the Greens in London - they are now a fixture in the capital's politics, and influenced the Labour agenda and messaging to some extent.  Obviously, even a PR system wouldn't make up for a Left incapable of getting its act together - look at Scotland.  But why can't you accept that there's nothing logically impossible about arguing that AV is a small step forward worth having, so we should back it if its the only thing offered while at the same time attacking the LDs for their role in supporting Tory cuts?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If we get a national govtgovt we're already in a significantly different area than we are now - a real crisis of the state. I don't follow your wider argument here in all honesty. I'm in a safe labour seat - i try to *make clear that an anti-cuts movement needs to be anti-labour, anti-system too it can't just be anti-lib-dem and tory cuts* etc


 
You obviously do it better than me!

Do you oppose labelling cuts as 'ConDem' : ConDem cuts (bizarrely Black Hand's magazine's new issue calls them 'the condoms'). Do you oppose subs/donations going on transporting people to lobby TUC events?
How strongly should you argue when you are in a minority - these aren't easy things.

I'm OK-ish at arguing with people saying 'they're just about council workers' keeping clear/not getting involved. 

but tactics are difficult.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But why can't you accept that there's nothing logically impossible about arguing that AV is a small step forward worth having, so we should back it if its the only thing offered while at the same time attacking the LDs for their role in supporting Tory cuts?


because it isn't true PR, which is the only thing worth having and because the diehard resisters in the tories AND Labour would use it to ensure true PR was a long long way from coming. Their line wou.ld be 'you've had your referendum; you said that would be enough; now you're moving the goalposts" And unless the turnout for the referendum was really high, the argument gthat the public aren't hungry for ANOTHER referendum would be very hard to beat down.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 23, 2010)

and if there was a NO vote that would apply tenfold.  Yes it would be better if PR was on the ballot.  It isn't.   So take what's offered and demand more


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

sihhi said:


> You obviously do it better than me!
> 
> Do you oppose labelling cuts as 'ConDem' : ConDem cuts (bizarrely Black Hand's magazine's new issue calls them 'the condoms'). Do you oppose subs/donations going on transporting people to lobby TUC events?
> How strongly should you argue when you are in a minority - these aren't easy things.
> ...


 
I'm not sure i'm always successful!!  There's a wider question(s) here that could be good as a stand alone thread.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2010)

articul8 said:


> At the same time AV would spell the end in the longer-term of the armlock Labour has on the left.   It would ease the process of seeing forces to its left emerge in greater numbers and help the rebalance the political centre of gravity.


You keep making this claim but provide no evidence to back it up. AV hasn't broken into the ground the Australian Labor party has, if fact it's made absolutely no difference whatsoever to Britain, whichever party eventually forms a government is going to be neo-liberal


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> You keep making this claim but provide no evidence to back it up. AV hasn't broken into the ground the Australian Labor party has, if fact it's made absolutely no difference whatsoever to Britain, whichever party eventually forms a government is going to be neo-liberal


 
Sorry?  One of the principle features of the Australian election has been the emergence of a small but significant Green bloc, exactly illustrating my case - of course there is no guarantee that they can build successfully on this.  But there are *opportunities* that wouldn't exist on the same scale under FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2010)

A green bloc that will act like the cut enforcing green coalition partners in Tasmania. Great stuff. And more to the point it shows that the main two parties are still written into the bloody thing - no govt can be formed without one of them - and this on a more pr based system than AV.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2010)

articul8 said:


> and if there was a NO vote that would apply tenfold.  Yes it would be better if PR was on the ballot.  It isn't.   So take what's offered and demand more


but 'taking what's offered' may well, in practical terms, make it harder to 'demand more', with any hope of success at least.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but 'taking what's offered' may well, in practical terms, make it harder to 'demand more', with any hope of success at least.


 
why would it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2010)

Well for a start that "Green Block" already existed, secondly it's not leftwing and is going to help prop up a neo-liberal Labor party, and thirdly as BA points out the end result of the election is going to be one of the two flavours that have been in power since the war, both in the UK and Aus.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> Well for a start that "Green Block" already existed, secondly it's not leftwing and is going to help prop up a neo-liberal Labor party, and thirdly as BA points out the end result of the election is going to be one of the two flavours that we already had in the UK.


 
Not only that but AV has existed for years and they're just getting their first Green MP ever - the Green senators in the past have all been elected under the STV system (the only one worth a damn frankly).


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2010)

Yep and in all the years that AV (or STV for that matter) have been around no actual, proper left alternative has appeared on the scene.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

I've never claimed there is some authomatic relationship between any kind of voting system and left wing success.  I'm arguing that the *opportunities* are greater, because the Labour armlock of "don't split the vote" stifles just about all alternatives from the start


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> Yep and in all the years that AV (or STV for that matter) have been around no actual, proper left alternative has appeared on the scene.



Well to be fair the Socialist Alliance have got one councillor in twelve years.

Which is fewer than England under FPTP but never mind!


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 24, 2010)

Well then give us some examples where AV has opened up these opportunities for the left

At articul8


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

It's not AV in isolation that gives opportunities - it is the likelihood that AV would in all probability lead to STV for local government.  Which itself is no guarantee - but eg. in Scotland it has led to more Green and Socialist local councillors than were elected under FPTP - and of course would have been more effective is the SSP didn't shoot itself in the foot.  

Hardly an example of "left" opportunities I know - but the fact that the Labour leadership contest is using AV makes is making it harder for the most Blairite candidate - D Miliband - to get elected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 24, 2010)

Sorry is there any evidence AV will lead to STV at the local level? Because I must have missed it...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2010)

articul8 said:


> why would it?


Because in this politically slow-moving, conservative country, the argument "we've just had one major change to the way we choose governments in this country - THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! we do not need another; it is simply irresponsible and frivolous. Let us make this system work first, and let us get accustomed to it" will prove enormously seductive and persuasive, to an electorate not known for huge turnouts. 
It will also be made by all those who are most resistant to change and pro-status quo, and they have far more powerful propaganda heavy weaponry (resources,meejah muscle etc) than those wanting the greatest degree of change.
Finally, the only way you _can_ make the case for 'true' PR, as a second stage of the process, makes you look as cynical, dishonest and shifty as the whole cookup that has resulted in this mooted referendum: "we _really_ want something else, but we'll grab this wholly unsatisfactory substitute in the meantime and soften you up for the second stage". Leaving all other considerations aside, the voters won't take kindly to that one; they'll think you're taking the piss a bit.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sorry is there any evidence AV will lead to STV at the local level? Because I must have missed it...


_moi aussi, mon brave..._


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sorry is there any evidence AV will lead to STV at the local level? Because I must have missed it...


 
Any argument about what happens "if" something else does is obviously conditional and speculative and not something you can determine with empirical proofs.  That said, the experience in Scotland was that electoral reform at one level (the Parliament) led in fairly short order to reform in local government level.  Given the fact that the LD representation would be greater under AV than under FPTP - and the LDs are the strongest advocates of PR for local government it stands to reason it is more rather than less likely.

If we had preferential voting for FPTP  there would be an obvious logical case for consistency with the form of voting for locals - particularly as Scotland and N. Ireland already use STV for locals.   THere is also the question of what happens to the Lords - the Queens Speech said it would be a form of PR.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Because in this politically slow-moving, conservative country, the argument "we've just had one major change to the way we choose governments in this country - THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! we do not need another;.



Well given that the Electoral Reform Society has been waiting since 1884 to get any kind of say in the way we elect MPs - even AV would finally send the message that FPTP is broken and we don't want it.  For FPTP to win would send the message that people don't want change.

In terms of moving on from AV, it would be very difficult to reverse back to FPTP after it had been rejected.  But it would only take a couple of disprortionate results under AV - particularly a "wrong winner" - for people to decide that further reform is needed.  It wouldn't necessarily require a further referendum - to introduce a top-up element (go to AV+) would just be to straighten out the deficiencies and make AV work.  Alternatively simply moving to multi-member seats would deliver PR but isn't really a change in system at all.  AV just means STV in single member contests.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Well given that the Electoral Reform Society has been waiting since 1884 to get any kind of say in the way we elect MPs - even AV would finally send the message that FPTP is broken and we don't want it.  For FPTP to win would send the message that people don't want change.
> 
> In terms of moving on from AV, it would be very difficult to reverse back to FPTP after it had been rejected.  But it would only take a couple of disprortionate results under AV - particularly a "wrong winner" - for people to decide that further reform is needed.  It wouldn't necessarily require a further referendum - to introduce a top-up element (go to AV+) would just be to straighten out the deficiencies and make AV work.  Alternatively simply moving to multi-member seats would deliver PR but isn't really a change in system at all.  AV just means STV in single member contests.


and the ERS has how many members? and are how representative of the UK electorate? 'people' would not decide what you suggest at all, and they never have done; by your logic and the historical facts of it,they'd plough on bovinely with 'the devil we know' for an awfully long time to come.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2010)

The ERS is a lib-dem fabian type set up that thinks the political system is the problem. Not sure we should be guided by their interests.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise.  Just saying that people have been trying to change the electoral system (including Keir Hardie - a member of the ERS's forerunner body, and the British CP) for a hell of a long time and at no stage previously have the public had the opportunity to actually deliver any progress whatsover.  So for people who want PR to say we should throw this out as not going far enough is mental.  Of course, if you don't give a shit about electoral politics at any level as a point of principle it's consistent.  But if you back small formations that stand candidates it is somewhat self-defeating.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2010)

Only if you establish that a vote for av would be a clear unambiguous advance - as said earlier, I haven't found the arguments you put forward that it will be to be unconvincing at all and they are easily outweighed by the potential damage that could be caused to the coalition and other tactical considerations. We've gone over why a yes vote might well be the end of the road for pr - it could be argued that a no vote will show that people are not prepared to endorse a change short of full pr.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> In terms of moving on from AV, it would be very difficult to reverse back to FPTP after it had been rejected.  But it would only take a couple of disprortionate results under AV - particularly a "wrong winner" - for people to decide that further reform is needed.  It wouldn't necessarily require a further referendum - to introduce a top-up element (go to AV+) would just be to straighten out the deficiencies and make AV work.  Alternatively simply moving to multi-member seats would deliver PR but isn't really a change in system at all.  AV just means STV in single member contests.



Any further changes would require massive boundry changes (after all going from single member to say three member constituencies would not be as simple as merging three neighbouring constitutencies) imeadiately after a massive excercise that is going to take several years and cost millions of pounds of taxpayer's money redrawing the current boundries to get rid of all those Labour seats.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

well i don't agree with the current boundary changes and AV in itself doesn't require any - If they are made dependent on each other I would have no problems with not voting to set up the referendum.  And I can see that given how difficult it would be to win, it would be better for the referendum not to happen that for it to be lost.
(Actually STV doesn't necessarily require a wholesale redrawing of boundaries - just the amalgamation of existing ones)

But if the referendum goes ahead - then my gut feeling is that a vote to retain FPTP would essentially put future change off the agenda for a long time, longer than a move to AV which as I've explained would still be vulnerable to the pro PR arguments and contains a pro-PR dynamic at other levels.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> it could be argued that a no vote will show that people are not prepared to endorse a change short of full pr.



I really don't think this would counter the argument that people had already re-endorsed FPTP, Clegg would be seen to have had his fingers burned on the issue and politicians will steer clear of it for ages.  

I think AV would make it much easier for initiatives like PCS's - to back stand independent pro-union candidates - as it would avoid the accusation of  helping the Con/Libs by taking votes off Labour.  The grip of auto-Labourism is perhaps event stronger than when they were in office.   Of course PR would be better still.  But if it's a straight choice....?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2010)

A yes vote is equally a ringing endorsement of AV and not PR then. The same logic would  leave us stuck at AV for ever .

If it's a straight choice and a vote for AV offers no advantages (i don't think it does, i think your scenarios are highly unlikely, and i'm not interested in giving the whole system a nice public relations make over) but voting against AV damages the coalition i know what i'd prefer. 

BTW the TUC have been having secret talks with the coalition - i wouldn't put too much hope in anything coming from that direction right now.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

err - where the hell have i suggested looking to the TUC for hope!!??  It's precisely as a way of breaking the iron grip of the Labour tops (inc in the unions) that I'm suggesting AV could be important.  

I don't see how the PCS scenario is "highly unlikely" - they've already agreed to consult their members on standing candidates!  I think it's quite wrong to say there are no advantages - but I do accept that it wouldn't lead to immediate results in the sense of getting left/independent/green candidates elected in the aftermath, the advantages would be more slow burning.  But none the less important for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2010)

I was making a point about the union leaders and bureaucrats and how they're quite adept (or at least willing) at playing left to one market whilst acting entirely differently in reality - PSC included. Surely you can see the relevance to your argument?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 25, 2010)

It's entirely anecdotal but I've not heard any mention of moving to PR out here, so I'm very skeptical of the idea that AV is going to be a step on the way to STV or something else.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

well you already have STV for second chamber?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I was making a point about the union leaders and bureaucrats and how they're quite adept (or at least willing) at playing left to one market whilst acting entirely differently in reality - PSC included. Surely you can see the relevance to your argument?


 
I'm not sure I do, no.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I'm not sure I do, no.



The Point: Don't trust official trade union promises.



Austin Mitchell on the history of 'electoral reform'/PR



> When I was first elected, I joined the Labour campaign for electoral reform and-incredible though it now seems-the bulk of support for electoral reform at that time came from the Conservative party, which wanted proportional representation to keep out socialism and Tony Benn. There has been a volte-face since then. Parties have changed their opinions on the issue very much in common with how they have changed them on Europe and the European Union. My rise within the cause of proportional representation was rocket assisted; as soon as I joined the Labour campaign for electoral reform, all the other members left to join the Social Democratic party, and I rapidly became chair and sole member.



Tony Benn on reform


> Tony Benn; Former Labour minister
> 
> I have been a long-time supporter of fixed-term parliaments, a system that is used by most parliaments across the world, including the US. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be given the power to decide when the next election is, which can give the ruling party an obvious political advantage.
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Aug 25, 2010)

? What "official promises" have i been swallowing here?  PCS's promise to consult members on standing new candidates?  There is a power struggle over whether this is a good idea or not.  AV would help to resolve it in favour of a positive decision to go for it - as it couldn't be painted as helping the Tories.

Support for PR isn't intrinsically left or progressive - people take it up tactically if they think it helps their kind of politics.  Which is why a whole spectrum of leftists from Keir Hardie and the ILP, the British CP, Robin Blackburn/Perry Anderson, Ralph Miliband, Hilary Wainwright, Robin Cook and Salma Yaqoob amongst others have been active PR supporters.   Yes some have advocated it to create a  SDP-esque Lib/Lab fusion.  But if that happened and there was a break away of the left from Labour that would be no bad thing.  

Tony Benn is a supporter of AV (or STV in single member constituencies as he puts it).


----------



## sihhi (Aug 25, 2010)

No offence, but you'll convince few like that. I don't see how it will make me, my workplace or my block's life any better. I really don't much like political philosophy. 
You've not made the case that AV or STV or PR means a fig against business interests. 

Look at Plaid in Wales at a complete dead end.
They're 'forced' to join with Labour and slash services, no job expansion programmes, endless "Westminster this, Westminster that" moaning.
Can't ever win in elections against Labour in Wales because they don't have the money. 
If they want to win, they'd have to start attracting more business interests to supply more money would make the programme even more like Welsh Labour's (a la SNP).

Look at the SSP implosion over the past years all with AV/PR. 

Elections are basically about nothing. More and more layers - less and less chance of control and power over the economy.

Why is a left break from Labour useful to you or me? What will a left Labour MP grouping, certain to capitulate to Labour its inevitable coalition partner do for me? What has the Linskpartei actually acheived? Don't give us jibber - they have a record and it's an ugly one.



articul8 said:


> ? What "official promises" have i been swallowing here?  PCS's promise to consult members on standing new candidates?



Is it meaningful?

This was last time in May


> The PCS civil service workers’ union is identifying marginal seats where workers face closures, or where key government ministers are standing, and inviting all candidates to a ‘question time’. PCS will be asking candidates of all parties where they stand in respect of five key pledges on public services: cuts and privatisation, pensions, equality, national pay bargaining and the closure of tax loopholes for the rich.



Perhaps some PCS people could tell us what they thought of it.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 25, 2010)

.


> *Beware AV, Nick. It might turn out to be a killer*
> Times, The (London, England) - Wednesday, August 25, 2010
> Peter Wilson
> 
> ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well you already have STV for second chamber?


True, but no one talks about expanding that system to the lower house.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

YouGov – FPTP has a 11 point lead over AV



> This morning’s YouGov daily poll also contained YouGov’s fortnightly tracker on the AV referendum. Today’s figures have 32% saying they would vote in favour of adopting AV, and 43% saying they would vote to keep FPTP – it’s the first time since YouGov started the tracker back in June that the NO campaign have been ahead by more than 10 points. In comparison, back in June AV had a 10 point lead. Below is the graph of the tracker so far – the trends speak for themselves.


----------



## Santino (Nov 2, 2010)

Credit where credit's due. Who else but Clegg, Cable & Co. could have given support for FPTP such a boost?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 2, 2010)

Ha that's true enough.  But given that the YES campaign hasn't even started to go public yet it's not very indicative of anything much, apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2010)

It's true.  I'm a massive fan of voting reform, but Clegg's mob have actively worked their hardest to put me in mind to say no.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Ha that's true enough.  But given that the YES campaign hasn't even started to go public yet it's not very indicative of anything much, apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.


 
A bit like newcastle on Sunday you mean?

edit: I think you can argue with equal justification there's been no proper NO campaign kicked off either, and so what this represents is actually real genuine independent ground up opposition - as opposed to the _human dust_ supporting it


----------



## Santino (Nov 2, 2010)

articul8 said:


> apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.



LOL


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2010)

this is just the beginning


----------



## articul8 (Nov 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> edit: I think you can argue with equal justification there's been no proper NO campaign kicked off either, and so what this represents is actually real genuine independent ground up opposition - as opposed to the _human dust_ supporting it


 
except when the no camp does emerge it will become clear just how much of a lash up between Conservatives and Conservative Labourists like Prescott it all is.  Or maybe there will be a sizeable anarchist component?!   Either way the support for a NO will fall as a consequence.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

There'll certainly be a sizable anti-neo-liberal element voting no. It's pretty clear this is what's driving the turn from 10% support into 11% against - and that attempts to tar this as a pro-tory development have had no effect whatsoever - in fact, in the teeth of those attempts the yes campaign has gone even further backwards.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> except when the no camp does emerge it will become clear just how much of a lash up between Conservatives and Conservative Labourists like Prescott it all is.


 
Prescott a Conservative? *Boggle*

I intend voting against because the proposed system is too complex. It's fine in normal seats, but then so is FPTP. Where AV / STV fails is when the election is closely contested so you have to game the system well down the list. This means that the result is not transparent and open to the _perception_ of a fiddle.  Approval Voting gets my vote.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2010)

Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

I haven't seen a single one make that case yet.  Largely because they are aware that LD voters are generally to the left of the LD leadership and wouldn't go along with it in too many areas,


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Some of them are already kite-flying on this. Which would turn pro-AV voters into tories - using the logic up the thread a bit anyway.



articul8 said:


> I haven't seen a single one make that case yet.  Largely because they are aware that LD voters are generally to the left of the LD leadership and wouldn't go along with it in too many areas,


 
What, principled left-lib-dems (no such thing anymore) would vote against AV if the tories started supporting it? What madness is this?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
There was a good point made in the comments in that article i linked to:



> If people vote for AV, the Lib-Dems still have a problem: they have little choice but to say the Coalition has been a success and that voters should give their second preference to the Tories.



What else can they do? Any other recommendation is admitting the coalition was shit and the parties who formed it shouldn't be supported.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What else can they do? Any other recommendation is admitting the coalition was shit and the parties who formed it shouldn't be supported.



Quite; you can't be in government with the Tories for 5 years (cheering the 'successes', applauding the 'hard decisions', slapping each other on the back) and then try and sell the voters the idea that you think they're just as good/bad as Labour. Which is presumably why the media is full of stuff about how keen Clegg and those close to him are on the idea of an AV voting agreement (something Simon Hughes et al. will still be able to defend as not being a pact and maintaining the LD's commitment to stand in every constituency).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What, principled left-lib-dems (no such thing anymore) would vote against AV if the tories started supporting it? What madness is this?


 
No, I was saying that if AV comes in, many LD voters wouldn't give the Tories  a 2nd pref even if they were urged to by Clegg.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

If you're still voting lib-dem in a few years time i reckon the chances are that you'll be pretty happy with the coalition and it's policies - otherwise why vote for them? If you're left-wing you will no longer be voting lib-dem full stop. You really do appear to be operating on very outdated maps.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2010)

Butchers is right.  I can't see myself voting LibDem again for a generation at least.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If you're still voting lib-dem in a few years time i reckon the chances are that you'll be pretty happy with the coalition and it's policies - otherwise why vote for them? If you're left-wing you will no longer be voting lib-dem full stop. You really do appear to be operating on very outdated maps.


 
I don't think this is true a) because they'll start trying to distance themselves a good 18 months to 2 years before the election and b) because at local level where they're fighting the Tories their "vote" will already include a lot of Labour/Green supporters that have "gone native" and started to identify with the LDs because of lack of viable local alternatives and 3) the LDs constitute the main local opposition to the Tories still.

Obviously many won't feel like this - and they face an uphill battle to keep people on board. But don't automaticaly assume that anyone still voting LD is doing so out of appreciation for their role supporting Cameron.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

eh? they're in government !


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I don't think this is true a) because they'll start trying to distance themselves a good 18 months to 2 years before the election and b) because at local level where they're fighting the Tories their "vote" will already include a lot of Labour/Green supporters that have "gone native" and started to identify with the LDs because of lack of viable local alternatives and 3) the LDs constitute the main local opposition to the Tories still.


 
I think you're underestimating both the political nous of the electorate and the anger at the lib-dems amongst those who for whatever reason saw them as a left or anti-tory vote. They're not going to be mugged off by a few obvious manouveres from people they know know are shameless liars who'd say anything to stay in power. You don't appear to have a grasp on what's changed post-may. They have lost that left or anti-tory vote - it's gone. It's simply not going to be there to leave if the lib-dems recommend a tory 2nd pref as per your scenario. (your scenario is a it mad btw - is Clegg going to beg Cameron not to support AV?)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't think it's true the Yes to AV campaign hasn't kicked off. Here's some stuff they've already got rolling. I checked out the local co-ordinators. Guess what? They're the local young lib-dems. No one will go near them, their presence is going to actively sabotage the yes vote.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> eh? they're in government !


 
err yes - but that doesn't stop people still thinking that electing a LD is a lesser evil to represent their patch than to have a Tory.  Or thinking they'll vote LIberal becuase they always have and they like that nice simon hughes but phew what a relief not to be in that coalition any more etc.  People can rationalise their positions in different ways.

not sure what Butchers is getting at with this "scenario" I'm meant to have dreamt up about Clegg imploring Cameron not to back AV.   LDs don't need to worry about getting Tories to support it, and anyway they won't.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think it's true the Yes to AV campaign hasn't kicked off. Here's some stuff they've already got rolling. I checked out the local co-ordinators. Guess what? They're the local young lib-dems. No one will go near them, their presence is going to actively sabotage the yes vote.


 
It's only just beginning to gear up.   Of course there are some LDs involved, particularly in areas where they relatively strong.  But not all the local organisers are LDs - they are drawn from a cross-party and non-party basis


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

my point is that i don't tihnk everyone is gonna be percieving the lib dems as slightly better than the tories. if you support the tories then you might as well vote tory.

a lot of lib dems and (former) party members feel utterly betrayed over this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It's only just beginning to gear up.   Of course there are some LDs involved, particularly in areas where they relatively strong.  But not all the local organisers are LDs - they are drawn from a cross-party and non-party basis


 
You can sell it to yourself as a pluralist utopia (one including extremist neo-liberals mind), but i know full well, the lib-dems running it in the cities will sabotage it by their very presence alone, they'll ensure that it'll become a referendum on them and the coalition. And they've already lost that battle.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> b) because at local level where they're fighting the Tories their "vote" will already include a lot of Labour/Green supporters that have "gone native" and started to identify with the LDs because of lack of viable local alternatives and 3) the LDs constitute the main local opposition to the Tories still.


HEH? That'll be the selfsame labour green/leftwhatever supporters who will by that time have seen 2 years of coalition cuts and the consequences of them, cuts defended everystep of the way by the libdems, and who will consequently be hired wired to think "the only difference between the libdems and the tories is that the lib dems pretended they weren't complete bastards! They're both the same".
You really think that those sort of people are gonna vote libdem in locals? That they're gonna say "aah but it's different with our local council"? Like fuck are they! You've lost those sort of people for _decades_


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

well if you are right - yes we're fucked!  But I think there's every chance that the campaign will extend out to become pretty much everyone who isn't either a paid up member of the Tories or the tribal Labour old guard - and will have a lot of people and organisations who are identified with political opposition to the coalition.  That's what I'm working on anyway!!!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> HEH? That'll be the selfsame labour green/leftwhatever supporters who will by that time have seen 2 years of coalition cuts and the consequences of them, cuts defended everystep of the way by the libdems, and who will consequently be hired wired to think "the only difference between the libdems and the tories is that the lib dems pretended they weren't complete bastards! They're both the same".
> You really think that those sort of people are gonna vote libdem in locals? That they're gonna say "aah but it's different with our local council"? Like fuck are they! You've lost those sort of people for _decades_


 
Quite. I'd previously been open to vote LD if it meant keeping the tories out (but having lived in very safe labour areas, never followed through), but now would point blank refuse to do so on principle.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well if you are right - yes we're fucked!  But I think there's every chance that the campaign will extend out to become pretty much everyone who isn't either a paid up member of the Tories or the tribal Labour old guard - and will have a lot of people and organisations who are identified with political opposition to the coalition.  That's what I'm working on anyway!!!


 
why do you want av articul8? surely if you want voting reform it should be the real fucking thing?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> You really think that those sort of people are gonna vote libdem in locals? That they're gonna say "aah but it's different with our local council"? Like fuck are they! You've lost those sort of people for _decades_


 
a) I am not a Lib Dem (so fuck off there for a start!) b) they'll get hammered in the locals, agreed and c) yes they're likely to suffer at the next GE.  But what I'm saying is that, particularly if FPTP is still in place, among the LD vote will be people who aren't comfortable with the coalition but can rationalise their continued voting LD (lesser evil, local issues, identifying with Simon Hughes, lack of other opposition parties, falling for LD distancing themselves).  EVEN those who would STILL vote LD 1st pref in an AV election would still not all transfer to the Tories by any stretch.  

Don't overestimate the support that Clegg has even within his own voting base.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well if you are right - yes we're fucked!  But I think there's every chance that the campaign will extend out to become pretty much everyone who isn't either a paid up member of the Tories or the tribal Labour old guard - and will have a lot of people and organisations who are identified with political opposition to the coalition.  That's what I'm working on anyway!!!


 
Well a left no vote (using the slogan that both me and Louis - i think -  independently came up with) NO to AV - YES to PR has been developing for a few months now.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> why do you want av articul8? surely if you want voting reform it should be the real fucking thing?


 
I do want "the real thing".  But insofar as we're being given a choice between an utterly shit system (FPTP) and a better one (AV) I want to consign the shit one to the dustbin and get something better.  And if it hurts the Tories then the chances of moving onwards to a better system still are still there.  Why do you think the Tories are so scared of it?  They fear a slippery slope


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

the tories aren't scared of it though.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Quite. I'd previously been open to vote LD if it meant keeping the tories out (but having lived in very safe labour areas, never followed through), but now would point blank refuse to do so on principle.


 
Easy to say now.  But the logic of lesser evilism will creep back in.   AV would allow people to show they were politically opposed to the LDs - by giving someone else a 1st pref - but then casting an effective anti-Tory vote whilst making clear that's what it was.  Otherwise you are just saying that the left will stay at home and the Tories will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of walkovers in whole swaths of the south.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the tories aren't scared of it though.


 
name me even 1 Tory MP who is in favour?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2010)

The lesser evil is now labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the tories aren't scared of it though.


 
...and it isn't any better and if it was it's not worth throwing away the opp to damage the coalition so the lib-lefts long held dream can come a (false) step closer.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> name me even 1 Tory MP who is in favour?


 
The Tory MP who signed Caroline Lucas' amendment to place PR and other voting methods on the bill. The PR amendment that not a single lib-dem voted for.

The tories don't want AV, they're not in the slightest bit scared of it though. The immediate reason Louis outlined above - the lib-dms and the tories will be scratching each others back as regards 2nd prefs if AV is passed.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well if you are right - yes we're fucked!  But I think there's every chance that the campaign will extend out to become pretty much everyone who isn't either a paid up member of the Tories or the tribal Labour old guard - and will have a lot of people and organisations who are identified with political opposition to the coalition.  That's what I'm working on anyway!!!


fine - but every single time someone canvasses for a 'yes' in the referendum, and people remember them with those yellow rosettes on from a coupla years back - that's votes haemorrhaged


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Easy to say now.  But the logic of lesser evilism will creep back in.   AV would allow people to show they were politically opposed to the LDs - by giving someone else a 1st pref - but then casting an effective anti-Tory vote whilst making clear that's what it was.  Otherwise you are just saying that the left will stay at home and the Tories will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of walkovers in whole swaths of the south.


but who would the anti-tory vote be for? Monster Raving Loony? Their coalition partners, the LDs? WHO?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Don't overestimate the support that Clegg has even within his own voting base.


 

you mean the support yougov reckons is now down to 11%?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but who would the anti-tory vote be for? Monster Raving Loony? Their coalition partners, the LDs? WHO?


 It would be for a party that is actually anti-Tory rather than for one that joins up with the Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but who would the anti-tory vote be for? Monster Raving Loony? Their coalition partners, the LDs? WHO?


 
An anti-tory lib-dem vote of course! After the anti-lib-dem vote in the first preference. It's madness, and appears to be based on a refusal to face up to what has changed since may.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The Tory MP who signed Caroline Lucas' amendment to place PR and other voting methods on the bill. The PR amendment that not a single lib-dem voted for.
> 
> The tories don't want AV, they're not in the slightest bit scared of it though. The immediate reason Louis outlined above - the lib-dms and the tories will be scratching each others back as regards 2nd prefs if AV is passed.


No, Carswell et al have been given free reign to bang a drum for PR in order to split the pro-AV forces.  He doesn't want AV and calls the ERS "Knaves and charlatans" for campaigning for it.  The majority of the Tories (bar possibly the ultra-Cameronites like Boles who might be up for some preference swapping) hate AV because they resent having to work in coaltion.  Cameron's own weak position in the party means he has to say he hates AV even if he's not too bothered or even quite likes it personally.

You are missing the distinction between where Clegg and company are, and the frankly very uneven and politically disparate base of LD voters.  FPTP means that insofar as any opposition exists to the Tories in many (partic rural) areas, it is LD because Labour basically now runs a ghost operation in those areas.  LDs will start to face both ways again as the election approaches - and won't rule out going into coalition with Labour is my prediction.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> An anti-tory lib-dem vote of course! After the anti-lib-dem vote in the first preference. It's madness, and appears to be based on a refusal to face up to what has changed since may.


thank god you said it's madness, the logic twists on this thread are making me chainchomp nurofen


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

They _are_ knaves and charlatans for campaign for AV (and effectively against PR) - he's perfectly correct. And hating AV is not the same as fearing it - which was your claim.

And as i said earlier, i think you're underestimating the political sense of the electorate in those areas and their anger and sense of betrayal. Those votes are gone, even if they try and put on a left face - people can't be manipulated like that. That sort of pathetic attempt will only further drive people away from them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> thank god you said it's madness, the logic twists on this thread are making me chainchomp nurofen


 
Too many people wanting their cake and to eat it too...


----------



## Santino (Nov 3, 2010)

No, no, I can see the sense. "I'll put Lib Dems first, in the knowledge that they are willing to go into government with the Tories, but I won't give the Tories my second preference, thus turning my vote into an anti-Tory vote."


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but who would the anti-tory vote be for? Monster Raving Loony? Their coalition partners, the LDs? WHO?



And under AV, wouldn't a vote for a party such as the MRL have much less effect than one under FPTP?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

Quartz said:


> And under AV, wouldn't a vote for a party such as the MRL have much less effect than one under FPTP?


 
No.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2010)

kabbes said:


> It would be for a party that is actually anti-Tory rather than for one that joins up with the Tories.


 
such as?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

Santino said:


> No, no, I can see the sense. "I'll put Lib Dems first, in the knowledge that they are willing to go into government with the Tories, but I won't give the Tories my second preference, thus turning my vote into an anti-Tory vote."


aarghh! you're making it worse! ohh my head....


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Too many people wanting their cake and to eat it too...


god almighty do they ever! it's bloody _Pangloss_ land..


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> such as?


 
The list would go like this:

Tories
Liberal Democrats
Labour -- ??
Greens


And so on.  It's up to you at that point.  You'll work it out.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Did anyone go to this?

Electoral Reform: purple revolution or middle-class obsession?



> Those advocating electoral reform have made much of the need to end ‘tribal’ voting habits, and of the benefits of coalition government. But does this call not reflect a distrust of both apparently irrational voters and strong government? Has the demand for electoral reform, once about the popular struggle of the masses demanding enfranchisement, been turned into a struggle against the people?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Ha that's true enough.  But given that the YES campaign hasn't even started to go public yet it's not very indicative of anything much, apart from maybe that the NOs are peaking too early.


you still haven't given a convincing way round your biggest problem; for decades, the party most identified with electoral reform is the LDs, and come the vote the single biggest and most visible campaigning force will be the LibDems. except now - anything they campaign for is tarnished by association, as far as the mind of anyone with even vaguely left-leaning sympathies goes (and it's safe to say AV/PR/ER gets the vast majority of its' innate suport from that quarter - tories, by definition, suport the status quo). they're damaged goods. More, they'll damage _your_ goods.
Catch 22


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

If he can't win round people on here they've no chance out in the wider world.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If he can't win round people on here they've no chance out in the wider world.


 
ha I don't think this little corner of the tinterweb is representative of very much - the election result hardly reflected the balance of opinion on here.

The point about the referendum is that is will help to determine the shape of electoral politics for the next few decades at least - not unreasonably the Tories want to keep the system that saw them dominate government in the last century.  Is it really worth giving them what they want just so you get to disappoint a few Lib Dems along the way?   You think it will fuck up the coalition?  It won't.  Nick Boles is right - if AV goes down then the LDs are with the Tories for the long haul.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did anyone go to this?


 
no.  Spiked contrarian bullshit versus deliberately shit speakers for reform.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

If it passes they're there for ever - a majoritarian system that rewards the centre. Great. Talk about giving the neo-liberals exactly what want.

If you can't even win over left-wing supporters of electoral reform you are fucked. I think you know this, hence the repetitive desperation in the _you love tories_ stuff you keep falling back on - whilst ignoring the benefits it'll provide to the same neo-liberal extremists on your side of the fence. You seem to not only be operating on outdated maps but have floated free from all political reality, insisting that black is white and so on. You're massively out of touch here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> no.  Spiked contrarian bullshit versus deliberately shit speakers for reform.


 
Your mates turned up though to do their spiel. Still, a very apt title for the event.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> ha I don't think this little corner of the tinterweb is representative of very much - the election result hardly reflected the balance of opinion on here.
> 
> The point about the referendum is that is will help to determine the shape of electoral politics for the next few decades at least - not unreasonably the Tories want to keep the system that saw them dominate government in the last century.  Is it really worth giving them what they want just so you get to disappoint a few Lib Dems along the way?   You think it will fuck up the coalition?  It won't.  Nick Boles is right - if AV goes down then the LDs are with the Tories for the long haul.


oh come off it that's practically moral fucking blackmail!
btw; I'm finding this, all of it, so headspinningly fucking convoluted - not just this thread, the whole bloody debate - that I haven't decided yet, which surprises me as I was/am a PR junkie for decades


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 3, 2010)

AV will be shit. It won't be a stepping stone to 'real' PR, it'll just bed in like FPTP and we'll have an even worse system pretending to be democractic.

Single nation constituency party lists, with seats being won every 67,000 votes. I realise this would make the idea of a local MP difficult, but I'm sure there are ways around it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

It is really quite simple - we get the choice between keeping the system that many of us have spent years complaining is shit, and get to replace it with one that offers some advantages.  Not quite what we want but something worth having if that's what we can get.  A NO vote would represent an endorsement of the current political system, and would lock in place the system that meant the 20th C was dominated by Tory governments.   We can take what's on offer and demand more.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

How is AV worse than FPTP?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Note the relentless we.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Note the relentless we.


 
Sorry, it's all the coffee I've been drinking.  Goes straight through me.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Almost 20 minutes i waited for that.


----------



## Santino (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It is really quite simple - we get the choice between keeping the system that many of us have spent years complaining is shit, and get to replace it with one that offers some advantages.  Not quite what we want but something worth having if that's what we can get.  A NO vote would represent an endorsement of the current political system, and would lock in place the system that meant the 20th C was dominated by Tory governments.   We can take what's on offer and demand more.



Is this the best you can do? 'Vote for AV or you look like you support FPTP'?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Very encouraging for the no voters.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

i was tempted but resisted heroically


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Very encouraging for the no voters.


 
You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour.  Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose.   Go figure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

Santino said:


> Is this the best you can do? 'Vote for AV or you look like you support FPTP'?


 
Same argument that twat moon23 made on the "why the Lib-Dems are shit" thread ages ago. Crappy argument then, crappy argument now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour.  Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose.   Go figure.


 
It would make no such difference - it would funnel votes to the 3 big parties. Caroline Lucas would probably not have been elected with her 31%.

Seriously, you need better arguments because these are a piece of piss to deal with.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour.  Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose.   Go figure.


 
if someone can convince me this isn't true then please do so...it'll save me a lot of wasted time and effort.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour.  Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose.   Go figure.


 
Will AV *substantially* alter the electoral dynamics with regard to the three main parties (given the dynamics of smaller parties/single-issue candidates won't change significantly, I'm not concerned at the moment about them)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It would make no such difference - it would funnel votes to the 3 big parties.


This is precisely my concern. A fractional change from FPTP to FPTP with bells on (AKA AV) doesn't appear to offer much of substance to "the average voter", while continuing to legitimate the three main parties.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It would make no such difference - it would funnel votes to the 3 big parties. Caroline Lucas would probably not have been elected with her 31%.
> 
> Seriously, you need better arguments because these are a piece of piss to deal with.


 
a) according to academic modelling the Greens would still have won Brighton Pavillion (Greens pick up preferences not only from Labour but also from Cameronite Tories and some on the left)
b) They are already "funnelled" by the tactical voting imperative under FPTP.  AV allows voters to disaggregate their true preferences.
c) OK you can say "well what difference does that make" - well it allows smaller parties to identify their local concentrations of first preference support for better local election targeting.

Or, if not very many votes disaggregate from Labour - this shows the mountain that the left really does have to climb - and blows out of the water this "oh well we knew we would be squeezed" defence.

Yes PR would be more of a gain.  But the ERS has been campaigning for that since 1884 and got precisely nowhere (for the commons at least- we have it at other level- but this is th ebig one).  We could have had AV back in the 30s but Liberal pro STVers shot it down and left us with FPTP, Thatcher majorities on 30odd percent etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour.  Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose.   Go figure.



FPTP already allows those candidates on much the same basis. Remember Richard Taylor, the Wyre Forest indie MP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> a) according to academic modelling the Greens would still have won Brighton Pavillion (Greens pick up preferences not only from Labour but also from Cameronite Tories and some on the left)
> b) They are already "funnelled" by the tactical voting imperative under FPTP.  AV allows voters to disaggregate their true preferences.


And what degree of difference do you believe that'll make?
Colour me cynical, but I can't see it making a significant difference except in an already-marginal constituency.


> c) OK you can say "well what difference does that make" - well it allows smaller parties to identify their local concentrations of first preference support for better local election targeting.


Only if said smaller parties aren't beneficiaries of "protest votes", in which case any identification for local purposes is going to be skewed.


> Or, if not very many votes disaggregate from Labour - this shows the mountain that the left really does have to climb - and blows out of the water this "oh well we knew we would be squeezed" defence.


Which is, any way you chose to look at it, a very cheap price to sell a swap from a shitty system to a slightly less shitty system for.


> Yes PR would be more of a gain.  But the ERS has been campaigning for that since 1884 and got precisely nowhere (for the commons at least- we have it at other level- but this is th ebig one).  We could have had AV back in the 30s but Liberal pro STVers shot it down and left us with FPTP, Thatcher majorities on 30odd percent etc.


If that's the case, why your claim that AV could be a "stepping stone" to PR? Surely PR, even if included in a referendum and supported by a majority of the population, would still be fought against tooth and nail in Parliament, and a way found to delay or dilute it to the liking of the political classes and their paymasters?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 3, 2010)

I think you'd have more of a case if the ref was to be on AV+, but it's not. It's regular AV, which while allowing people to _think_ their minority party vote counts, by only having single member consituencies and no wider lists, all those 'alternative' votes are wasted.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> FPTP already allows those candidates on much the same basis. Remember Richard Taylor, the Wyre Forest indie MP?


 
Yes great example.  Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:

Mark Garnier, Conservative 	18,793 	36.9%
Richard Taylor, Independent Community and Health Concern 	16,150 	31.7%
Nigel Knowles, Labour 	7,298 	14.3%
Neville Farmer, Liberal Democrat 	6,040 	11.9%
Michael Wrench, UK Independence Party 	1,498 	2.9%
Gordon Howells, British National Party 	1,120 	2.2%

Just about every Labour voter (and no doubt a fair few Lib Dems) would have preferred Richard Taylor to a Tory winning the seat.  But the anti-Tory vote split.  Under AV the indie would still be there representing that seat.

In fact AV will work particularly well for "save our local hospital" etc. candidates as they will pick up transfers from across the board.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I think you'd have more of a case if the ref was to be on AV+, but it's not. It's regular AV, which while allowing people to _think_ their minority party vote counts, by only having single member consituencies and no wider lists, all those 'alternative' votes are wasted.


 
Of course AV+ would be better still.  But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag.  If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got.   Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.


 
It should be a dead issue, what a thing to waste energy on.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Of course AV+ would be better still.  But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag.  If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got.   Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.


 
Nope, unless they got 50% straight off they'll be killed by mainstrean 2nd votes


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

yep .


----------



## Quartz (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Yes great example.  Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:


 
Equally, here in Luton South, the anti-Labour vote was split and so a Labour MP was elected. Swings and roundabouts.

I've yet to see (which means I've probably missed it) a decent explanation of why they're proposing AV - as opposed to other voting methods - anyway.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, unless they got 50% straight off they'll be killed by mainstrean 2nd votes


 
Well it depends - if you take a totally sectarian POV or go way off beam with armed workers militia you won't pick up transfers.  But if you set out a broad appeal against cuts or in defence of services whatever I don't seen any reason that left or independent candidates can't pick up transfers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Yes great example.  Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:
> 
> Mark Garnier, Conservative 	18,793 	36.9%
> Richard Taylor, Independent Community and Health Concern 	16,150 	31.7%
> ...


Whereas Taylor only, what, held it for three elections, and the Tories had to resort to Ashcroft money?


> In fact AV will work particularly well for "save our local hospital" etc. candidates as they will pick up transfers from across the board.


Or so you expect. It's all just optimistic speculation at the moment, though. What convinces you that the three main parties won't just be able to carry on business as usual, with scarcely a ripple made by the single-issue candidates?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Of course AV+ would be better still.  But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag.  If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got.   Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.


 
The same argument applies to AV being taken up, though. AV gets the nod and anything beyond AV is just as likely to become a dead issue as AV is if FPTP wins the day. You appear to be relying on a spirit of progress in your last sentence that goes directly against the inertia you talk of in your second sentence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.


 
Quite. The pols will make the occasional gesture such as a commission, a report or a committee, but that's all.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

but that ignores the dynamic in favour of likelihood of regularising prefence voting in Commons with local elections (NI and Scotland already use it at that level and with England and Wales already having multi-member districts it won't need boundary reviews to do it for locals there).  I think all it would take is one or two very obviously disproprotionate results and the need for top up lists alongside AV constituencies would come around too.

but even if it did stall there, at least we would be a small step forward rather than not stuck at first base.  I haven't heard one plausible argument here for a NO vote.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> but even if it did stall there, at least we would be a small step forward rather than not stuck at first base.  I haven't heard one plausible argument here for a NO vote.


 
What about for sitting it out? I can't see any argument against that course of action.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

well that's your perogative - if you don't think that a limited step forward is worth taking, that's your choice and I can understand it.  I just don't understand a NO.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't really uderstand a yes though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well that's your perogative - if you don't think that a limited step forward is worth taking, that's your choice and I can understand it.  *I just don't understand a NO*.



I do, if it's bundled inseparably together with blatantly pro Tory gerrymandering of boundaries and constituency numbers, as appears to be the case?

I've missed a fair bit of this thread of late so apols for that, but I don't think any sensible discussion of the AV referendum (as currently planned??  ) can happen without acknowledging what pig you're likely to end up buying in the AV poke.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2010)

now that's a different question altogether.  I oppose the boundary changes and would have voted against the bill as it stood too.  But those changes will be in law and a NO vote won't change them.  In fact the Tories think they've played a blinder by getting the LDs to support that bit, but the AV won't go through.

A No vote doesn't please anyone other than those who benefit from the usual lash-up


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself as you argue for exactly what the neo-liberals who are part of the old lash-up want. Why do you think you've failed so signally to win over a single person on here, on what should be fertile ground? I reckon your arrogant insistence that there are no valid doubts about what the result of AV will be, your casting doubts on others motivations and your desire to impose your own interests on that of the wider electorate whilst pretending that_ it's good healthy medicine now shut up and eat it_ might have something to do with it. And, as i've commented more than a few times now, it bodes well for the no vote that the ERS approachlooks like being be so ham-fistedly counter-productive and short-sightedly haughty. Crack on.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> now that's a different question altogether.  I oppose the boundary changes and would have voted against the bill as it stood too.  But those changes will be in law and a NO vote won't change them.  In fact the Tories think they've played a blinder by getting the LDs to support that bit, but the AV won't go through.
> 
> A No vote doesn't please anyone other than those who benefit from the usual lash-up



Just saying that last sentence doesn't make it true; there is ample evidence on this thread and in AV projections available on the web that the AV system could benefit 'the usual lash up'. 

Also as an attempt to smear those opposing AV, repeating the 'you support the status quo' fib doesn't do you any favours; if you're willing to lie so blatanly and consistently in this instance, why should anybody trust what what else you have to say (even when you have a good point to make you'll be seen to have form)?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 4, 2010)

The whole point of AV is to allow people to make a gesture in favour of their ideal politics, while casting a vote for a major party to keep out the major party they dislike even more. It will squeeze small parties, if it doesn't then it makes no sense.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

case in point - Unite GS election.     Under FPTP Hicks could take enough votes off Mcluskey to help Bayliss win under FPTP, even though just about every Hicks voter would prefer McCluskey to Bayliss.  Or - as hopefully will happen - people will vote for McCluskey to stop Bayliss even if they actually like what Hicks is saying.  Hence true support for Hicks may be higher in reality than it appears to be when filtered through the distortions of the electoral system.  

AV allows people the freedom to vote where their heart lies, but safe in the knowledge that doesn't mean sacrificing their ability to influence the outcome.  That would help the left get their real levels of support on the map, and help them target more effectively at local elections.  

Yes AV wouldn't do everything that people are looking for in electoral reform, I freely admit that.  But it's a step worth taking over against sticking with FPTP.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2010)

Can you point to any country where AV has contributed to more radical parties coming through?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

It's hardly in use - in Australia it hasn't stopped the Greens breakthing through to some degree recently.  But I'm not saying it would lead to an immediate breakthrough.  It wouldn't.  But it would at least stop the left vote getting squeezed well beyond its true level of support and stop the disinentive for left candidates to even stand ("you're helping the Tories/LDs by taking Labour votes").


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> if someone can convince me this isn't true then please do so...it'll save me a lot of wasted time and effort.


For every one second/third pref picked up by the greens/sp/TUSC?monster Raving loony/single-issue independent/whatever, three will go, one way or another to the big three. two of those big three ARE the Coaliton.
Therefore a) this reform will make f-all difference - it's _worse_ than no change becuase it nails the current system in place ever more firmly by giving it an electoral paintjob, and b) it would play into the hands of the Coalition.
Simples! (ok, sorry for using that irritating phrase......)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> but that ignores the dynamic in favour of likelihood of regularising prefence voting in Commons with local elections (NI and Scotland already use it at that level and with England and Wales already having multi-member districts it won't need boundary reviews to do it for locals there).  I think all it would take is one or two very obviously disproprotionate results and the need for top up lists alongside AV constituencies would come around too.
> 
> but even if it did stall there, at least we would be a small step forward rather than not stuck at first base.  I haven't heard one plausible argument here for a NO vote.


 
I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier.
Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to eat the shit sandwich when it's offered to you.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> but that ignores the dynamic in favour of likelihood of regularising prefence voting in Commons with local elections (NI and Scotland already use it at that level and with England and Wales already having multi-member districts it won't need boundary reviews to do it for locals there).  I think all it would take is one or two very obviously disproprotionate results and the need for top up lists alongside AV constituencies would come around too.


aren't you ignoring the fact that formal constitutional/electoral change happens in the UK at the pace of an extremely lethargic tortoise? on past form, If we get AV now, they'll still be fidgeting over whether to introduce AV+ in 10 years time.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

*AV is FPTP* - the post being 50% and you only get to that 50% by squeezing anything non-mainstream. It's a surefire guarantee that the big three will continue to dominate and block off examples likes the Greens winning in Brighton on 31%. In that sense, it's a step backwards. (In the sense of if you think how the state and capital organises its legitimacy is really the burning issue of the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> aren't you ignoring the fact that formal constitutional/electoral change happens in the UK at the pace of an extremely lethargic tortoise? on past form, If we get AV now, they'll still be fidgeting over whether to introduce AV+ in 10 years time.


 
They won't. This is it for the next century.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *AV is FPTP* - the post being 50% and you only get to that 50% by squeezing anything non-mainstream. It's a surefire guarantee that the big three will continue to dominate and block off examples likes the Greens winning in Brighton on 31%. In that sense, it's a step backwards. (In the sense of if you think how the state and capital organises its legitimacy is really the burning issue of the day.


 
yep.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They won't. This is it for the next century.


SHit, sorry, typo!! MEANT 100, sticxky PC keys! @ self


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well that's your perogative - if you don't think that a limited step forward is worth taking, that's your choice and I can understand it.  I just don't understand a NO.


 
People may, for whatever reason, be wedded to the idea that they *have* to use their vote, to make a point, or a difference, or to make a stand on an issue, in which case a "no" vote is as understandable as a "yes" vote: It's a manifestation of "the right to vote", combined with their own appreciation of the arguments and their implications.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't really uderstand a yes though.



The "yes" argument appears to be broadly divided between "yes, because it's change", and the slightly more nuanced "yes, because AV is a transitional phase on the road to PR".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University and an electoral specialist, argues today that AV would benefit the tories and lib-dems and punish labour and so the tories might well think about dropping their opposition. For me that's not a reason to oppose it in itself - however, for those arguing it will produce an anti-tory majority it should make them question at least two of their founding assumptions.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Might see some Tories getting on side with this if they think that an agreement with the Lib Dems to push a 'vote coalition partners 1 and 2' line will secure their future and squeeze Labour.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice





articul8 said:


> I haven't seen a single one make that case yet.  Largely because they are aware that LD voters are generally to the left of the LD leadership and wouldn't go along with it in too many areas,



Yeah, it's most unlikely.

Tories and Lib Dems discuss bold election pact



> The conservatives are considering an informal pact with the LibDems under which they would urge people to make Nick Clegg's party their second choice at the next general election.



This surely puts yet another serious question mark about the arguments you've put forward for AV. The logic you've used thus far would now lead to opposition to AV.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

who is putting this idea of an informal pact under AV forward?  The Tories (who are opposing AV).  Why are they going public with this stuff now?  because they fear the effects of Labour joining up with the pro-AV campaign and actually delivering it.  Neither side of the coalition can really do this - although Clegg and Cameron would be no doubt quite happy with it - but there is no way that Clegg will get people like Kennedy and Hughes to agree to calling on LDs to vote Tory 2nd.  And in without the LDs arguing that way, the Cameron couldn't get the Tories doing it the other way.

Re Curtice, his analysis shows what would happen *if* LD voters in areas where they have historically constituted the main opposition to the Tories and whose vote last time depended on a fair chunk of anti-Tory tactical voters had done a 180 degree turn as a result of the coalition.  Labour's problem, ironically, is that under FPTP these people have no chance of casting an effective vote (ie one which could influence the outcome) if they choose to express political opposition to the turn the LDs have made.  Curtice is a psephologist not a political strategist. 

BTW - speaking of expertise are you aware of any reputable democracy sector organisation that is calling for a NO vote?  ERS, Unlock Democracy, OpenDemocracy, Rowntree Reform Trust, Power 2010, Democratic Audit...  all YES.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

democracy sector organisation? lol


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yep.


 
do you have *any* thoughts of your own or do you just get your poms poms out to cheerlead others?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> do you have *any* thoughts of your own or do you just get your poms poms out to cheerlead others?


sexist - _toi_?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

what is sexist about it - pom poms are what cheerleaders (of either sex?!) use.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> BTW - speaking of expertise are you aware of any reputable democracy sector organisation that is calling for a NO vote?  ERS, Unlock Democracy, OpenDemocracy, Rowntree Reform Trust, Power 2010, Democratic Audit...  all YES.


so what? are we all just meant to tug our forelocks and sign up because a few think tanks are? I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, thank you.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier.
> Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to eat the shit sandwich when it's offered to you.


 
Still the same shit analogy - needs rephrasing
If you've been made to eat shit sandwiches for years, you don't need to be persuaded that the meal on offer is a delicious banquet to think it's a good idea to switch, just that it contains much less shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> do you have *any* thoughts of your own or do you just get your poms poms out to cheerlead others?


 
i dont really have any thoughts of my own, nah.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> what is sexist about it - pom poms are what cheerleaders (of either sex?!) use.


er yeah, there's so many male cheerleaders out there.....


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so what? are we all just meant to tug our forelocks and sign up because a few think tanks are? I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, thank you.


 
of course and rightly so.  I was merely pointing out that practically all of the organisations who have members committed to democratic reform all think that AV is a step worth taking.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *AV is FPTP* - the post being 50% and you only get to that 50% by squeezing anything non-mainstream. It's a surefire guarantee that the big three will continue to dominate and block off examples likes the Greens winning in Brighton on 31%. In that sense, it's a step backwards. (In the sense of if you think how the state and capital organises its legitimacy is really the burning issue of the day.



A) Brighton Pavillion (according to modelling) would still have gone Green under AV in 2010

How the state and capital engineers its hegemony is very much the issue of the day.  Of course this is only one aspect of it.  But it's not a negligible one.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Notice no-one has taken it on themselves to explain how AV wouldn't help the left in the UNITE GS election.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Notice no-one has taken it on themselves to explain how AV wouldn't help the left in the UNITE GS election.



You really are fucking stupid aren't you? This illustration actually helps the anti AV position.

The left would be able to cast a symbolic vote for Hick's, but  a real vote for McClusky to keep Bayliss out. McClusky wins the same as he will under fptp.

The left would be able to cast a symbolic vote for the SP and a real vote for Labour to keep the Tories out. Result. Labour get in. which is different in what way?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> who is putting this idea of an informal pact under AV forward?  The Tories (who are opposing AV).  Why are they going public with this stuff now?  because they fear the effects of Labour joining up with the pro-AV campaign and actually delivering it.  Neither side of the coalition can really do this - although Clegg and Cameron would be no doubt quite happy with it - but there is no way that Clegg will get people like Kennedy and Hughes to agree to calling on LDs to vote Tory 2nd.  And in without the LDs arguing that way, the Cameron couldn't get the Tories doing it the other way.



Er... yes, the tories - it doesn't matter why they're doing it. You can speculate that they're fearful of a lab getting behind AV if you like. I don't think they're in the slightest bit scared of AV at all - most models have shown they're going to quite well out of it (undermining the logic of _one_ of your arguments - i say _one_ because you've thrown so many, often contradictory or incoherent ones at us). I think it's far more likely that this being put out into the open right now is a simple recognition that the tories and the lib-dems no longer have any choice in an AV election but to to hang together or be hung separately. To refuse to endorse your coalition partner of 5 years, to refuse to endorse the party you've joined together to attack the poorest with, to refuse to endorse the party whose policies are substantially your own is to invite ridicule and attack and to effectively refuse to endorse yourself and your own party. That's what all this is about. 

We all heard the same arguments before the coalition btw - Kenendy, Hughes, Ashdown etc would never ever countenance a coalition with the tories, if it happened there's be mass dissent - MPs crossing the floor and so on. Never happened. And it won't happen when the reality of the situation  -that they must endorse each other if they are to retain any credibility - becomes formalised. You can't see this because you're living in a fantasy world that still sees the lib-dems as somehow on the left and retaining a substantial left wing vote. They're not and they don't. Really, you need to catch up with reality.



> Re Curtice, his analysis shows what would happen *if* LD voters in areas where they have historically constituted the main opposition to the Tories and whose vote last time depended on a fair chunk of anti-Tory tactical voters had done a 180 degree turn as a result of the coalition.  Labour's problem, ironically, is that under FPTP these people have no chance of casting an effective vote (ie one which could influence the outcome) if they choose to express political opposition to the turn the LDs have made.  Curtice is a psephologist not a political strategist.



Yes, his analysis shows what would would happen if what looks pretty likely to happen does happen. That's a strength of his analysis not a weakness. You're confusing an anti-tory vote with a pro-lib-dem vote here. An anti-tory vote is now not going to be a lib-dem vote - a lib-dem vote is now seen as a pro-tory vote. This, like the above, is where you need to get up-to-date. You're going to see the seats in the south-west where the lib-dems were fist or second have large falls in the lib-dem vote no matter what system. And no, the lib-dems trying to look left-wing for 18 months isn't going to fool anyone.



> BTW - speaking of expertise are you aware of any reputable democracy sector organisation that is calling for a NO vote?  ERS, Unlock Democracy, OpenDemocracy, Rowntree Reform Trust, Power 2010, Democratic Audit...  all YES.



Not bothering to reply to this in any detail beyond saying that i'm not surprised that a group of professionally and personally  inter-locked lib-dem and soft-left types (the constitutionally obsessed  - it's never economics with them) support something that they can pretend is their own long held dream - despite it actually selling out their formal objective, despite it being a 'miserable compromise'. As for your 'reputable'...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A) Brighton Pavillion (according to modelling) would still have gone Green under AV in 2010
> 
> How the state and capital engineers its hegemony is very much the issue of the day.  Of course this is only one aspect of it.  But it's not a negligible one.


 
Which modelling?

How you can _undermine_ it is the order of the day - not how you can bloody help it!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

@ Spanky.  Jesus wept.  Under FPTP the size of Hicks's vote *could* be the key factor that hands the job to Bayliss.   Under AV this couldn't happen unless his voters really had no prefence over who won.

Same with a GE - in a hypothetical scenario that the SP or TUSC or whatever did quite well and drew lots of votes from Labour this *could* be the difference between the seat being won by a coalition partner and it being won by Labour.  If you think there is no difference between those outcomes I think you're way out of touch.  Under Labour votes could vote for you to indicate they aren't happy with Labour buying into the cuts agenda, but still switch to stop someone worse.   Of course in reality under FPTP most voters will conclude the left has no chance and stick with Labour.  Which helps you how exactly?

Yes AV isn't the best system possible and will need reforming in its turn.   But the idea it is an anti-left system in these circumstances is plain wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

You've just shown that AV funnels votes to the centre and to the established candidates with that argument. Cheers.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Which modelling?



Modelling by Prof David Sanders - the most sophisticated of its type I've so far seen.  Don't have a link - but will see if I can find it.

It's not so surprising though - Greens would have picked up preferences from both Labour and Cons (younger, vote blue go green ones).  Greens less likely to transfer to Con, and Lab not getting Con transfers)

How you can _undermine_ it is the order of the day - not how you can bloody help it![/QUOTE]

Of course!!  But part of undermining it is making space for smaller parties of the left acting as a pull/counterweight to the narrow media discourse set by the big 3.  If you have a plausible strategy for doing this under FPTP, when the evidence of the last 100+ years suggests it won't happen, please do share.  Or don't you think it desirable.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've just shown that AV funnels votes to the centre and to the established candidates with that argument. Cheers.


 
But currently under FPTP votes are *already funneling* to those candidates (tactically) OR else part of an unnecessary *split* in the left votes that potentially benefits the right.
AV allows for a proper disaggregation of preferences allowing the real extent of left support to emerge without it harming the lesser evil candidate.  This is a tactical advantage from where we are now (left barely on the map) - if the left is regularly getting 30%+ of the vote without winning seats at the very least there's going to be a hell of a lot of pressure for reform if not more than that.  But we aren't at that stage.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Modelling by Prof David Sanders - the most sophisticated of its type I've so far seen.  Don't have a link - but will see if I can find it.
> 
> It's not so surprising though - Greens would have picked up preferences from both Labour and Cons (younger, vote blue go green ones).  Greens less likely to transfer to Con, and Lab not getting Con transfers)
> 
> How you can _undermine_ it is the order of the day - not how you can bloody help it!


 


> Of course!!  But part of undermining it is making space for smaller parties of the left acting as a pull/counterweight to the narrow media discourse set by the big 3.  If you have a plausible strategy for doing this under FPTP, when the evidence of the last 100+ years suggests it won't happen, please do share.  Or don't you think it desirable.


 
That's not undermining it - that's seeking to put it on a modernised footing - whilst not actually doing the stuff that you claim for it. And what's more, it back to the cart before the horse position of earlier in the thread, the constitutionally obsessed position that focuses politics exclusively on the electoral system. BTW the evidence of the last 50 years has shown that AV (or other electoral systems) doesn't in any way do what you suggest needs to be done - the mainstream parties have easily managed to maintain their dominance and that of the interests they represent. Any challenges to them have come from the economic struggles outside of those systems. The electoral system isn't the question. It's the shadow of the question.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> But currently under FPTP votes are *already funneling* to those candidates (tactically) OR else part of an unnecessary *split* in the left votes that potentially benefits the right.
> AV allows for a proper disaggregation of preferences allowing the real extent of left support to emerge without it harming the lesser evil candidate.  This is a tactical advantage from where we are now (left barely on the map) - if the left is regularly getting 30%+ of the vote without winning seats at the very least there's going to be a hell of a lot of pressure for reform if not more than that.  But we aren't at that stage.



Well other shit aspects of FPTP do you want to incorporate into AV (which still is FPTP anyway)? Saying that system you're attacking does something shit so the system you're proposing should do it too is not much of an argument.

Your adoption of lesser evilism (a lesser evilism that still bizarrely places ther lib-dems on 'our' side) is a total admittance that AV _will_ produce results which favour the established parties. And i think you have it wrong on your last point - those established parties will get the first votes not the second.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm finding this thread depressing because I've for so long wanted to see _real_ reform, _real _ PR - and yet, every word i'm reading here is driving me to voting 'no'. 
Thank you very fucking much for bottling this, libdems, you fucking wimps!


----------



## kabbes (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm undecided.

I think I'll give my first choice to "no" and my second choice to "yes".


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Well other shit aspects of FPTP do you want to incorporate into AV (which still is FPTP anyway)? Saying that system you're attacking does something shit so the system you're proposing should do it too is not much of an argument.



I've been quite clear from the beginning that AV is not the best system.  But it is the better system, because the "split" element of FPTP needn't kick in, while the "funnel" element is delayed until the 2nd round leaving the possibility for disaggregation in the first.



> Your adoption of lesser evilism (a lesser evilism that still bizarrely places ther lib-dems on 'our' side) is a total admittance that AV _will_ produce results which favour the established parties. And i think you have it wrong on your last point - those established parties will get the first votes not the second.


 
I'm not "adopting" lesser evilism, I'm starting by acknowledging the reality that it exists and acts as a constrain on the size of the left vote.    The worse case scenario is that disaggregation of 1st prefs is v limited, but then at least we'd know the reality of how little support the left actually has, rather than the current tendency to explain it away "we had loads of support on the doorstep but people wouldn't vote for us" etc.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I'm finding this thread depressing because I've for so long wanted to see _real_ reform, _real _ PR - and yet, every word i'm reading here is driving me to voting 'no'.
> Thank you very fucking much for bottling this, libdems, you fucking wimps!


 
If it helps (and partly to annoy Butchers) a reminder of who is campainging against it.  

Tory Party 
Tax Payers Alliance
Young Britons Foundation
Boris JOhnson's PR guy
BNP
John Prescott 
Respect in Manchester
A small faction of green unable to persuade their own members
a few odds and sods like anarchists


----------



## kabbes (Nov 4, 2010)

And in the interests of balance -- who is campaigning _for_ it?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> oesn't in any way do what you suggest needs to be done - the mainstream parties have easily managed to maintain their dominance and that of the interests they represent. Any challenges to them have come from the economic struggles outside of those systems. The electoral system isn't the question. It's the shadow of the question.


 
It's not either struggle over economic demands or political struggle - they are both necessary.  How does capitalism sustain itself?  By reproducing its hegemony at the level of consciousness.  Of course there are many facets to this, and electoral politics is only one constituent part.  But it helps to mediate the way political ideas are represented as legitimate.  Getting socialist ideas into the mainstream discourse without accommodating to the limits of parliamentary democracy is important - we can argue about whether AV is productive or counter-productive tactic.

But you are going further, and saying even the best possible PR electoral system would in itself be to legitimise electoral politics and therefore is politically suspect.  I don't think many would agree with you there,


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2010)

...and for it, Nick Clegg. If you want to play such a stupid game.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

kabbes said:


> And in the interests of balance -- who is campaigning _for_ it?


 
The "Yes" camp is an obvious LD front consisting as it does of

the democracy orgs
Compass
Billy Hayes
John McDonnell
Green Party
Greenpeace
(likelihood of) PCS
Large parts of Labour
...etc


----------



## kabbes (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The "Yes" camp is an obvious LD front consisting as it does of
> 
> the democracy orgs
> Compass
> ...


 
Greenpeace?  To be fair, what the fuck has it got to do with them?

To be honest, your "yes" list is hardly more inspiring than your "no" list, even if I happen to be more politically aligned with more of them.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

who would you find inspiring out of interest?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> If it helps (and partly to annoy Butchers) a reminder of who is campainging against it.
> 
> Tory Party
> Tax Payers Alliance
> ...


Oh ffs that really is utterly shit debating! 
who is campaigning for/against is *completely fucking irrelevant* - all that matters to me is what I think of the idea itself.
You really are not doing a good job of selling this  to me.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and  *want it now*.  Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and  *want it now*.  Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.


there's no small step forward. It's a fob off that preserves the same old system, the same old party hegemony, and preserves it ever stronger becuase it can be spun as 'progress'. 
The ONLY way top do this is the whole shebang


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and  *want it now*.  Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.



All you have done is continue to assert that this is a small step forward without providing any evidence for that.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

AV was on the table in the early 1930s - the Liberals blocked it in the Lords in the name of full PR.  Result - another 80 years of FPTP and 2 or 3 party hegemony.  And no PR.  

So let's not make the same mistake again, eh?  Have this, and then come back for more.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> AV was on the table in the early 1930s - the Liberals blocked it in the Lords in the name of full PR.  Result - another 80 years of FPTP and 2 or 3 party hegemony.  And no PR.
> 
> So let's not make the same mistake again, eh?  Have this, and then come back for more.


but this WOULD block real PR for 'another 80 years', given the tortuously slow pace of political reform in the UK. You've produced nothing, as spanky said, to show this as a real step forward


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> All you have done is continue to assert that this is a small step forward without providing any evidence for that.


 
none so blind as those that won't see - it stops the broader anti-coalition vote from being needlessly split, and delays the effect of funneling which otherwises squeezes left votes altogether due to tactical voting.  Yes only a step forward in the sense that it wouldn't directly improve left represenation.  But it stops the Tories from benefitting if lefts take votes from Labour, and stops Labour using that as a stick to minimise the left vote.

My UNITE example shows this - Hicks is already getting his vote squeezed, but insofar as he does claim votes, he could help the very right wing Bayliss by taking votes of Mccluskey (who the SP are backing).  Under AV Hicks could campaign in good faith without any danger of splitting the left.   AV would avoid the split between UUL and Bannister handing Prentis an easy win in UNISON too...  

I really don't see why this isn't screamingly bloody obvious.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but this WOULD block real PR for 'another 80 years', given the tortuously slow pace of political reform in the UK. You've produced nothing, as spanky said, to show this as a real step forward


 
depends - reform in Scotland led in short order to reform of voting system for Scottish local councils.  Don't see why the same wouldn't apply - if you vote 1,2,3 in generals why not in locals too - and the multi-member seats mean you'd have STV.  I think AV+ would be back on the agenda within a decade too


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> depends - reform in Scotland led in short order to reform of voting system for Scottish local councils.  Don't see why the same wouldn't apply - if you vote 1,2,3 in generals why not in locals too - and the multi-member seats mean you'd have STV.  I think AV+ would be back on the agenda within a decade too


becuase the political system of the whole Uk effectively = westminster, and that's where the problem lies. Labour, for various reasons, were happy to let the scots go and do their own thing. changing the sytem for the whole UK to full PR is a far, far harder task


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Still the same shit analogy - needs rephrasing
> If you've been made to eat shit sandwiches for years, you don't need to be persuaded that the meal on offer is a delicious banquet to think it's a good idea to switch, just that it contains much less shit.


 
Except that, for all your caviling, your insistence that AV represents a better deal than FPTP and your pooh-poohing (pardon the pun) of opposing points, you haven't actually substantiated your claim that AV contains "much less shit".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so what? are we all just meant to tug our forelocks and sign up because a few think tanks are? I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, thank you.


 
Some of us don't have forelocks to tug, 'cos of the Rabbi!


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I really don't see why this isn't screamingly bloody obvious.



People often say this on here and it usually means something other than they think it means.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

deal with the points at #408 then.  why doesn't that argument stand?


----------



## love detective (Nov 4, 2010)

are you being paid to campaign for a yes vote articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 4, 2010)

not on here!!!  Like it will be won on u75. ...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Nov 4, 2010)

Same shit, different name.


----------



## love detective (Nov 4, 2010)

articul8 said:


> not on here!!!  Like it will be won on u75. ...


 
but you are being paid to campaign for a yes vote?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 5, 2010)

would that make the arguments @ #408 any less valid?


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2010)

Did you threaten to over-rule him?


----------



## love detective (Nov 5, 2010)

articul8 said:


> would that make the arguments @ #408 any less valid?


 
that's not the question i asked though

It was a simple question - are you being paid to campaign for a Yes vote?

If you are - It's not up to you to decide on behalf of others whether that makes any difference to the arguments you are putting forward - give people all the information in an open & honest manner and let them decide that for themselves (instead of sidetracking the question into whether or not it makes a difference - if it doesn't make a difference for example why the reluctance in answering the simple question posed?)


----------



## articul8 (Nov 5, 2010)

No reluctance whatsoever - I am employed by the Electoral Reform Society which is campaigning for a YES vote.  But if I didn't agree with that position I wouldn't work there.


----------



## love detective (Nov 5, 2010)

> No reluctance whatsoever



well only on the third time of asking did I get an actual answer


----------



## love detective (Nov 5, 2010)

> if I didn't agree with that position I wouldn't work there



I don't agree with anything that any of the companies I ever work for do

turning wage-labour into some kind of moral endevour isn't really that endearing


----------



## kabbes (Nov 9, 2010)

I disagree with my company so much that I secretly work against them.  Bwahahaha!


----------



## Santino (Nov 9, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I disagree with my company so much that I secretly work against them.  Bwahahaha!


 
By making them so profitable that you hasten the inevitable revolution of the proletariat?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> By making them so profitable that you hasten the inevitable revolution of the proletariat?


 
Shush.  Let me have my dreams.


----------



## Random (Nov 9, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I am employed by the Electoral Reform Society which is campaigning for a YES vote.


 Bloody hell. No wonder you keep on blowing the importance of electoral reform out of proportion.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 9, 2010)

articul8 said:


> delays the effect of funneling which otherwises squeezes left votes altogether due to tactical voting.


how on earth would it 'delay the effect' of funnelling, and how could/would this alter results in a GE? I'm really baffled by your logic here


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

The funnel is already in place under FPTP - people have to think "do I vote for the party i most agree with" (even if they stand no realistic chance of winning my seat) or do I vote for the least bad one who has a chance of winning and keeping out worse ones.  
So the votes of small parties get squeezed as people think they have eg. to vote Labour to try keep out the Tories.

OK, the element of funneling (as votes transfer) kicks in only after small parties are eliminated under AV.  But at least it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
In some areas it probably would have made a difference to the outcome in individual seats (eg the Independent hospital guy in Wyre Forest) who would have benefitted from transfers from Labour and LdS to keep out the Tory.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 10, 2010)

OK, articul8 -- you are a fan of proper PR, I believe, and you are part of the society for electoral reform.

So let me ask you -- if this AV vote gets a "yes", how long, sensibly, can you really expect for any kind of movement for a change to true PR to get off the ground?  If we change to AV, there will have to be a decent test-run of it.  That has to be a few general elections at least.  Surely at _least_ ten years before anybody can even _begin_ to talk about another change.  Probably 20 years is more realistic.  Either way, it's definitely off the agenda for a good, long while.

Doesn't seem like a great timescale to me.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

It's not a great timescale.  But AV was on the table in 1931 - and it got blocked by liberals who said know we don't want this we want PR.  And yet the result was not PR but 80 more years of FPTP.

Yes I think AV would be in for 10 years or so before PR came back onto the agenda.  But if there is a NO vote to AV I think the whole topic of electoral reform will be kicked out into the long grass for decades to come.

Neither is ideal - but we are where we are. No point simply saying we should be somewhere else.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 10, 2010)

To be fair, unless you think that World War 3 is just around the corner, I don't think you can really compare the situation now with 1931.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

love detective said:


> It was a simple question - are you being paid to campaign for a Yes vote?


ahhh...thanx for spotting that LD! 
articul8....really NOT cricket to have kept that one under your hat.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> OK, the element of funneling (as votes transfer) kicks in only after small parties are eliminated under AV.  But at least it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
> .


No that WOULDN'T be clear. You get 'X' only in a ballot, not 'X' plus a 2 page A4 explanation of why you've cast your votes in a particular way. That's how ballots _work_.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The funnel is already in place under FPTP - people have to think "do I vote for the party i most agree with" (even if they stand no realistic chance of winning my seat) or do I vote for the least bad one who has a chance of winning and keeping out worse ones.
> So the votes of small parties get squeezed as people think they have eg. to vote Labour to try keep out the Tories.


one HUGe problem with this argument, right now: the Libdems argument to vote for them "cos our candidate is the only way to keep out the tories/labour' is right now blown into a thousand tiny pieces. Not a single voter *won't* think "If I vote for you I'm getting the tories anyway". The libdems were the single biggest proponents of that type of tactical voting. Now that line will only work in the Celtic fringes


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> You get 'X' only in a ballot.


  the whole point is that how ISN'T how AV ballots work.  You can see exactly how votes transfer and which votes are 1st preferences and which only transfer across at later stages.

In terms of your second point, even if you're right how isn't it an advatange to prevent anti-coalition votes from needlessly splitting (eg between Labour, Green, TUSC etc) - by allowiong votes to transfer?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> the whole point is that how ISN'T how AV ballots work.  You can see exactly how votes transfer and which votes are 1st preferences and which only transfer across at later stages.


oh that totally misses the point ffs! I never said _how many_ 'X's, simply that_ all_ you get is 'X's - ALL ballots are blunt instruments. 
You said:


> it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
> .


the point is, no balloting system alive fully relects on people's mindsets and motivations for why they are voting the way they do, as you claim there.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 10, 2010)

I think at long last I may have decided.  In May I was leaning heavily to a "yes" vote.  But I'm pretty sure now that I'm going to vote "no".


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I think at long last I may have decided.  In May I was leaning heavily to a "yes" vote.  But I'm pretty sure now that I'm going to vote "no".


so, probably, am I.but may I ask why, in your case?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 10, 2010)

Lots of little things really.  I think it will take reform off the table until I'm an old man.  I think it's just another FPTP and so not worth it in and of itself.  I think it will endorse and help stabilise the coalition, which isn't a price I want to pay for just a slightly different FPTP.  Lots of things against and pretty much nothing for except "at least it's a change, even if the change is slight."

If the change came from a government I was happy to endorse I might view things differently.  But you have to take the whole picture into account.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side.   The Tories think they've played a blinder - actually offering reform whilst tying it to a context that puts people off it.   They think we're stupid.  I hope they're wrong.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side.


HUH? That's *barking*. Nothing is more likely to destabilise the coalition than a 'no' vote - simply because their big prize from the condem deal WAS the referendum. Wer're 6 months into govt, and the length and breadth of the country is riddled with libdem MPs terrified of the longerm implications of their current polled unpopularity, and getting incredibly restive about the size and nature of the cuts. Take AV away and there's zero reason for them to stay on board other than to hope and pray the polls magically improve in the runup to the next GE, with no reason to believe they will. The _most_ likely outcome of a 'NO' vote is a) open civil war in the libdems and b) the libdems, whoever the leader is, disbanding the coalition (pretending it's on 'principle') and hook up with Labour to bring the govt down.
A 'no' vote will certainly make the coalition impossible to defend to LD conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side.   The Tories think they've played a blinder - actually offering reform whilst tying it to a context that puts people off it.   They think we're stupid.  I hope they're wrong.


 
More of that agree with me or you're stupid/immature/intelligent prop - keep it up! They'll huddle together no matter what. The question is on what basis. You have option a) one in which it happens on the basis of weakness, of one component of the coalition having been very publicly defeated  and underlying contradictions being accentuated or  b) one of strength, in which coalition politics is seen to deliver on it's promises. I want a). I don't want b).


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

a) involves the Tories having got exactly what they wanted from the coalition - reduction in no. of MPs without electoral reform.  This would be the outcome that leaves them best placed to form a majority government.  
b)means a defeat for Cameron at the same time Clegg will already have taken a pounding at the locals - and also delivering better prospects for keeping Tory and marginal LD constituencies competitive - making it harder for them to effectively contest marginals v Labour.  As a by-product it will harden LD activists to believe they don't need to hold hands with the Tories and weaken Clegg's position.      

You want a?  Really?

Streathamites - your scenario is the mad one.  LD MPs - with the party at their lowest ebb- will pull the plug forcing another GE.  At precisely the moment they are virtually guaranteed to lose?  * How on earth is that likely?*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> a) involves the Tories having got exactly what they wanted from the coalition - reduction in no. of MPs without electoral reform.  This would be the outcome that leaves them best placed to form a majority government.
> b)means a defeat for Cameron at the same time Clegg will already have taken a pounding at the locals - and also delivering better prospects for keeping Tory and marginal LD constituencies competitive - making it harder for them to effectively contest marginals v Labour.  As a by-product it will harden LD activists to believe they don't need to hold hands with the Tories and weaken Clegg's position.
> 
> You want a?  Really?
> ...


 
a) only involves that to the constitutionally obsessed. The tories wanted cuts and attacks and they got them. That's what they wanted. They care not for your obsession. There is an opportunity to block or slow their real aims by voting no. It seems the thickos and the immature amongst us have realised this placed it at the top of our priorities. Catch up with the politics of the situation, the bigger picture that kabbes mentioned, and you might too. 

Beyond the desperate vote lib-dem or labour outdated maps that form the basis for your mature intelligent pluralistic and reflexive approach of course.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

Of course the tories want cuts.  But they also want to stay in power so they aren't reversed.  a) delivers what they wanted.  You admit yourself that a NO wouldn't end the coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Of course the tories want cuts.  But they also want to stay in power so they aren't reversed.  a) delivers what they wanted.  You admit yourself that a NO wouldn't end the coalition.


 
It would deliver them nothing except headache in imposing their real aims, not this constitutional frippery. Your obsessions aren.t there's. And no, i said a successful no vote might not bring about the *immediate* end of the coalition. What it *will* do is heighten the contradications to the benefit of the anti-cuts agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

You're living in a bubble you really are.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> And no, i said a successful no vote might not bring about the *immediate* end of the coalition. What it *will* do is heighten the contradications to the benefit of the anti-cuts agenda.


 
You've said so but not justified your claim in any way.  In fact the arguments suggest the opposite is true - a weakened LD party desparately clinging to Osborne's coat-tails.  The Tories aren't interested in what will sustain their party interests beyond the life of the coalition?!  And you say _I'm_ living in a bubble!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

I have and at great length. I've responded to everyone of your fantasies over the course of this thread. It's all there. I notice you gloss over your misrepresentation of my position.

You _are_ living in a bubble of self-produced constitutional hot air. 

Can you feel it slipping away?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

you really haven't.  Why would a NO make life difficult for the coalition?  It would make LD members a bit more restless but they are powerless in comparison to MPs desire to avoid a GE at all costs.  

Slipping away?  Well, it's early days.  I hope that prolonged exposure to pro NO Tories will change things somewhat


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

No, i really have - and as i said, at great length too. 

Prolonged exposure to the coalition means that from this already fucked position it's only going to get worse. It's already gone.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

well as I say it's early days.   The question will ultimately be not about specifics of electoral systems but  "do you think politics needs to change?" YES or NO.  If this is the context, I wouldn't bank an a no.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well as I say it's early days.   The question will ultimately be not about specifics of electoral systems but  "do you think politics needs to change?" YES or NO.  If this is the context, I wouldn't bank an a no.


 
How is this minor and largely cosmetic reform going to change politics though?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

well if the last election was under AV we might not have a LD/Con coalition.  That not make you think twice?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Or it might ensure we did. That make you think?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

I was talking about what difference it would have made at the last election - namely made a Lab/Lib coalition feasible.  

Given that most LD MPs are fighting Tories for their seats I don't see how AV will lead to closer co-operation for the coalition parties.  But I can see how the anti-Tory vote will help Cameron et al.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> well if the last election was under AV we might not have a LD/Con coalition.  That not make you think twice?


 
so you lot would be in poiwer - and then what? the cuts would still be carried out, but "at a slower pace"! So that's OK then!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest).  At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

I know you were, and i was giving another potential outcome. You asked FG if your potential outcome made her think again. I was asking you if another potential outcome make you think - esp as you've been selling the near impossibility of that potential outcome as a reason ti vote for AV.


The 2nd recommends in the 57 lib-dem MPs seats are neither here no there- it's the recommends in 500 other seats that will make a difference. The lib-dems and the tories have realised that the logic of their situation means they must recommend the tories or lib-dems for the 2nd vote. Come on, catch up with these people at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest).  At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.


 
Amazing, it's an anti-coalition enabler


----------



## Belushi (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I was talking about what difference it would have made at the last election - namely made a Lab/Lib coalition feasible.
> 
> Given that most LD MPs are fighting Tories for their seats I don't see how AV will lead to closer co-operation for the coalition parties.  But I can see how the anti-Tory vote will help Cameron et al.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The 2nd recommends in the 57 lib-dem MPs seats are neither here no there


They would be  for Clegg - that's his entire parliamentary party could be wiped out!


> it's the recommends in 500 other seats that will make a difference. The lib-dems and the tories have realised that the logic of their situation means they must recommend the tories or lib-dems for the 2nd vote. Come on, catch up with these people at least.


Except even if Clegg wanted to do this he couldn't deliver it - because far too many of his MPs would lose their seats (how many Labour voters in Twickenham will transfer to Cable if the LDs nationally call for a Tory 2nd pref?) None.  So it won't happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Amazing, it was not even ever close to being on the agenda last week, totally impossible  - then it was placed very firmly on the agenda. Not going to be trusting your forecasting on this - esp when the logic means there is no other position available. It's also easy enough to make an exception in those what 10-15 seats where the lib-dems need help. You're very naive in many ways.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

it was only apparently put "on the agenda" because the Tories talked it up to scare Labour off.  Which just goes to show how far off the real agenda it is!!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest).  At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.


 
Why is it better if the same cuts are going to be carried out over two years or three instead of one year (and can it even be guaranteed that labour would do it slower at all)? "Scope for voters to show their support"? i mean how they lied so much over the years so how do you expect them to be telling the truth now? really?? 

If there are five candidates in an election and all of them get exactly the same share of the vote, under AV, then if everyone puts labour (or whatever) as a second pref, then labour will get in right, despite the fact that nobody really wants them to get in? and people will still vote tactically


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

well if everyone puts them 2nd pref - that would mean they were actively choosing them above the other 3 candidates they could also have chosen - so that the winner is still the one with broadest support.

I'm not defending Labour's stance on the cuts.  But at the same time, at least in emphasing need to avoid choking of growth they would be doing less damage than condems.  But I would hope a sizeable left/green/anti-cuts vote would draw Labour to the left to attract 2nds preferences.

Under FPTP the logic is the other way - to compete for swing voters in marginals who might go for Cleggeron or might not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Do you think clegg bashing is going tp help? It's insulting. Esp as your cse is based on him being part of an anti-tory anti-coalition bloc. Insulting is the right word.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing, it's an anti-coalition enabler


 
It's a democratic enabler - if voters want to say "anyone to the left of the coalition" they could.  If the majority of voters are saying we support "one or other of the coalition parties" the anti-cuts movement has a problem.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think clegg bashing is going tp help? It's insulting. Esp as your cse is based on him being part of an anti-tory anti-coalition bloc. Insulting is the right word.


 
Not at all - it's based on the argument Clegg is out of touch with his own voters, let alone the rest of the country.   Under FPTP the LD vote is flattered by the fact it incorporates so many tactical votes.  AV would allow them to disaggregate at the 1st round stage showing this up.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2010)

Given the readiness with which Clegg and co have supported the ideological and systematic dismantling of the welfare state, I have to wonder how they *could* have gone into coalition with Labour, actually.

Either it was never on the cards in the first place or the LDs really are that idealogically empty, in which case they have no business being in politics at all.

Either way, the appeal of any system at all that supports them is rapidly fading.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 11, 2010)

And this is why I prefer Approval Voting. Simply select all the candidates you like and the one with the most votes wins. No worrying about order or anything.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> It's a democratic enabler - if voters want to say "anyone to the left of the coalition" they could.  If the majority of voters are saying we support "one or other of the coalition parties" the anti-cuts movement has a problem.


 
Are they saying that though?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Not at all - it's based on the argument Clegg is out of touch with his own voters, let alone the rest of the country.   Under FPTP the LD vote is flattered by the fact it incorporates so many tactical votes.  AV would allow them to disaggregate at the 1st round stage showing this up.


 
So let's give them a system where their coalition partners can prop them up with 2nd prefs and vice versa! Genius. Mature genius. You think the lib-dems support this because it'll hurt them!  you're running out of cake here.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

By the time of the referendum in May there's going to be such anti-government anger that this will in no way be fought 'on the issues' of abstract electoral reform. It'll be seen as a government referendum and so people who hate the government will, if they vote, will vote no. Unless they're paid to vote yes by a think tank, of course.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

you are misreadng/overlooking the gap between the ideological project of the LD leadership, and the historical reasons people have found themselves voting LD.  It doesn't at all follow that there will be a preference swapping agreement.  In fact if there was that would eliminate the chances of a fair section of the LD MPs in Parliament.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Streathamites - your scenario is the mad one.  LD MPs - with the party at their lowest ebb- will pull the plug forcing another GE.  At precisely the moment they are virtually guaranteed to lose?  * How on earth is that likely?*


oh, jesus wept. Right, i'll explain simply. Individual MPs, and local parties, will see a lost AV vote as the final straw, as their party haemorrhages popularity, and will either jump ship, or at least call to change the captain, in an attempt to save their own skins. You know, like the Tories did with Maggie?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

The referendum might be a product of the "government" but the leader of the coalition and the biggest faction of it are totally and unremittingly opposed.   Voting NO would be effectively a pro- status quo position not slap in the face for the coalition per se.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The referendum might be a product of the "government" but the leader of the coalition and the biggest faction of it are totally and unremittingly opposed.   Voting NO would be effectively a pro- status quo position not slap in the face for the coalition per se.


 
I disagree.  So I'll be casting my vote accordingly.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh, jesus wept. Right, i'll explain simply. Individual MPs, and local parties, will see a lost AV vote as the final straw, as their party haemorrhages popularity, and will either jump ship, or at least call to change the captain, in an attempt to save their own skins. You know, like the Tories did with Maggie?


 
No they simply won't - they are expecting a hammering anyway at the May elections.  They'll be disappointed but would take it on the chin.  If it was lost 18 months out that would be a different story.  But the leadership factored in a period of intense unpopularity.  They know that so many of their MPs have Cabinet jobs, junior ministries, PPS roles etc that the "payroll" vote will keep them safe for a good while - irrespective of a referednum defeat.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I disagree.  So I'll be casting my vote accordingly.


 
OK.  But just see if you feel the same way after weeks of being applauded for your stance by Tory after Tory.  You might do.  Which is your right.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> OK.  But just see if you feel the same way after weeks of being applauded for your stance by Tory after Tory.  You might do.  Which is your right.


 
I agree with the Tories about ID cards too.  Surprisingly, the fact that they agree with me hasn't made me change my stance.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> OK.  But just see if you feel the same way after weeks of being applauded for your stance by Tory after Tory.  You might do.  Which is your right.


what a rubbish answer. it's blatantly obvious various people are voting 'no' for different reasons, the fact that they include tories shouldn't deter me from also voting no for my own, unconnected reasons.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No they simply won't - they are expecting a hammering anyway at the May elections.  They'll be disappointed but would take it on the chin.  If it was lost 18 months out that would be a different story.  But the leadership factored in a period of intense unpopularity.  They know that so many of their MPs have Cabinet jobs, junior ministries, PPS roles etc that the "payroll" vote will keep them safe for a good while - irrespective of a referednum defeat.


this ignores a) how much backbone we'll find in people with zero previous experience of govt, and b) the pressure from their grassroots. The parly libdems are far more accountable to ordinary members than with the other 2 main parties.
And the same logic, surely, would have applied to the tories in 1990. individual MPs saw their seats going, and pulled the emergency cord. No reason why they won't do that here, especially as so many libdems at the grassroots are so unhappy about the direction they're headed in.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

I sincerely hope the above approach is one that yes vote campaign adopts - *do what we say for the reasons we say or you're a tory* - it'll take one second to demolish simply by pointing to the neo-liberal extremists behind the yes vote.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2010)

At the very least, it implies that the Yes campaigners think that those voting No must have an incredibly insecurity about their own political stance.

I agree with the Tories about lots of things.  For example, they appear to agree (in policy, at least) that torture is unacceptable.  Why should the fact that they want the same outcome cause me to doubt myself?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> The parly libdems are far more accountable to ordinary members than with the other 2 main parties.


How so?  Did the party consult its members about ditching the tuition fees pledge?  Or about slash and burn with housing benefit?  I think the leadership has backed their activist base and membership (different again from their voter base) into falling in behind them out of desperation to make the coalition seem to have worked.  Only when it has had more time to bed in will they actually even consider a break.



> And the same logic, surely, would have applied to the tories in 1990. individual MPs saw their seats going, and pulled the emergency cord. No reason why they won't do that here, especially as so many libdems at the grassroots are so unhappy about the direction they're headed in.


Thatcher was elected in 1979.  She wasn't toppled until 1990.  Their popularity nosedived in 80/81 but they didn't kick her out then.  They did what the LDs will do - assume "somthing will turn up".


----------



## articul8 (Nov 11, 2010)

kabbes said:


> At the very least, it implies that the Yes campaigners think that those voting No must have an incredibly insecurity about their own political stance.
> 
> I agree with the Tories about lots of things.  For example, they appear to agree (in policy, at least) that torture is unacceptable.  Why should the fact that they want the same outcome cause me to doubt myself?


 
there's a difference between issues the Tories happen to be campaigning on, and issues which they see as core to their ongoing political party self-interest.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm sure that they see a policy against torture to also be core to their ongoing political party self-interest.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

No to AV. Yes to PR

AV less popular than first-past-the-post which is less popular than PR







More from Lindsell here. 

(I'm totally sceptical about why they commissioned this research, looks like they're maybe trying to sell their services to one side or the other)


----------



## moochedit (Nov 14, 2010)

http://www.lindsellmarketing.com/index.php/whats-new/new-research-on-voting-system-preferences



> To be truly representative of available voting system options, the May referendum should also present citizens with proportional systems such as Additional Member, Alternative Vote Plus, Single Transferable Vote or Party List.



problem with a multi option referendum in what voting system do they use for the referendum


----------



## moochedit (Nov 14, 2010)

maybe that 45% should just spoil the ballet paper and write "PR" on it then ?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> (I'm totally sceptical about why they commissioned this research, looks like they're maybe trying to sell their services to one side or the other)


 
You're right to be.  Almost certainly commisioned by the anti-FPTP "NO 2 AV" campaign for whom PR purists are acting as useful idiots.


----------



## moochedit (Nov 14, 2010)

I am still making my mind up about this at the moment. 
I don't know if these are already posted on here but....

http://no2av.org/

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/content/


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 14, 2010)

My vote will be no as a judgement on the betrayal of the lib dems


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Random said:


> By the time of the referendum in May there's going to be such anti-government anger that this will in no way be fought 'on the issues' of abstract electoral reform. It'll be seen as a government referendum and so people who hate the government will, if they vote, will vote no. Unless they're paid to vote yes by a think tank, of course.


 
How will that work when the largest party in government wants people to vote yes, surley by this logic people will vote against the Tories?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> My vote will be no as a judgement on the betrayal of the lib dems


 
This is a stupid, it's about the electoral system not a poll on the Lib Dems. You will be voting with the Tories and the BNP to make a statement and in doing so setting the country back in terms of reform for another 50 years.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

don't vote, make trouble


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh, jesus wept. Right, i'll explain simply. Individual MPs, and local parties, will see a lost AV vote as the final straw, as their party haemorrhages popularity, and will either jump ship, or at least call to change the captain, in an attempt to save their own skins. You know, like the Tories did with Maggie?


 
Not likely at all it will do the opposite and tie the LDs to the Tory ship in the blind hope that in 3-4 years time at a general election the polls will be better. Having AV will make the party more confident it wouldn't be annihilated if it broke the coalition and forced a General Election. 

It beggars believe though that anyone would turn what is an important referendum about the voting system into some partisan tactical decision. I think that’s about the most cynical and depressing thing I’ve heard in a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

articul8 said:


> You're right to be.  Almost certainly commisioned by the anti-FPTP "NO 2 AV" campaign for whom PR purists are acting as useful idiots.


 
Almost scientific levels of proof there. Someone should pay you to argue the yes vote. And another example of insulting puralism. More! More maturity! More intelligence! More!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How will that work when the largest party in government wants people to vote yes, surley by this logic people will vote against the Tories?


 
You really should not even think about going into politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is a stupid, it's about the electoral system not a poll on the Lib Dems. You will be voting with the Tories and the BNP to make a statement and in doing so setting the country back in terms of reform for another 50 years.


 
Even better, you've outdone a8 - fantastic! Vote yes or you're a racist. Or a fascist. 

You are so fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not likely at all it will do the opposite and tie the LDs to the Tory ship in the blind hope that in 3-4 years time at a general election the polls will be better. Having AV will make the party more confident it wouldn't be annihilated if it broke the coalition and forced a General Election.
> 
> It beggars believe though that anyone would turn what is an important referendum about the voting system into some partisan tactical decision. I think that&rsquo;s about the most cynical and depressing thing I&rsquo;ve heard in a while.


 
You really really shouldn't even consider even thinking about thinking about going into politics. 

You clueless Cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You really really shouldn't even consider even thinking about thinking about going into politics.
> 
> You clueless Cunt.


 
I note you have degenerated into vulgar insults, a sure sign of anyone losing an argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Or winning.

Seriously, how cloth-headed do you have to be to think this:



> It beggars believe though that anyone would turn what is an important referendum about the voting system into some partisan tactical decision. I think that’s about the most cynical and depressing thing I’ve heard in a while.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Can I ask a question, given that people on this board are generally unfavourable towards the current Coalition has this made anyone more weary of PR which would result in the electorate returning coalitions all the time?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

I have to applaud you on the vote for us or you're a racist approach though. You can't even see what harm you're doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can I ask a question, given that people on this board are generally unfavourable towards the current Coalition has this made anyone more weary of PR which would result in the electorate returning coalitions all the time?


 
The coalition hasn't launched this attack this because it's a coalition but because it's formed of neo-liberal extremists.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can I ask a question, given that people on this board are generally unfavourable towards the current Coalition has this made anyone more weary of PR which would result in the electorate returning coalitions all the time?


 
PR would be a good thing in providing a more credible distribution of seats in line with voters preferences; it is not a solution to the failed politics which dominate debate in the UK. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Even better, you've outdone a8 - fantastic! Vote yes or you're a racist. Or a fascist.
> 
> You are so fucked.



It's not my argument, it's the argument of those who say they are going to vote against AV because a particular party (namely Lib Dems) support it. By logical extension if this referendum is about what party supports or opposes AV then by voting against it you align yourself with the Tories and BNP.

Boiling it down further it means you would rather support the Tories or BNPs aims just to smite the Lib Dems. 

My position is this is all entirely daft and it’s about the single issue, I’m not therefore saying people who vote against it are fascist or racist.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> PR would be a good thing in providing a more credible distribution of seats in line with voters preferences; it is not a solution to the failed politics which dominate debate in the UK.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
How would you tackle the problem of parties not being able to deliver their own manifesto in coalitions though?  I think given the reaction to the current coalition, most people don’t really want coalition governments in this country.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not my argument, it's the argument of those who say they are going to vote against AV because a particular party (namely Lib Dems) support it. By logical extension if this referendum is about what party supports or opposes AV then by voting against it you align yourself with the Tories and BNP.
> 
> Boiling it down further it means you would rather support the Tories or BNPs aims just to smite the Lib Dems.
> 
> My position is this is all entirely daft and it’s about the single issue, I’m not therefore saying people who vote against it are fascist or racist.


 
You say it's not your argument then demonstrate exactly how it is. Then that you'd like to pretend that it's not.

Look, there's been some seriouslyy good informed debate on this thread - positions and counter-positions argued and justified. Go have a look at them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How would you tackle the problem of parties not being able to deliver their own manifesto in coalitions though?  I think given the reaction to the current coalition, most people don’t really want coalition governments in this country.


 
Maybe they don't want _this_ coalition of neo-liberal extremist?

If you think 'coalition' is the issue here you're barking.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not my argument, it's the argument of those who say they are going to vote against AV because a particular party (namely Lib Dems) support it. By logical extension if this referendum is about what party supports or opposes AV then by voting against it you align yourself with the Tories and BNP.
> 
> Boiling it down further it means you would rather support the Tories or BNPs aims just to smite the Lib Dems.
> 
> My position is this is all entirely daft and it’s about the single issue, I’m not therefore saying people who vote against it are fascist or racist.


 
So what, you know that having PR would basically benefit the BNP, but before the election the Lib Dems were supporting PR (or saying they did anyway). So you're a racist. 

See how it works?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they don't want _this_ coalition of neo-liberal extremist?
> 
> If you think 'coalition' is the issue here you're barking.


 
It's an issue to consider, just look at debates on the Continent around small socialist parties and whether they should partake in left-leaning coalitions that continue to support Capitalism. Do you water down your principles in compromise and coalition? It’s a question that all the UK parties would face under PR.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How would you tackle the problem of parties not being able to deliver their own manifesto in coalitions though?  I think given the reaction to the current coalition, most people don’t really want coalition governments in this country.


 
It's not the coalition that is being objected to as a coalition, but rather what it does. 

The 'problem' of parties not being able to deliver their manifesto vanishes when you take off the party blinkers and instead judge the government on it's actions as opposed to the promises of it's constituent members.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's an issue to consider, just look at debates on the Continent around small socialist parties and whether they should partake in left-leaning coalitions that continue to support Capitalism. Do you water down your principles in compromise and coalition? It’s a question that all the UK parties would face under PR.


 
You really don't trust the electorate do you.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's an issue to consider, just look at debates on the Continent around small socialist parties and whether they should partake in left-leaning coalitions that continue to support Capitalism. Do you water down your principles in compromise and coalition? It’s a question that all the UK parties would face under PR.


 
No, it's not. 

You've fucked PR anyway. Another achievement.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what, you know that having PR would basically benefit the BNP, but before the election the Lib Dems were supporting PR (or saying they did anyway). So you're a racist.
> 
> See how it works?


 
I haven't called anyone a racist, I’m just pointing out how stupid it is to oppose AV simply because the Lib Dems support it as if you make it partisan and about the parties then you are also saying you would also rather support the Tories and BNP and oppose the Greens (who support AV).

My point is that you shouldn't turn it into a partisan decision, as it’s an important issue in it’s own right and deserves the sort of debate that Butcherapron draws our attention too.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

> Look, there's been some seriouslyy good informed debate on this thread - positions and counter-positions argued and justified. Go have a look at them.



I take it you are not referring to where you call me a Cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Let's not allow moon to pretend that AV is PR btw - it's not. It's a more aggressive form of FPTP. Relentless in its majoritarian demands.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm not the one saying that not voting for lib dem policy makes you a supporter of the BNP or at the least happy to jump into bed with them. How the hell is that not partisan?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I take it you are not referring to where you call me a Cunt.


 
I am referring explicitly to that. I called you a clueless cunt btw


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You really don't trust the electorate do you.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
What makes you say that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I haven't called anyone a racist, I’m just pointing out how stupid it is to oppose AV simply because the Lib Dems support it as if you make it partisan and about the parties then you are also saying you would also rather support the Tories and BNP and oppose the Greens (who support AV).
> 
> My point is that you shouldn't turn it into a partisan decision, as it’s an important issue in it’s own right and deserves the sort of debate that Butcherapron draws our attention too.


 
What's it like up on that cloud? Getting a bit turbulent?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I am referring explicitly to that. I called you a clueless cunt btw


 
Yea I’m off now, got more important things to do then be insulted by idiots on web forums.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Get out there and be insulted on the street.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Get out there and be insulted on the street.


 
Do you call that "winning the argument"?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Er... no. I call it a deserved parting shot.

Why are you here?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What makes you say that?


 
Your willingness to lie to them, to do deals that renage on promises made to them, your promotion of electoral reformal that seeks to entrench your party advantage at the expense of meaningful voter choice...that sort of thing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you here?


 
I was allowed back like, er, you once were.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I take it you are not referring to where you call me a Cunt.



The problem is you lost the argument pages back (as did articul8 for different reasons) but neither of you have stopped with your relentless and tedious reassertions. We do not have to deabte anything with you on this subject. You lost the argument now move on, and leave further discussion to the adults.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You lost the argument now move on, and leave further discussion to the adults.


 
How patronising is it possible to be?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can I ask a question, given that people on this board are generally unfavourable towards the current Coalition has this made anyone more weary of PR which would result in the electorate returning coalitions all the time?


 
There's a difference between the current coalition (a marriage of convenience in what is, in effect, a tripartite political system) and coalitions formed by governments under PR systems, in that parties operating within a PR system *expect* to have to form coalitions rather than to govern as a majority party (which happens occasionally, but not often).
Conflating the two shows a degree of political naivety unknown outside of personality cults.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I have to applaud you on the vote for us or you're a racist approach though. You can't even see what harm you're doing.


 
Shut it, you racist!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> PR would be a good thing in providing a more credible distribution of seats in line with voters preferences; it is not a solution to the failed politics which dominate debate in the UK.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Which is precisely why the Lib-Dems want, in fact *need* AV (or to retain FPTP) rather than a fully PR system. Under PR they'd dissolve like gelatine in hot water.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How would you tackle the problem of parties not being able to deliver their own manifesto in coalitions though?  I think given the reaction to the current coalition, most people don’t really want coalition governments in this country.


 
Parties that operate under PR tend to operate on a system of "wishes" (i.e. "we'd like to pass a law allowing dog-felching if we can get our coalition partners to support it"), rather than of manifesto commitments, as is common with parties that operate within FPTP systems, so there'd be unlikely to be the sort of issues about manifestos that you're imagining.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what, you know that having PR would basically benefit the BNP, but before the election the Lib Dems were supporting PR (or saying they did anyway). So you're a racist.
> 
> See how it works?


 
The fact is that people like moon are using the *possibility* that under PR unsavoury parties might win a handful of seats as a way of dissuading people away from PR and toward a system that is basically just FPTP with bells on: AV.
Any sensible person wouldn't, of course, worry about unsavoury parties achieving a handful of seats under PR. Their ability to legislate on anything that resembled their own core policies would be virtually non-existent. It needs to be borne in mind by people like moon that the hard right, even in a nation such as Austria, where they had a significant number of seats, were unable to present much legislation that went anywhere toward forwarding their core agenda. To imagine that a handful of BNP/NF/EDL malcontents would be able to present (or block, for that matter) legislation is juvenile.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's an issue to consider, just look at debates on the Continent around small socialist parties and whether they should partake in left-leaning coalitions that continue to support Capitalism. Do you water down your principles in compromise and coalition? It’s a question that all the UK parties would face under PR.


 
Any "socialist" party that takes the electoral route is, by it's actions, reformist, and has already made an accommodation with Capitalism. That being so, they wouldn't be compromising their principles by engaging in coalition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> How patronising is it possible to be?



Now there's a question whose bounds you test daily!


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any sensible person wouldn't, of course, worry about unsavoury parties achieving a handful of seats under PR. Their ability to legislate on anything that resembled their own core policies would be virtually non-existent.


 
Geert Wilders has got a number of his core policies into the Coalition Agreement of the new Dutch government. But, to believe some, it doesn't matter, as none of them have been enacted yet.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The fact is that people like moon are using the *possibility* that under PR unsavoury parties might win a handful of seats as a way of dissuading people away from PR and toward a system that is basically just FPTP with bells on: AV.
> Any sensible person wouldn't, of course, worry about unsavoury parties achieving a handful of seats under PR. Their ability to legislate on anything that resembled their own core policies would be virtually non-existent. It needs to be borne in mind by people like moon that the hard right, even in a nation such as Austria, where they had a significant number of seats, were unable to present much legislation that went anywhere toward forwarding their core agenda. To imagine that a handful of BNP/NF/EDL malcontents would be able to present (or block, for that matter) legislation is juvenile.


That's also leaving aside the possibility that through "entryism" type stuff inside the neo liberal parties and more realistically just simply through how capitalism works and the lengths capital will go to to protect itself, especially in a crisis like this, the far right have a chance to get their wet dreams enacted under FPTP and/or AV anyway


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any "socialist" party that takes the electoral route is, by it's actions, reformist, and has already made an accommodation with Capitalism. That being so, they wouldn't be compromising their principles by engaging in coalition.


 
I'm really, *really* not saying you're wrong here VP (and IMO that's actually a very good point and one that pretty much every left wing party that goes an electoral route often ends up coming up against) but does going a non-electoral/"direct action" type of route have its problems as well in your opinion - ie how far do you manage to be able to change stuff that way? What do you think about groups like the IWCA standing people to be elected etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Geert Wilders has got a number of his core policies into the Coalition Agreement of the new Dutch government. But, to believe some, it doesn't matter, as none of them have been enacted yet.


 
Which policies?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which policies?


 
A ban on double passport holding. A general move in the direction of tighter immigration. Plus a handful of lesser policies. Much less than he would have wanted, but more than I, for one, think helpful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I'm really, *really* not saying you're wrong here VP (and IMO that's actually a very good point and one that pretty much every left wing party that goes an electoral route often ends up coming up against)...


Hey, if you think I'm wrong, then I expect you to tell me!  


> but does going a non-electoral/"direct action" type of route have its problems as well in your opinion - ie how far do you manage to be able to change stuff that way?


Well, non-electoral/DA stuff tends toward the "single issue" side of things, so I'm not sure the problems are the same as for the electoral route. Okay, you're going to have the usual fannying about whose vision best serves as a basis for bringing about change, but if you're dealing with a single issue or a limited slate of problems, then you don't get as weighed down with matters such as maintaining a party line, which saves a fuck-load of energy.


> What do you think about groups like the IWCA standing people to be elected etc?


 
IMHO the IWCA isn't the same proposition as a political party that's aiming to have an impact (however limited) in national politics. The IWCA are localist, and that's been one of their strengths. There's nowt wrong with standing candidates for council wards, or even for regional seats, as part of a localist strategy. I know that certain posters deride them, but they (the posters) tend to be the armpit-sucking leech tendency of urban anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A ban on double passport holding. A general move in the direction of tighter immigration. Plus a handful of lesser policies. Much less than he would have wanted, but more than I, for one, think helpful.


 
Well, the dual passport one is (unfortunately, IMO) consonant with the direction Europe as a whole has taken in the past 20 years. 
As for "tighter immigration", is he referring to immigration from outside the EU, or immigration as a whole (given that political rhetoric in EU countries often mistakes the free movement of EU citizens inside the EU for reasons of work as "immigration")? I ask, because there's bugger-all he (or any other politician in the EU) can do about the latter without withdrawing from the EU.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

Nah it's just that I haven't decided whether you're actually wrong or not, it's a very difficult issue, but if you are wrong i would tell you don't worry.  I've been wondering about this a lot lately especially in the light of the protests and the fact that many of the people I know who were on the demo were actually pretty shocked by some of what went on, and they're hardly liberal types either. not that im saying that they were wrong and they shouldn't have gone in etc etc because i don't think they were 

In terms of direct action stuff though, is there not a risk that it will end up alienating support and end up being, by necessity, elitist and often very limited to single issue stuff - (not that electoral or other stuff won't do that anyway) but in terms of actually getting your programme out there? Im thinking for example of people who work for the council who actually end up having to clean up smashed windows etc (for want of a better example - i'm not satying that stuff doesn't have a place because I think it does). I hope what I'm asking doesn't come across as stupid and I have a ton of respect for a lot of people who go out and engage in many of these actions (altho not all). It's just ... I dunno, I think these are questions we have to think about if you see what I mean? 

I don't deride the IWCA - I don't agree with them on everything but actually have a ton of respect for them and a lot of what they've done and managed to achieve.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, the dual passport one is (unfortunately, IMO) consonant with the direction Europe as a whole has taken in the past 20 years.
> As for "tighter immigration", is he referring to immigration from outside the EU, or immigration as a whole (given that political rhetoric in EU countries often mistakes the free movement of EU citizens inside the EU for reasons of work as "immigration")? I ask, because there's bugger-all he (or any other politician in the EU) can do about the latter without withdrawing from the EU.


 
Wilders antagonism is single-mindedly directed at Muslim immigration. Double passports as well. He made a great fuss a year ago about a member of the former government who is dual nationality Dutch-Turkish. In this new government he has no problem with another member with dual nationality. But this one is Dutch-Swedish. Speaks for itself.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

To be fair though, VP has a point in that that's the direction that dutch politics has been moving in for fucking ages anyway.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> To be fair though, VP has a point in that that's the direction that dutch politics has been moving in for fucking ages anyway.


 
Dutch politics are deeply divided. The new government has only a majority of one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Wilders antagonism is single-mindedly directed at Muslim immigration. Double passports as well. He made a great fuss a year ago about a member of the former government who is dual nationality Dutch-Turkish. In this new government he has no problem with another member with dual nationality. But this one is Dutch-Swedish. Speaks for itself.


 
From what I recall of European law, it's an impossible piece of discrimination for Wilders to get passed. Discrimination against specific ethnicities contravenes the Human Rights charter (IIRC section 6, but it's about 5 years since I last read it). 
Probably plays well with the small "c" conservatives, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

I'm being a bit slow today - can someone explain this cartoon to me?


----------



## little_legs (Nov 16, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/05/labour-will-not-campign-alternative-vote 



> Nevertheless, *it is expected that a senior Labour figure, probably from outside the shadow cabinet, will be appointed shortly to front a Labour for AV campaign*.
> 
> Ed Miliband has said he will vote for AV, but each party member will be free to campaign as they see fit.



Have they? Who is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Burnham has been appointed campaign director for may and has pretty much said that there will be no party support for yes. This will just be labour covering all the bases and looking open - pure PR.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 16, 2010)

right. thank you.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Burnham has been appointed campaign director for may and has pretty much said that there will be no party support for yes. This will just be labour covering all the bases and looking open - pure PR.


 
Burnham over-stepped the mark, and will be pulled up about this.  Ed Miliband has already said he'd vote YES and argue for a YES vote.  It would look odd if they stopped members of the party doing likewise.  Of course, some will argue for a NO vote.  But there will be a big lobby in favour.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

little_legs said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/05/labour-will-not-campign-alternative-vote
> 
> Have they? Who is it?


 
Ben Bradshaw I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Burnham over-stepped the mark, and will be pulled up about this.  Ed Miliband has already said he'd vote YES and argue for a YES vote.  It would look odd if they stopped members of the party doing likewise.  Of course, some will argue for a NO vote.  But there will be a big lobby in favour.


 
No he won't. He was appointed to do precisely that. He called AV a frippery and a lib-dem con in the leadership election. he wasn't put in that position by accident. So naive.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Ben Bradshaw I think.


 
You think? 

The pluralists already know.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No he won't. He was appointed to do precisely that. He called AV a frippery and a lib-dem con in the leadership election. he wasn't put in that position by accident. So naive.


 
Not what I heard him say.  But no, he doesn't much go for it.  But think about it - support for AV is strongest among students and young activists.  Will they really say "no don't campaign for Labour to elect Labour councillors (and support AV a bit whilst doing it), f*** off and campaign with the Lib Dems?  It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

What do you mean you didn't hear him say it? It's on the fucking record.

Support for AV has just died amongst students due to the lib-dems tuition fee debacle. They'll not campaign for either or against. I don't even know what that last argument you offered means.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

When I heard Burnham asked his view on AV he was much more equivocal than straight out hostile - he may have said other things for other audiences though (have you a link for your quote?)

This isn't a referendum on the LDs.  Labour people for a YES vote will be very critical of the LD role in the coalition but also out campaigning for a better voting system.  The two aren't mutually exclusive


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Yes i have.



> Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary and Labour leadership contender, told the Guardian that voting reform was "a peripheral issue" and added: "It is not my party's job to prop up the Liberal Democrats by helping them win a referendum that is important to them."
> 
> He added: "Let's not get obsessed by this issue, because it really is irrelevant. It's a kind of fringe pursuit for Guardian-reading classes."



And yes, it is. It is now. Why are you always behind?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

perhaps it's his uncanny feel for political priorities that saw him do so well in the leadership race?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Moon, can we have some evidence of the BNP supporting the no vote? Or did you just uncritically repeat the Yes to fair votes bollocks?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

articul8 said:


> perhaps it's his uncanny feel for political priorities that saw him do so well in the leadership race?


 
Perhaps it's your ability to openly lie despite being publicly shown to be lying that makes you such a valued member of the pluralist london community?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

what's this shit about lying again.  You couldn't back up this claim last time and you still can't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

Umm...your claim that i said burham would win the labour party leadership election.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Umm...your claim that i said burham would win the labour party leadership election.


 
If you didn't, why be bothered?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

A claim I retracted with the qualification that you _did_ said he "really really" was a favourite of Labour people.  For which I've seen little evidence.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

So when you say that i couldn't back it you you meant that i could?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 16, 2010)

No I thought you were saying I lied about being in the Labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 17, 2010)

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/11/ben-bradshaw-to-lead-labour-campaign.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2010)

Before the election i said that an electoral system that returned coalitions leads not to the smaller party (the assumed smaller party being a left party) pulling the mainstream larger party to the left but to the larger party pulling the smaller to the right and eventually swallowing them up. How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Geert Wilders has got a number of his core policies into the Coalition Agreement of the new Dutch government. But, to believe some, it doesn't matter, as none of them have been enacted yet.


correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he got far many more MPs (or whatever you call them over there0 than the BNP are likely to have, even under PR, let alone AV?


----------



## Santino (Nov 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Before the election i said that an electoral system that returned coalitions leads not to the smaller party (the assumed smaller party being a left party) pulling the mainstream larger party to the left but to the larger party pulling the smaller to the right and eventually swallowing them up. How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?


 
I would begrudgingly accept this as not entirely false.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Before the election i said that an electoral system that returned coalitions leads not to the smaller party (the assumed smaller party being a left party) pulling the mainstream larger party to the left but to the larger party pulling the smaller to the right and eventually swallowing them up. How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?


 
Because one instance automatically proves a hypothesis valid?  If anything the Lab/Ld coalition in Scotland pulled Labour to the left of what New Labour was trying to impose from Westminster (eg. on tuition fees) - so you can't read off the political content of a coalition from the form.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm being a bit slow today - can someone explain this cartoon to me?


presumably, millipede and falconer trying to use the courts/procedural rules to cage the proposed bill with the referendum and redrawn boundaries in it


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> This isn't a referendum on the LDs.


right now, all things considered, there is no way for it to avoid being a referendum on them, at least in part!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 17, 2010)

That is to afford them importance far greater they than deserve - to lock in place a voting system that totally fails millions of voters just so you can punish the leaders of a party who are already fucked anyway.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> That is to afford them importance far greater they than deserve - to lock in place a voting system that totally fails millions of voters just so you can punish the leaders of a party who are already fucked anyway.


 
The voting system you're advocating could fail even more people, while possibly throwing the Lib Dems and the Tories an electoral life line.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The voting system you're advocating could fail even more people, while possibly throwing the Lib Dems and the Tories an electoral life line.


... as well as taking proper PR off the agenda for a generation.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he got far many more MPs (or whatever you call them over there0 than the BNP are likely to have, even under PR, let alone AV?


 
The PVV (Wilders' Party) has 24 seats in the 150 seat parliament. In the previous parliament they only had 9. PR undoubtably would give the BNP a lot of seats. But then it would also give the Greens and other small parties many seats. The new Dutch government is extremely unstable with only a majority of 1.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Because one instance automatically proves a hypothesis valid?  If anything the Lab/Ld coalition in Scotland pulled Labour to the left of what New Labour was trying to impose from Westminster (eg. on tuition fees) - so you can't read off the political content of a coalition from the form.


yes, but the tories are proportionately far, far stronger in England than they are in either Scotland or wales; IIRC, in the last scot assembly elections they finished fourth.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 17, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The PVV (Wilders' Party) has 24 seats in the 150 seat parliament. In the previous parliament they only had 9. PR undoubtably would give the BNP a lot of seats. But then it would also give the Greens and other small parties many seats. The new Dutch government is extremely unstable with only a majority of 1.



Have the dutch people failed or the dutch political parties? In either case is the form of the electoral system the solution?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Nov 17, 2010)

kabbes said:


> ... as well as taking proper PR off the agenda for a generation.


 
nothing would take proper PR off the agenda more than a NO vote at this referendum - which would inevitably be spun as a vote of confidence in FPTP.
People like Butchers who don't care one iota about PR don't need to worry about this.

Louis - AV would mean no voter would be unable to indicate their true loyalty because of tactical considerations.  That would be a significant step.  Not the whole journey of course.   

There isn't going to be any lifelines for the coalition whatever the voting system.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Have the dutch people failed or the dutch political parties? In either case is the form of the electoral system the solution?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
That's not a question I feel informed enough to answer. Wilders' popularity is very strong, but has already started to weaken since he's had to make compromises.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> *nothing would take proper PR off the agenda more than a NO vote at this referendum* - which would inevitably be spun as a vote of confidence in FPTP.
> People like Butchers who don't care one iota about PR don't need to worry about this.
> 
> Louis - *AV would mean no voter would be unable to indicate their true loyalty because of tactical considerations.*  That would be a significant step.  Not the whole journey of course.
> ...


 
The first is pure conjecture; given that many people will oppose AV precisely because it isn't PR there will be room both before and after the referendum, to sing PR's praises, in contrast to the squalid compromise of AV.

The second is wishful thinking; AV allows for/encourages tactical voting in a way that can empower the status quo. PR with a low percentage threshold is a whole different kettle of fish.

The third the Lib Dems may see rather differently to you; as might the Tories depending on how close a run thing it looks like being.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 17, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That's not a question I feel informed enough to answer. Wilders' popularity is very strong, but has already started to weaken since he's had to make compromises.


 
It's two questions.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's two questions.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
I'm more informed, but still unable to answer.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 17, 2010)

articul8 said:


> nothing would take proper PR off the agenda more than a NO vote at this referendum - which would inevitably be spun as a vote of confidence in FPTP.


That's pretty obviously and demonstrably not true, though.

A vote for "yes to AV" would -- pretty much by definition -- take proper PR off the agenda for a generation.  Nobody is going to tinker with voting reform every five or ten years.  So voting to change to AV would give more than 10 years of AV and realistically more like at least 20 years.  That's a generation in anybody's book.  

So the result of "Yes" is clear-cut.  It will _definitely_ take PR off the table for a generation.

The result of "No" is far less clear-cut.  It might be spun as an endorsement of FPTP.  Or it might be successfully sold as a cry for proper PR.  It's hard to tell at this stage but at least it keeps the game going.  Whereas a "Yes" vote ends the game immediately for a generation.


----------



## Random (Nov 17, 2010)

Both a No or a Yes vote will be meaningless. Further tinkering will come as a result of the continued failure of the electoral system, rather than as a result of either no or yes. The only thing no or yes will mean is more or less prestige for the Lib Dems.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Before the election i said that an electoral system that returned coalitions leads not to the smaller party (the assumed smaller party being a left party) pulling the mainstream larger party to the left but to the larger party pulling the smaller to the right and eventually swallowing them up. How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?



It's far too early to tell, and we won't be able to tell for a couple of years. We really don't know how far Cameron would have had to placate the Tory Right if he'd won an outright - but slender - majority.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> PR undoubtably would give the BNP a lot of seats. But then it would also give the Greens and other small parties many seats.


the BNP would prolly get substantially less joy from PR than the Greens, prolly 3-4 seats at most, going by their scores at the last GE


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?


too soon to say, give it at least 6 months more. early signs point that way tho


----------



## moochedit (Nov 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> the BNP would prolly get substantially less joy from PR than the Greens, prolly 3-4 seats at most, *going by their scores at the last GE*


 
The GE results under FPTP may not be a good guide to how many seats would be won under PR, as people may vote completely differently in a PR election, due to not needing to vote tactically.

So nobody really knows for certain exactly how a PR parliament might look.

For example, in the last couple of euro elections (under party list PR) the Greens and UKIP got much higher vote shares and labour,tory and lib dem got much lower shares of votes than "normal".
(even the euros are probably not a good guide though as the turnout is low in euros, and i bet right wing anti-euro types are more likely to turn out)

And I suspect that the lib dems share of the vote is going to collapse regardless of what voting system is used in future.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Nah it's just that I haven't decided whether you're actually wrong or not, it's a very difficult issue, but if you are wrong i would tell you don't worry.  I've been wondering about this a lot lately especially in the light of the protests and the fact that many of the people I know who were on the demo were actually pretty shocked by some of what went on, and they're hardly liberal types either. not that im saying that they were wrong and they shouldn't have gone in etc etc because i don't think they were
> 
> In terms of direct action stuff though, is there not a risk that it will end up alienating support and end up being, by necessity, elitist and often very limited to single issue stuff - (not that electoral or other stuff won't do that anyway) but in terms of actually getting your programme out there? Im thinking for example of people who work for the council who actually end up having to clean up smashed windows etc (for want of a better example - i'm not satying that stuff doesn't have a place because I think it does). I hope what I'm asking doesn't come across as stupid and I have a ton of respect for a lot of people who go out and engage in many of these actions (altho not all). It's just ... I dunno, I think these are questions we have to think about if you see what I mean?
> 
> I don't deride the IWCA - I don't agree with them on everything but actually have a ton of respect for them and a lot of what they've done and managed to achieve.


 
VP (or anyone else) i'd quite appreciate an answer to this when you've time, ta x


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Nah it's just that I haven't decided whether you're actually wrong or not, it's a very difficult issue, but if you are wrong i would tell you don't worry.  I've been wondering about this a lot lately especially in the light of the protests and the fact that many of the people I know who were on the demo were actually pretty shocked by some of what went on, and they're hardly liberal types either. not that im saying that they were wrong and they shouldn't have gone in etc etc because i don't think they were


I reckon one of the blessings of demos (as well as occasionally a curse, of course) is that people have their eyes opened to the reality of the lengths the state is happy to go to in order to suppress dissent (as well as how badly a minority of protesters often behave, although let's leave the inevitable debate about _agents provocateurs_ for another day, hmm? ) 


> In terms of direct action stuff though, is there not a risk that it will end up alienating support and end up being, by necessity, elitist and often very limited to single issue stuff - (not that electoral or other stuff won't do that anyway) but in terms of actually getting your programme out there? Im thinking for example of people who work for the council who actually end up having to clean up smashed windows etc (for want of a better example - i'm not satying that stuff doesn't have a place because I think it does). I hope what I'm asking doesn't come across as stupid and I have a ton of respect for a lot of people who go out and engage in many of these actions (altho not all). It's just ... I dunno, I think these are questions we have to think about if you see what I mean?


I agree (and it looks like we might have to have the debate about _agents provocateurs_ now rather than later, after all!).
We first need to ask ourselves, though, "what is direct action"? Is direct action a bunch of _nudniks_ leathering a window until it breaks; is direct action, to many people, going on a protest march in the first place; is direct action undertaking an action (within that protest or separate from it) that *directly* shines a light on issues related to that protest? While I suspect that for some people the label "direct action" encompasses all the above, to me it *mostly* only encompasses the final point.
Does having to clear up the mess left after a protest mean that people who might otherwise support the protesters could become disenchanted? Of course, but if they're also being affected by the same swathe of cuts, they're likely to just shrug it off, and quite possibly to march in protest themselves.
Is direct action elitist? Well it certainly can be perceived to be, and in some cases, for some causes, I'm sure it is (I'm talking about you, Otis "Hitler Youth" Ferry), but even if it *is* elitist as a matter of fact, it still often holds the power to attract more people to a wider movement than it alienates.



> I don't deride the IWCA - I don't agree with them on everything but actually have a ton of respect for them and a lot of what they've done and managed to achieve.


 
Same here.

As for _agents provocateurs_, as quite a few old lags on here will tell you, our beloved state isn't above smashing the first (and second, and third) window in order to cause enough of an air of aggro at a demo that the media can then sound off about "anarchists", "rioters" and the like.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2010)

ah yeah i agree 100% about your point about agents provocateurs having had mates both on and off here who've witnessed that. i'll do a longer reply later. x


----------



## love detective (Nov 19, 2010)

i'd be interested in hearing the reasons for defining the IWCA as localist

Over 15 years or so swathes of prescient analysis about our society has been produced by the IWCA - from critiques of multiculturalism, political vaccums, predictions of the rise of the BNP etc.. all of which have subsquently proved right by material events - even though at the time such a stance on things like multiculturalism were used to brand the IWCA as racist (or the predictions about the rise of the BNP seen as daft at a time when for about 7 years it looked like they were going nowwhere)... however now that critique has been generally accepted as being a correct one. Is this social analysis/critique localist? Is the research into Economic Democracy localist? Is the publishing of a book covering 3 decades of militant anti-fascism throghout the UK localist? Is regularly (well not that regularly, but in relative terms) getting asked to particpate in telly & radio programmes on issues that the IWCA are active in localist? Can you find one article on our website which could be defined as localist?

Being active in a local community and being localist are not the same thing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2010)

love detective said:


> i'd be interested in hearing the reasons for defining the IWCA as localist
> 
> Over 15 years or so swathes of prescient analysis about our society has been produced by the IWCA - from critiques of multiculturalism, political vaccums, predictions of the rise of the BNP etc.. all of which have subsquently proved right by material events - even though at the time such a stance on things like multiculturalism were used to brand the IWCA as racist (or the predictions about the rise of the BNP seen as daft at a time when for about 7 years it looked like they were going nowwhere)... however now that critique has been generally accepted as being a correct one. Is this social analysis/critique localist? Is the research into Economic Democracy localist? Is the publishing of a book covering 3 decades of militant anti-fascism throghout the UK localist? Is regularly (well not that regularly, but in relative terms) getting asked to particpate in telly & radio programmes on issues that the IWCA are active in localist? Can you find one article on our website which could be defined as localist?
> 
> Being active in a local community and being localist are not the same thing


 
Terribly sorry for using the wrong word. I'll send myself to a re-education camp immediately.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2010)

The NO2AV camp really screams out the future of democracy!:

As President of the NO to AV campaign:
- Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP

As Labour Patrons:
- Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
- Rt Hon Lord Falconer QC
- Rt Hon Lord Prescott
- Rt Hon Lord Reid
- Emily Thornberry MP

As Conservative Patrons:
- Rt Hon Ken Clarke QC MP
- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
- Rt Hon William Hague MP
- Steve Norris
- Rt Hon Baroness Warsi


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The NO2AV camp really screams out the future of democracy!


 
We've been through this before, you tit.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 25, 2010)

You still seem to be labouring under the bizarre belief that people I disagree with in other circumstances being in the same camp on this occasion will somehow put me off.

This is stupid, because:

a) It won't.  I make my decisions based on what I think is right, not what other people are doing.
b) If it *did* make a difference then I *definitely* wouldn't be wanting to align myself with Nick Clegg.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2010)

i can hear the sound of barrels being scraped....


----------



## kabbes (Nov 25, 2010)

You what?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> i can hear the sound of barrels being scraped....


huh? In what way? I'd say the only barrel being scraped is yours, with the frankly desperate argument of 'look at all these nasty people voting against, surely you don't want to be on the same side as them'.'


----------



## kabbes (Nov 25, 2010)

And this guy is being _paid_ to be a voice on the side of AV?

Gawd blimey.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> i can hear the sound of barrels being scraped....


 
Astonishing self-delusion these latimer project fifth columnists are capable of


----------



## Belushi (Nov 25, 2010)

kabbes said:


> And this guy is being _paid_ to be a voice on the side of AV?
> 
> Gawd blimey.


 
Innit, he's the perfect illustration of why AV aint gonna happen


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> If you didn't, why be bothered?


becuase no-one should take being libelled lying down


----------



## articul8 (Nov 25, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Innit, he's the perfect illustration of why AV aint gonna happen


 
We'll see about that...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> We'll see about that...


well, yeah, lets not start peering at the tealeaves just yet...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Innit, he's the perfect illustration of why AV aint gonna happen


 
Another example - Ben Bradshaw is leading the Labour Yes to AV campiagn - here's part of an interview with him:



> Bradshaw again reiterates his opposition to the disproportional nature of AV, returning to territory covered in the Jenkins report: "The reason I've never supported AV is that it would have given us an even bigger majority in 1997, and it would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 1983, and probably 1987 as well."


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The NO2AV camp really screams out the future of democracy!:
> 
> As President of the NO to AV campaign:
> - Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP
> ...


 
You don't get their logic, it makes sense to side up with vested Tory interests becuase it punishes the Lib Dems for joining up with vested Tory interests


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Whose heading up the Yes vote - why it's _the Tory religious nut_ John Bartleby. Please, do play this game - you won't win.


----------



## Santino (Nov 26, 2010)

lol


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Whose heading up the Yes vote - why it's _the Tory religious nut_ John Bartleby. Please, do play this game - you won't win.



John Bartleby is not even on the Yes to Fairer votes board 

    * Chair: Katie Ghose (Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society)
    * Pam Giddy (Chair, Take Back Parliament)
    * Neal Lawson (Chair, Compass)
    * Vicky Seddon (Chair, Unlock Democracy)
    * John Sharkey (Liberal Democrats)


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Whose heading up the Yes vote - why it's _the Tory religious nut_ John Bartleby. Please, do play this game - you won't win.


 
Matthew Elliot is leading the NO2AV campaign, from the Tax Payers Alliance, Dylan Sharpe is doing press from Tax Payers Alliance.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John Bartleby is not even on the Yes to Fairer votes board
> 
> * Chair: Katie Ghose (Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society)
> * Pam Giddy (Chair, Take Back Parliament)
> ...


 
Oh? Bartleby has just appeared on BBC News bigging up AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John Bartleby is not even on the Yes to Fairer votes board
> 
> * Chair: Katie Ghose (Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society)
> * Pam Giddy (Chair, Take Back Parliament)
> ...


 


> The yes campaign announced that Jonathan Bartley is to be one of its three campaign spokesmen.



Here

(errant b in my post above)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John Bartleby is not even on the Yes to Fairer votes board
> 
> * Chair: Katie Ghose (Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society)
> * Pam Giddy (Chair, Take Back Parliament)
> ...



Hilariously inept BNP style approach on the yes blog - check out the use of veterans


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Whose heading up the Yes vote - why it's _the Tory religious nut_ John Bartleby. Please, do play this game - you won't win.


 
People with a religious faith aren't a sizeable section of the electorate?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

What's that got to do with anything? Tories and labour voters aren't a sizeable section of the electorate?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hilariously inept BNP style approach on the yes blog - check out the use of veterans


 
and everyone hates war vets...you seem to be under the impression that the election will be turn on the mass ranks of armchair anarchists


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

You're getting more desperate and angry as the truth of the political reality starts to dawn...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

FPTP now has a 10% lead btw, up 3% from the last one. Don't know the exact figures yet - whether rise in support for FPTP or drop in AV (FPTP version #2).


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2010)

No we're quite relaxed.  It's very early days.  The Tory voting press will be obsessed with royal wedding coverage which is good news.  

Big beasts of yesteryear are of limited value.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Big beasts of yesteryear are of limited value.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Big beasts of yesteryear are of limited value.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Big beasts of yesteryear are of limited value.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2010)

a8, you seem to be focussed on two things:

1) Why you think you might win
2) A list of people voting against you that you don't like.

Is this really your strategy for justifying a positive vote for AV?  Surely -- _surely_ -- you've got more than that?  They're paying you, for gawd sake!

I've given you my reasons why I've come down against it, but you haven't even scratched the surface of this real meat.  You've just totally retreated to schoolyard-level "you're as bad as Hitler because you're a vegetarian" tactics.  Bizarre.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=138


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Who funds the Electoral Reform Society?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2010)

(Not that Hitler actually was a vegetarian but the schoolyard pundit doesn't tend to know that.)


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who funds the Electoral Reform Society?


 
I don't know, who does fund a society set up by Liberal politicians and run by lords?


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

This is their money-making wing 



> Electoral Reform Services is the world's leading independent supplier of ballot and election services. Our expertise is recognised by the United Nations and our status as an Independent Scrutineer of voting is authorised by the UK parliament. ERS election and voter registration services are also used by most of the UK's local authorities.


http://www.erbs.co.uk/

"I have used ERS on more than one occasion and found them always to be very helpful and speedy." 
- Tetley Ltd 

"Very good service." 
- EDF Energy 

"My contact at ERS was excellent. She was helpful, proactive and always on hand to provide assistance. A well run election. Thanks ERS." 
- Ernst & Young 

"Very good service - very smooth process and professional ballot papers. Helpful staff too." 
- Citigroup 

"Excellent service - thank you." 
- HSBC 

*"The support and guidance provided by ERS proved invaluable and enabled our ballot to proceed smoothly and in a timely manner." 
- Imperial Tobacco Group plc *

*"Efficient and competent service." 
- Rio Tinto *

*"A very professional and helpful service." 
- News International (News Corporation) *


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Random said:


> This is their money-making wing
> 
> 
> http://www.erbs.co.uk/
> ...



 Fantastic list of the burgeoning pro-democracy movement there. Good move of their supporters to start this game.

It's always been an argument that the constitutionally obsessed are basically apolitical (i.e pro-status quo).


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2010)

I've seen ERS branding on loads of surveys done by professional bodies, companies and so on that I've been involved with.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

Random said:


> This is their money-making wing
> 
> 
> http://www.erbs.co.uk/
> ...


oh fine work there!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Big beasts of yesteryear are of limited value.


so why do you keep trying to scare everyone by naming the 'big beasts' of the No Campaign?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2010)

Random said:


>


 
Looks like the dirty old cunt is copping a blow-job!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2010)

at post above



kabbes said:


> I've given you my reasons why I've come down against it.


 
Perhaps you could link to your reasons for this terrible blow to our chances?  I don't recall seeing any clinhcing arguments against.  

Can accept for the possibility of a Lib/Con 2nd preference trading pact would be a strong objection IF, and only if, someone could explain how Clegg could survive proposing it given that it would wipe out the better part of his parliamentary party at a stroke.   The fact there are more LIb/Con margainals than Lib/Lab ones.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 26, 2010)

How about you start by evaluating the chances of PR coming about before I'm in my 50s if we switch to AV?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2010)

how does an endorsement of the status quo help to bring about PR quicker?  AV is the best way of minimising the Tory vote (hence their almost unanimous rejection of it) - ie one of the main sources of resistance to PR - and also prepares the ground for the logical first next step to - STV in local government.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> AV is the best way of minimising the Tory vote .


you STILL haven't explained convinjcingly why this is so. I just don't get the argument here.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Nov 26, 2010)

I am bothered about AV. 

I think the LibDems aren't thinking the issue through at all, reckoning, instead, that they will pick up secondary votes from the Tories and Labour. The problem is that AV goes one step further.

The problem with AV is that it is the second choices of the crazy fringe voters at the bottom of the list that are the first tranche of reallocated: so this is all your second choice votes for the independents, the BNP-type parties, the "Praise the Lord/Time for the apocalyse" party, the "Stalin lives" vanguard, the "Khashmir/Cornwall/Bunstun Bridge solidarity" bods ... and you can be looking at a fair few thousand second pref votes in that, and all you need is for a main party to get 50 percent. 

Just think of some of the marginals we have in Britain. 

I don't like AV. Yes, it is democratic, but I can see a scenario where we end up with a huge Conservative majority to the extent that they stop playing ball -- all those UKIP votes are not to be reckoned with.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2010)

Absolute fucking rambling drivel - copying Beckett in the Guardian today. You're normally better placed supporting the cuts in their columns DJ. You rat.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 27, 2010)

the LibDems have a plan: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11a8516e-f820-11df-8875-00144feab49a.html#axzz16RL9Nloh




> *A right-royal referendum rave*
> Financial Times, November 25, 2010, Shrimsley, Robert
> 
> Political leaders are whining that the date of the royal wedding will overshadow the referendum on changing the electoral system due to be held a week later.
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 27, 2010)

oh my god, could propaganda get any more blatant?!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2010)

> First we need to create a sense of excitement and glamour. We intend to encourage fevered speculation about the suit Nick Clegg will wear on the day of the referendum. Photographs of him surreptitiously leaving fashion houses could be leaked to the papers. Schoolchildren should be encouraged to design Nick's toggs in a national competition, with the winner guaranteed a place at the count.





> We see Nick as key to this. We know he's a commoner but this gives him an everyman touch and an ability to relate to other privately educated husbands of high-earning wives



Good-ish soft satire.


----------



## Santino (Nov 27, 2010)




----------



## frogwoman (Nov 27, 2010)

actually read it agai and it was a joke  stupid me


----------



## Random (Nov 27, 2010)

kabbes said:


> How about you start by evaluating the chances of PR coming about before I'm in my 50s if we switch to AV?


 
Why do you care about the UK getting PR? The changes it'll make to politcal reality would be utterly marginal.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 28, 2010)

articul8 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/andrew-rawnsley-electoral-reform


 
That's a very interesting article.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 28, 2010)

It's amazing that even after watching the Lib Dems completely acquiesce to the Tories,  Rawnsley and other Guardian columnists are still bleating about how all those who don't embrace the Liberals must be horrible out of date tribalists.  And it's amazing that he of all people is complaining that the current system makes voters 'know their place' when lambasting those that might actually want to vote Labour rather than some sort of broad based coalition as being out of date dinosaurs. (I know the article focuses on senior Labour politicians but the there is an obvious implication that this includes all the 'tribal' voters which Liberals love to whinge about)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

The whole tone of that article (from that well known one-of-us  - Andrew Rawnsley - a long term very privileged oxbridge lib-dem) is _Oh no old people_ - now we all already know that crude age-ism is the default position for the lib-dems (see the back stabbing of min for looking old) but if the yes vote think they're going to win anyone else to their pro-FPTP/anti-PR system with that approach they're in for yet another rude awakening.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 28, 2010)

little_legs said:


> the LibDems have a plan: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11a8516e-f820-11df-8875-00144feab49a.html#axzz16RL9Nloh


is it me, or is the concept of the FT, of all people, making with the gags a hard one to adjust to?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The whole tone of that article (from that well known one-of-us  - Andrew Rawnsley - a long term very privileged oxbridge lib-dem) is _Oh no old people_ -


isn't it more "oh no, yesterday's men, not the _new politics_".
Equally doomed as an approach, IMO, but...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

He's _using_ age-ism whilst pretending that he isn't - he did the equivalent of _some of my friends are black_ - to try and paint the vote as one of young thrusting progressives like himself and nick clegg vs old dinosaurs. It's a piece of piss to undermine with minimal effort - but it's another sign of the yes votes utter desperation. 

I mean _Andrew fucking Rawnsley_ - is that what passes for radicalism today?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

Combustible said:


> It's amazing that even after watching the Lib Dems completely acquiesce to the Tories,  Rawnsley and other Guardian columnists are still bleating about how all those who don't embrace the Liberals must be horrible out of date tribalists.  And it's amazing that he of all people is complaining that the current system makes voters 'know their place' when lambasting those that might actually want to vote Labour rather than some sort of broad based coalition as being out of date dinosaurs. (I know the article focuses on senior Labour politicians but the there is an obvious implication that this includes all the 'tribal' voters which Liberals love to whinge about)


 
It's more than a little amusing that some of the columnists bemoaning "tribal" voting (Rawnsley included) were whining about the *death* of "tribal" voting in the early to mid-1990s.
Then again, as Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I mean _Andrew fucking Rawnsley_ - is that what passes for radicalism today?


 
No, but I'm not sure he's a card carrying LD.  If forced to guess, I'd imagine is in the same camp as people like Polly Toynbee - sympathetic to the politics of the old SDP and early Blair but not enamoured of the coalition so kind of floating around the media orbit around Labour.

The point is that he's right when he argues that that those (Labourists!) trying to turn back the tide and recreate an era of a two party monolith are harking back to an age that has gone.  Their age might explain this, but there will be a minority younger people who want to respond to the failure of the LDs with a misplaced knee-jerk loyalty to the Labour tribe.  

Why people like you should be taking their side on this is frankly bizarre.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

Still with this argument - no ones buying it. It's looking pretty theadbare.

And Rawnsley was a card carrying member of the lib-dems at Oxbridge at a time when they were trying to destroy the labour party and the post-war Keynesian settlement that formed the basis of their support. This latest piece is just another salvo in that same battle. You're a mug for working for them.

Just join the lib-dems and have done with it.


----------



## Santino (Nov 28, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Why people like you should be taking their side on this is frankly bizarre.


 
For the last CUNTING FUCKING TIME, I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT WHO IS COCKING SUPPORTING WHICH ARSING FUCKING SIDE.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

Santino said:


> For the last CUNTING FUCKING TIME, I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT WHO IS COCKING SUPPORTING WHICH ARSING FUCKING SIDE.


well fuck of out of this thread then.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 28, 2010)

Santino said:


> For the last CUNTING FUCKING TIME, I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT WHO IS COCKING SUPPORTING WHICH ARSING FUCKING SIDE.


 
Have you got noisy tourettes?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Just join the lib-dems and have done with it.


 
is this your level of argument now?  Seriously?  The movement for a YES vote will involve lots of people opposed to the coalition.  Notice you've not come out with an explanation for why you are taking the view of those trying to turn the clock back to a 2 party carve up.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

No you prat, it's me parodying yours. ffs.

Guess what, anger at the coalition is driving the support for the no vote. Now, where's that leave your above argument?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 28, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Notice you've not come out with an explanation for why you are taking the view of those trying to turn the clock back to a 2 party carve up.


 
Some people like it to be a choice between black and white.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No you prat, it's me parodying yours. ffs.
> 
> Guess what, anger at the coalition is driving the support for the no vote. Now, where's that leave your above argument?


 
anger at the coalition is leading to support for the position taken by the coalition majority and chief architechts?  Is this really a sustainable position?  I don't think you've established how a NO vote would in any way be of assistance in getting rid of the Tories from government.  So it's a self-defeating position to take.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

No, as explained many many times earlier in the thread, anger is leading to people using the AV referendum to make a well judged tactical attack on the coalition at it's weakest point. You have chosen to support the coalition at its weakest point. You have chosen to prioritise you and your constitutionally obsessed circle of pluralists interests over that of stopping the cuts.

Have you even read this thread? It appears not because you come back week after week claiming that the arguments you've put forward have been ignored - they haven't. They've been tackled head on and they have been tacked repeatedly. The good thing though is that each time you come back your position is even worse than the previous time which leads to your repetition becoming ever more transparently desperate and accusatory which then puts off even more people. 

If you can't win on a predominantly soft left board like this on which the majority of people support PR, if you can't convince them that AV is a step towards PR and that this is a much more important thing than their own priority of attacking the coalition at its weakest point, and if you can't convince them that a NO vote is not doing this, then frankly you're dead in the water nationally.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

If this board represented anything like that national electorate there would never be a Tory government ever again.  Sadly, that is not what we're facing.  The Tories have made a very deliberate effort to hold hands with the few useful idiots who want PR but think that's a reason to attack AV.   Since you avowedly don't  give a shit either way, and the very limited electoral force you did show an interest in appear to have left the stage (IWCA) then I don't not why you persist in making your utterly marginal tiny minority viewpoint known.  You might have tried to make a case for a NO weakening the coalition, but it hasn't been convincing (given that LD MPs have already factored in such a prospect).  

For the legitimate concerns of people who would like to see something better than AV - I'd point out that the major national organisations that take that view (not just LD's, but many in Labour, Greens, ERS, Unlock Democracy - hell even UKIP) will be backing AV *tactically*.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 28, 2010)

Pardon me if I don't put voting with UKIP ahead of a chance to smack the coalition in the gob.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 28, 2010)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Pardon me if I don't put voting with UKIP ahead of a chance to smack the coalition in the gob.


 
Is an - admittedly deserved - smack in the gob for Clegg worth handing the Tories what they - apparently unanimously - want?  Are the LDs really that important - that our attitude to their short term mistakes trumps what is in the interests of voters for the next few decades?    

Some people here seem to think they are mightily important by the sounds of it...


----------



## Corax (Nov 28, 2010)

Having read absolutely none of this thread, would anyone be kind enough to summarise the arguments for me?

In a referendum, I'd plan to vote Yes to AV.  Not because I think it's much good in the slightest, but because it's maybe, possibly, slightly less shit than FPTP.  If the wind's blowing in the right direction and Saturn is in Uranus.  Or something.

Are there any good arguments for doing otherwise?  Is it actually worse than FPTP?  Or should I be abstaining because they need a certain turnout or else they'll have to give us a proper PR option or something?  

Sorry - I'm sure this is all covered in the thread.  It's just that after reading all about Foxy's work colleague who likes to share a tube home with her I'm not sure I can bear wading through 28 pages of Urbanz right now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 28, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Is an - admittedly deserved - smack in the gob for Clegg worth handing the Tories what they - apparently unanimously - want?  Are the LDs really that important - that our attitude to their short term mistakes trumps what is in the interests of voters for the next few decades?
> 
> Some people here seem to think they are mightily important by the sounds of it...


Voters have no interests. Classes do. And defeating this referendum could bring this nasty little government down. Which can only be a good thing for my side.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2010)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Voters have no interests. Classes do. And defeating this referendum could bring this nasty little government down. Which can only be a good thing for my side.



articul8 is not on our side though, his interests are now bound up fully with those of the ruling class, albeit it's "left" or progressive wing.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 28, 2010)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Voters have no interests.


 
Really!?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Really!?



You should stop now before cementing your reputation as the most clueless poster here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You should stop now before cementing your reputation as the most clueless poster here.


 
Way to late for that for the Pooteresque old fart.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> his interests are now bound up fully with those of the ruling class


 
 yes, right.  So when I organise in my local anti-cuts campaign, I am being an agent of the ruling class?!  Is John McDonnell also part of this ruling class conspiracy when he calls for a YES vote?  Don' be daft.

As far as defeating the government I think a NO vote would have precisely the opposite effect - binding the LDs into it for the full term and making another term of Cameron led government (with or without LD help) more likely.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> I think a lot of people who were formerly in favour of some reform will also just vote no to 'punish' the Lib Dems.


 
I wonder how that will be viewed historically, people don't tend to imagine outcomes of referendums that go onto affect generations are decided on the partisan issues of the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

As _the_ great political  betrayal of 2010-11? I can't think of anything else that would deserve that title - can anyone else?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

Agree that punishing the LDs is a powerful motive - but why do that in a way that helps the Tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Amazing, you're now thinking of you and the lib-dems as one single group.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Have you got noisy tourettes?


what, for demolishing that laughable argument about voting 'yes' on the grounds of not wanting to be associated with the leaders of the 'No' campaign? gimme a break!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing, you're now thinking of you and the lib-dems as one single group.


 
eh?  how?  But if you live in a Con/LD marginal then under FPTP you are completely disenfranchised with FPTP.  But under AV you could show your opposition to them (say by voting Tusc 1, Green 2, Labour 3, LD 4) but still have your vote count against the Tory.   Under FPTP anything  you do (stay at home, vote Labour, whatever) just makes the Tories stronger.

The Tories are the main enemy and the currently pro Tory leadership of the LDs.  But don't make the mistake of assuming that anyone who has voted or might do so in future has been unveiled as a secret tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Because i made a point about what would be remembered as the great betrayal of 2010-11 in direct reply to moon's post here - the lib-dems behaviour or the AV vote being lost because of that behavior and you then jumped in with your now disappeared query about _it's shocking that electoral reformers united in support of electoral reform?_

It's fucking bad form for you to now post the above after you disappeared the post i was replying to and replaced it with something entirely different. 

You're not covering yourself in glory on this thread, it has to be said. And you're a pro. Why did you remove that post - got a little too close to the truth did i?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> ...currently pro Tory leadership of the LDs...



I note also your now almost complete latimerisation.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's fucking bad form


 
No, i posted that after misreading your post to Moon as implying that that "betrayal" was specific to electoral reform, when presumably the LD betrayal you refer to is much broader than that.  So I'm not defending the LDs in general - although I don't consider their backing of AV as unprincipled - unlike their position on VAT/ fees etc. etc..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

So still, why do that _after_ you'd worked out what i was on about? You've just dug the hole deeper.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what, for demolishing that laughable argument about voting 'yes' on the grounds of not wanting to be associated with the leaders of the 'No' campaign? gimme a break!


 
No-one can demolish an argument, laughable or otherwise, by shouting.


----------



## Random (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> yes, right.  So when I organise in my local anti-cuts campaign, I am being an agent of the ruling class?!  Is John McDonnell also part of this ruling class conspiracy when he calls for a YES vote?  Don' be daft.


"The support and guidance provided by ERS proved invaluable and enabled our ballot to proceed smoothly and in a timely manner."
- Imperial Tobacco Group plc

"Efficient and competent service."
- Rio Tinto

"A very professional and helpful service."
- News International (News Corporation)


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I note also your now almost complete latimerisation.


 
I'm not in favour of reaching out across the divide if it means being less critical of the coalition's policies.  But I don't think that every member of the Lib Dems is automatically some piece of subhuman scum, only those that are applauding the cuts eg.   

I know that anything short of advocating a final solution for Lib Dem voters is going to seem like a soft left position on these boards just now.  But why drive otherwise hesitant or doubting LD identifyers into the arms of Clegg et al?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Why on earth do you think they'd be _driven_ by me? They're not pawns. And from where? From your party.

What are your connections with the latimer project? Let's get the cards on the table early this time eh?


----------



## Random (Nov 29, 2010)

Butchersapron, you are insignificant, you think you're a big shot. Stop spoiling it for the AV campaign with your lack of influence!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

I'll have you know i'm having cider with Lord Falconer later tonight.


----------



## Random (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'll have you know i'm having cider with Lord Falconer later tonight.


 
All those not in the labour party, you're politically dead, get out.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What are your connections with the latimer project? Let's get the cards on the table early this time eh?


 
Sorry to disappoint but there exists no connection between me and the Latimer Project, bar the fact that I have spoken ocassionally to one or two of the people involved.  But that doesn't amount to me supporting it or having any formal involvment with it whatsoever. 

If you really want to punish Clegg the best way would be to win over his voters and even members to a different kind of politics.  But simply denouncing them all as the devil's spawn might be gratifying but it isn't very clever.  That way they get defensive and start feeling they have to defend the indefensible,.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Lucky the only people doing that are in your pluralist imagination. It's been repeated over and over that the lib-dems mugged people, very few are blaming the victims.

Just what sort of bubble are you floating on?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

yes there's the "once bitten twice shy" LD voters. But what do they do under a FPTP system which won't have the paradoxical effect of helping the Tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Are you missing out posts or something?

I couldn't give two fucks about the mechanics of it.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

Random said:


> "The support and guidance provided by ERS proved invaluable and enabled our ballot to proceed smoothly and in a timely manner."
> - Imperial Tobacco Group plc
> 
> "Efficient and competent service."
> ...


 
Technically the organisation you're referring to is not my employer, although it does generate the revenue which pays my wages.  But it doesn't effect the causes for which we campaign!  Murdoch hates electoral reform!!!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Are you missing out posts or something?
> 
> I couldn't give two fucks about the mechanics of it.


 
It's not about the mechanics it's about the politics  see #690


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'll have you know i'm having cider with Lord Falconer later tonight.


 
Tell the bastard he still owes me a tenner for that bet about Cherie Booth breaking Tony Blair's duck.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

That's my point, not yours/ You argue that it offers a better result than pure FPTP.  It doesn't but the main argument is it will fuck the coalition up more than a yes vote. That's politics. Please don't tell me it isn't.

You seem to be floundering and confused.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Technically the organisation you're referring to is not my employer, although it does generate the revenue which pays my wages.  But it doesn't effect the causes for which we campaign!  Murdoch hates electoral reform!!!


 
Technically. Do you really not how get how fucking technically neck deep in shit you are? It's started to come out of your mouth.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

Random said:


> Butchersapron, you are insignificant, you think you're a big shot. Stop spoiling it for the AV campaign with your lack of influence!!!!


 
Urban as a time sink ensure that will remain the case.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The Tories are the main enemy and the currently pro Tory leadership of the LDs.  But don't make the mistake of assuming that anyone who has voted or might do so in future has been unveiled as a secret tory.


who on earth is doing that? I for one have  alot of sympathy for all those people who voted LD to punish labour and have since realised they got absolutely stitched up.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> it will fuck the coalition up more than a yes vote.


 
a) it won't fuck the coalition
but b) it will mean that when the coalition does eventually collapse it will be harder to kick the Tories out.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Technically. Do you really not how get how fucking technically neck deep in shit you are? It's started to come out of your mouth.


 
bollocks - I'm paid to lobby for a cause which is anti-Tory and which helps to accelerate the realignment of the British left.  Which all sounds good to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

a) it will - it will leave them gridlocked - tories feared of going too far for breaking the coalition, lib-dem scared of losing seats and their career
b) no it doesn't - it's much easier in fact, as FPTP favours labour. The party that you're in, but don't actually support.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> bollocks - I'm paid to lobby for a cause which is anti-Tory and which helps to accelerate the realignment of the British left.  Which all sounds good to me.


 
You can sell it to yourself anyway you like. You already have. The limits of this vision are a realignment between labour and the lib-dems removed from any link with the unions. Yes, you're paid allright.


----------



## Random (Nov 29, 2010)

articul8 said:


> bollocks - I'm paid to lobby for a cause which is anti-Tory and which helps to accelerate the realignment of the British left.  Which all sounds good to me.


 
Why are your lib dem employers and tory paymasters helping to align the british left?


----------



## articul8 (Nov 29, 2010)

Random said:


> Why are your lib dem employers and tory paymasters helping to align the british left?


 Yes there is a wing of the ruling class who want a centrist lib/lab arrangement.  But even if that happened there would be a scope for a viable labour left/Green left/far left arrangement up like Die Linke.  This seems like a positive step forward!


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

My problem with MPs is they are *too* bound by public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism and tribal loyalty to consider legislation on its merits.

It's supposed to be representative government. MPs are under no obligation to do any specific thing they promise, and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.

It's frankly bizarre to insist LibDems must keep their promises and then to suppose that imposing STV rather than settling for AV is one of their missions. STV has it's mertis, but it also  ensures no-one gets to keep their promises, the very thing you are supposing is undesirable.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> *My problem with MPs is they are *too* bound by public promises*, rhetorical capture, careerism and tribal loyalty to consider legislation on its merits.
> 
> *It's supposed to be representative government. MPs are under no obligation to do any specific thing they promise*, and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.
> 
> It's frankly bizarre to insist LibDems must keep their promises and then to suppose that imposing STV rather than settling for AV is one of their missions. STV has it's mertis, but it also  ensures no-one gets to keep their promises, the very thing you are supposing is undesirable.


 
Your problem with MPs is that they are too accountable! So much for the democratic part of Lib Dem.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My problem with MPs is they are *too* bound by public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism and tribal loyalty to consider legislation on its merits.
> 
> It's supposed to be representative government. MPs are under no obligation to do any specific thing they promise, and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.
> 
> It's frankly bizarre to insist LibDems must keep their promises and then to suppose that imposing STV rather than settling for AV is one of their missions. STV has it's mertis, but it also  ensures no-one gets to keep their promises, the very thing you are supposing is undesirable.


 
Did you really just say that? Bizarre and arrogant, a winning brew.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 1, 2010)

articul8 said:


> which helps to accelerate the realignment of the British left.


how the FUCK will a left vote do that? Comprehensive justification of this please


----------



## Santino (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's frankly bizarre to insist LibDems must keep their promises



Let's congratulate moon23 for his brilliant long-running troll, but this madness must end now.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Your problem with MPs is that they are too accountable! So much for the democratic part of Lib Dem.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
You seem unable to make the basic distinction between what I say and the entire party.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You seem unable to make the basic distinction between what I say and the entire party.


 
So you are against democarcy?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

Santino said:


> Let's congratulate moon23 for his brilliant long-running troll, but this madness must end now.


 
You are just taking the first part of this sentance out of context, it's only bizzare to insist Lib Dems keep their promises if you are also suggesting the should have forced a coalition partner to introduce STV.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you are against democarcy?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
No i'm for MPs having soverginty over public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism , orgainesd lobbies and tribal loyalty


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

There is nothing that is any more binding in a promise which formed part of a PR campaign for an organised NUS campaign then there is the manifesto on which the mass of the electorate went to the polls.


----------



## Santino (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You are just taking the first part of this sentance out of context, it's only bizzare to insist Lib Dems keep their promises if you are also suggesting the should have forced a coalition partner to introduce STV.


 
You also said that MPs are 'too bound' by public promises. It is clear that you think pragmatism and dirty little compromises should trump THE PROMISE THAT THEY USED TO GET ELECTED. This is beyond parody. You are not a troll because no troll would dare be so unfathomably spineless.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 1, 2010)

> No i'm for MPs having soverginty over public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism , orgainesd lobbies and tribal loyalty


That's open contempt for the principle of democratic representation - if it doesn't matter what peope say when they put themselves up for election, why don't we just have a lucky dip of all the candidates?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's supposed to be representative government. MPs are under no obligation to do any specific thing they promise,


brilliant. So nothing your MPs say is worth believing in or taking on trust, and they can say anything they like to get elected, without feeling obligated to stand by it afterwards. So why should we ever take a single word you say seriously, ever again?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No i'm for MPs having soverginty over public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism , orgainesd lobbies and tribal loyalty


 
So you are against democracy; your prefered MPs would not be accountable to the public, to campaigners or to the parties who helped them get elected. This is idiotic stuff even by your standards.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 1, 2010)

This is where supporting the Lib Dems gets you - arguing that politicians don't lie enough


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2010)

I think people who are angry should get involved in the parties and make them lie more.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think people who are angry should get involved in the parties and make them lie more.


. he'll never see how that's where his argument is leading him inevitably tho'. cows will dance on the moon first


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you are against democracy; your prefered MPs would not be accountable to the public, to campaigners or to the parties who helped them get elected. This is idiotic stuff even by your standards.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Saying  MPs are *Too* bound, is not the same as arguing they should be unaccountable. If you read my post it's in reference to their ability to read legislation and form their own opinions. This is what should happen around debated in the house.

We do not elect people to simply parrot a load of pledges, and party lines we elect individual people who should be allowed some freedom of thought, independence and critical faculties with which to examine legislation.  Ultimately if you dislike someone’s decision making you can then vote them out of power.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 1, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> brilliant. So nothing your MPs say is worth believing in or taking on trust, and they can say anything they like to get elected, without feeling obligated to stand by it afterwards. So why should we ever take a single word you say seriously, ever again?



Here is the vital part of my sentance you miss out.  *and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.*

MPs should not be bound to ignore reality as new information emerges and compromises need to be made.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Here is the vital part of my sentance you miss out.  *and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.*
> 
> MPs should not be bound to ignore reality as new information emerges and compromises need to be made.


sorry, but that's utter bullshit. The whole reason why MPs make promises, is to get votes. That's what a 'manifesto' means - a platform you should have to stand by.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Here is the vital part of my sentance you miss out.  *and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.*
> 
> MPs should not be bound to ignore reality as new information emerges and compromises need to be made.


 
_The system makes us lie_. It doesn't.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> B]and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.[/B]
> .


 
Why are they such better "learners" in government?  Only in government can you find out what's best?  By that logic Castro should be a feckin genius.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 1, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Saying  MPs are *Too* bound, is not the same as arguing they should be unaccountable. If you read my post it's in reference to their ability to read legislation and form their own opinions. This is what should happen around debated in the house.
> 
> We do not elect people to simply parrot a load of pledges, and party lines we elect individual people who should be allowed some freedom of thought, independence and critical faculties with which to examine legislation.  Ultimately if you dislike someone’s decision making you can then vote them out of power.


 
You want them to be less accountable (they don't have to make good on promises). You are happy to limit popular involvement to one day every five years (no lobbying, no pressure via their local party). You are are against the already sharply limited democracy we currently enjoy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

No Louis once again you misrepresent me, MPs can still be engaged with and people can still lobby them we just should expect automatically that they are bound by a promise when circumstances change.

Honetly Labour must be glad they lost the election, people can knock the lib dems but just look at the factors involved in why the coalition was formed:

1. Cameron's been trying to move the Tories to the centre. He saw the Coalition as a way of doing it and even AV wouldn't hurt.
2. Clegg was also trying to move the LibDems to the centre, due to the influence of David Laws.
3. At the same time, for the LibDems, it was the first real opportunity to get rid of the crappy electoral system we have in something like 80 years. A supply & favour arrangement with an incredibly weak minority Tory govt would not have achieved this.
4. Likewise, the LibDems would also have much more influence over the Tories if they were in Govt.
5. With the largest deficit in Europe (bar the one Greece lied about) and the credit crunch applying to countries too, it's easy to see the UK ending up like Ireland. It may still happen - which would probably create a global depression. The Tories and LibDems had a duty to form a coalition. I'm inclined to think that Clegg took this more seriously than Cameron but who knows.
6. Clegg hated NuLabour and what it did to this country. Maybe Cameron did too. And most of the damages to our rights and the checks & balances on Govt have yet to be rectified.
7. Cameron would have survived regardless as a Labour coalition was impossible.
8. Lastly, both the Tories and LibDems would be blamed for anything that went wrong if they failed to form a Govt.

If anything, I'd say Clegg was more motivated than Cameron.

Cameron had already repeatedly stated he preferred majority government. It's been shown that Clegg tricked Cameron into offering AV, although Cameron may have accepted anyway.

AV is undoubtedly more proportional than FPTP. There was a poll in 1997 that showed Labour getting even more seats under AV. But the same polling company showed Labour getting more seats under FPtP too... and as we know, they were wrong.

In fact all but one polling company made this mistake. They still hadn't fixed their half-assed polling that gave Labour a majority in 1992.

The furthest back I've been able to trace this research is here:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/mvc.pdf

If AV is "self-serving" for the LibDems and LibDem 2nd votes would split equally for the Tories and Labour, then AV is clearly more proportional.

STV would be even more "self-serving", but for reasons stated above I don't think it was ever on the cards.

I personally think AV hugely outweighs the tuition fees issue. The Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country. AV ensures reform of the parties themselves - for their own survival.

STV has its own problems - we could easily see UKIP wagging the dog and would probably let in the BNP. Nonetheless, my preference is for a quadrennial rolling STV system. This would move the electorate's focus away from national politics towards the qualities of local candidates and make them even less accountable (which you are arguing is a bad thing)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2010)

> The Tories and LibDems had a duty to form a coalition.



that is not a fact, that is just your opinion.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I personally think AV hugely outweighs the tuition fees issue.


You haven't won "AV" out of the coalition yet.  You've won a referendum that the Tories will move heaven and earth to see defeated.  If you want to win this referendum you'd better shut up with arguments like this on fees - you might "personally" think that but no-one outside the LDs will agree.



> STV has its own problems - we could easily see UKIP wagging the dog and would probably let in the BNP. Nonetheless, my preference is for a quadrennial rolling STV system. This would move the electorate's focus away from national politics towards the qualities of local candidates and make them even less accountable (which you are arguing is a bad thing)


a) STV would do no such thing b) you can't have a rolling STV system - it has to be "all up" [unless some weird hybrid system]


----------



## Corax (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Here is the vital part of my sentance you miss out.  *and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.*
> 
> MPs should not be bound to ignore reality as new information emerges and compromises need to be made.


 
Fucking astounding.  How about they don't make promises that they know they won't be able to keep?

Signing a 'pledge' for the cameras wins a few votes though eh?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No Louis once again you misrepresent me, MPs can still be engaged with and people can still lobby them we just should expect automatically that they are bound by a promise when circumstances change.
> 
> Honetly Labour must be glad they lost the election, people can knock the lib dems but just look at the factors involved in why the coalition was formed:
> 
> ...


 
There are so many ill-informed opinions in here, presented as facts, I'm sure others will be along to point them out. I'll satisfy myself with highlighting a couple of the most obvious outright fabrications and confusions:

1. The crappy electoral system has not be done away with;  areferendum has been secured which was already on offer.

2. Cameron may well not have survived as PM in a minority Tory government as that government might have failed.

3. AV can be less prportional than FPTP; any basic research on lectoral systems would recveal this.

4. Attempting to exclude UKIP and the BNP by means of AV (or FPTP) is applying an organisational fix to a political problem and a potentially very risky one.

At core of your confusion and dishonesty is your appreciation that 'the Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country'; the duopoly isn't the big problem it is the shared politics, the post 79 TINA politics which the Lib Dems also share with a visible enthusiasm.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

Corax said:


> Fucking astounding.  How about they don't make promises that they know they won't be able to keep?
> 
> Signing a 'pledge' for the cameras wins a few votes though eh?


 
Most people who signed that pledge didn't think about what the consequences might be if they then had to try and negotiate a coalition. That’s certainly a lesson in the future for politicians not to make promises if they think it’s likely they might have to be compromising on them.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There are so many ill-informed opinions in here, presented as facts, I'm sure others will be along to point them out. I'll satisfy myself with highlighting a couple of the most obvious outright fabrications and confusions:
> 
> 1. The crappy electoral system has not be done away with;  areferendum has been secured which was already on offer.



On offer by whom though? How else could a workable majority have been achieved that would have seen a bill for an AV referendum pass through parliament?  You would only need one or two Labour rebels (e.g. those who are patrons of the NO2AV campaign to rebel)



> 2. Cameron may well not have survived as PM in a minority Tory government as that government might have failed.



Possibly it might have, but then again it might have been very populist for a few months and then call a snap election. It's impossible to tell for certain.



> 3. AV can be less prportional than FPTP; any basic research on lectoral systems would recveal this.



It would be interesting to have a look at this research, I think AV is better at reflecting the will of people, and it also gives people more choice and infulence in an election.



> 4. Attempting to exclude UKIP and the BNP by means of AV (or FPTP) is applying an organisational fix to a political problem and a potentially very risky one.



Likewise, so is introducing an electoral system that will give them a big advantage. 



> At core of your confusion and dishonesty is your appreciation that 'the Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country'; the duopoly isn't the big problem it is the shared politics, the post 79 TINA politics which the Lib Dems also share with a visible enthusiasm.



I agree shared policies are quite a big problem, what do you think the main causes of this are?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 2, 2010)

Moon, how can you claim that AV is "more proportional than FPTP", when AV is actually nothing more than a re-tooled version of FPTP? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Furthermore what do you have to say about the coalition's plan to redraw the electoral boundaries?

You say,


> I think AV is better at reflecting the will of people, and it also gives people more choice and infulence in an election.



How does AV do any of these things? You use the word "choice" here as though the electorate were going to a supermarket to make a choice between brands of breakfast cereals.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Most people who signed that pledge didn't think about what the consequences might be if they then had to try and negotiate a coalition. That’s certainly a lesson in the future for politicians not to make promises if they think it’s likely they might have to be compromising on them.


 
Astonishing - your lesson from the tuition fees disaster is not _don't lie_, it's don't _get caught lying._


----------



## Random (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Most people who signed that pledge didn't think about what the consequences might be if they then had to try and negotiate a coalition. That’s certainly a lesson in the future for politicians not to make promises if they think it’s likely they might have to be compromising on them.


 
The lib dems never considered the possibility of a colaition? Is that what they're telling you? Poor chap!


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing - your lesson from the tuition fees disaster is not _don't lie_, it's don't _get caught lying._


 
No, it's don't make promises that you can't keep.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

Random said:


> The lib dems never considered the possibility of a colaition? Is that what they're telling you? Poor chap!


 
I think possibly a few Lib Dems were planning before the election on what areas they might have to compromise on, but I don't think the majority of the parlimentary party thought when making this pledge about the implications, and whether they would realistically be able to stick to it. - That's the mistake they made.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, it's don't make promises that you can't keep.


 
AKA don't get caught lying.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think possibly a few Lib Dems were planning before the election on what areas they might have to compromise on, but I don't think the majority of the parlimentary party thought when making this pledge about the implications, and whether they would realistically be able to stick to it. - That's the mistake they made.


 
Hang on, Clegg hand picked a team to draw up a report on what they were going to ditch before the bloody election. That shows a) the party had already decided that coalition was very very likely and b) that none of your 'commitments' was ever serious.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2010)

it was their duty tho


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, Clegg hand picked a team to draw up a report on what they were going to ditch before the bloody election. That shows a) the party had already decided that coalition was very very likely and b) that none of your 'commitments' was ever serious.


 
It was a team to consider what would be compromised in the event of a coalition, if the electorate decided not to endorse the parties polices by voting in a Lib Dem government. I’m angry with the party that this was kept so secret and drawn up by Clegg and Alexander ‘s secret groups whilst everyone else (including myself) were going around campaigning to students about tuition fees in good faith. This is the lesson for the future, not to make promises you might not be able to keep if you are planning on compromising, and being more up front about what the party will or won't compromise on.

I think people would have a lot more respect if beforehand the party said we oppose tution fees, but we might have to compromise on areas of our policy if we don't win the election.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

You can;t argue that the lib-dems did not expect a coalition then point to long standing plans designed to deal with coalition politics. You cannot. You're extending that original dishonesty into the present if you take that line.

It's clear the scales are starting to fall from your eyes btw.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think possibly a few Lib Dems were planning before the election on what areas they might have to compromise on, but I don't think the majority of the parlimentary party thought when making this pledge about the implications, and whether they would realistically be able to stick to it. - That's the mistake they made.


hang on, the raison d'etre of the libdems is coalition, as there's no other way they'll ever get a sniff of power. What you've just said is that they are all too naive and amateurish to be trusted with so much as a parish council!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm angry with the party that this was kept so secret and drawn up by Clegg and Alexander ‘s secret groups whilst everyone else (including myself) were going around campaigning to students about tuition fees in good faith. This is the lesson for the future, not to make promises you might not be able to keep if you are planning on compromising, and being more up front about what the party will or won't compromise on.


or, to put another way, your leadership really fucked you over, didn't they?


----------



## Santino (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, it's don't make promises that you can't keep.


 
They could keep it. They still can. Where they went wrong was signing an agreement with the Tories in which they promised not to keep an earlier promise.

Do you think they should stick to the coalition agreement? Or is it bizarre to think that politicians should stick to agreements they've signed?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 2, 2010)

Santino said:


> They could keep it. They still can. Where they went wrong was signing an agreement with the Tories in which they promised not to keep an earlier promise.
> 
> Do you think they should stick to the coalition agreement? Or is it bizarre to think that politicians should stick to agreements they've signed?


 
Well i've been quite torn whether MPs should abstain or vote against the measure as I don't think they should break the coaltion agreement, but then it was stupid to sign an agreement that broke a promise. 

The party is kind of fucked either way. It is quite dissapointing as a party activist, this is how Labour people must have felt when they introduced fees, or went to Iraq. I can kind of understand now why someone would want to stick by their party even when they do rubbish things. I've found myself defending the party over things I don't even agree with as a result. 

It's a bit like being married to an abusive partner who you keep making justifications for.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2010)

sorry to hear that moon, fwiw i know for a fact plenty of lib dems feel the same way you do.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well i've been quite torn whether MPs should abstain or vote against the measure as I don't think they should break the coaltion agreement, but then it was stupid to sign an agreement that broke a promise.
> 
> The party is kind of fucked either way. It is quite dissapointing as a party activist, this is how Labour people must have felt when they introduced fees, or went to Iraq. I can kind of understand now why someone would want to stick by their party even when they do rubbish things. I've found myself defending the party over things I don't even agree with as a result.
> 
> It's a bit like being married to an abusive partner who you keep making justifications for.


 
Ha! Ha, fuck off


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 2, 2010)

Come on Moon, nearly there.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 2, 2010)

Welcome back to the light. (possibly, altho probably a bit premature)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well i've been quite torn whether MPs should abstain or vote against the measure as I don't think they should break the coaltion agreement, but then it was stupid to sign an agreement that broke a promise.
> 
> The party is kind of fucked either way. It is quite dissapointing as a party activist, this is how Labour people must have felt when they introduced fees, or went to Iraq. I can kind of understand now why someone would want to stick by their party even when they do rubbish things. I've found myself defending the party over things I don't even agree with as a result.
> 
> It's a bit like being married to an abusive partner who you keep making justifications for.



Fuck off, and stick with them - there really is nowhere else for someone like you to go.


----------



## Santino (Dec 2, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fuck off, and stick with them - there really is nowhere else for someone like you to go.


 
Tory party?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 3, 2010)

Fair point^


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2010)

Moon, why have you not responded to my posts?


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> Moon, why have you not responded to my posts?


 
It's bizarre to expect a poster to respond to questions they've been asked. What we need is posters who are not too bound by the conventions of normal human conversation but who think about each interaction on its own merits and decide how best to proceed.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2010)




----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2010)

frogwoman said:


>


 
Your problem froggie is that you haven't learned to deal with the realities of coalition government yet.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 6, 2010)

started poll on this here


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Independent has it 56/44 yes/no - (no don't knows/won't vote?)

This was  poll with no explanation of what/how the system works/means of course.

Report mentions that the man who the yes posters above claimed has nothing to do with the yes campaign is fronting the yes campaign. Also seems ot suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a _it doesn't mean anything will change_ approach.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Report mentions that the man who the yes posters above claimed has nothing to do with the yes campaign is fronting the yes campaign. Also seems ot suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a _it doesn't mean anything will change_ approach.


 
what are you wittering on about now?  Who has denied Bartley's involvement?  He isn't "leading" anything though he'sd just a spokesman.  And one of the campaign slogans is "a small change that makes a big difference".  That isn't the same as a "nothing will change" approach.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

You did.

Also seems to  suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a it doesn't mean anything will change approach = It hopes that the No camp will not be able to convince people that AV is a dangerous “leap into the unknown”.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 17, 2010)

No I didn't.  I said he wasn't "leader" of the campaign.   It isn't a dangerous leap, but that doesn't mean it isn't any kind of leap.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 17, 2010)

I vote for it so just to "so called" screw the MP's lives but it's still going to be the three "main" parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2010)

Latest YG has 

NO - 41% (+2)
Yes -35% (+2)
DK - 17% (-4)
NV - 7%

This contrasts with the ICM poll for the electoral reform society which had:

I would vote ‘Yes’ for the voting system to change to AV: 35%
I would vote ‘No’ – to keep the existing system: 22%
I would not vote in the referendum: 9%
Don’t know: 35%

Peter Kellner suggests a reason for the discrepancy might lie in the YG poll pointing out that 'the referendum is being proposed by the Coalition, whereas ICM’s question does not' - i.e the ICM poll ignores the political realities of the situation. The yes camp have actually used this to back their approach but unfortunately for them YG did the poll without the mention of the coalition and came up with identical results. (So they can't even get the stuff they get wrong right). 

Kellner reckons the main reason for the differences is that YG actually explain (albeit briefly) what AV is and what it will entail - which is exactly what we're going to see happening in the run-up to the referendum, so that no matter what the YES people do they're going to be running into the wind in the crucial period - plenty of meat left in the DK's for the NO vote (and even in the yes vote).


----------



## articul8 (Dec 22, 2010)

Well the one poll that actually uses verbatim the Electoral Commission's question (ie the one that will be used on polling day) finds the following [ICM for Guardian]:



> The Guardian poll on the referendum – which, unlike others, used the precise wording of the referendum question proposed by the Electoral Commission – puts the yes camp ahead by six points, 44% to 38%.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Well the one poll that actually uses verbatim the Electoral Commission's question (ie the one that will be used on polling day) finds the following [ICM for Guardian]:


 
The one that ignores wider political context. Please carry on


----------



## articul8 (Dec 22, 2010)

That is the precise wording of the question as people will be asked it ie. no push-polling element.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

Yes my dear, that's what it will be fought on. Crack on.


----------



## Random (Dec 23, 2010)

So the Electoral Reform movement's main hope is that as little info as possible reaches the voting public.


----------



## Garek (Dec 23, 2010)

I can't be arsed be to vote. Same shit in a different dress.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> That is the precise wording of the question as people will be asked it ie. no push-polling element.


yeah right, so not a single member of the electorate has the intellectual wherewithal to place it in any sort of context in their own minds, at any time in the weeks running up to voting! Does the ERS have members who are somewhat sharper at this 'debate' lark than you?
e2a: has it not occurred to you that there is no way that a single member of the public will fail to associate this with a party flatlining under 10% in the polls?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

D'oh - it's *because* we credit the voters with enough intelligence to recognise the difference between short-term party politial considerations and the question of the voting system which will shape the political context for a generaion that many non-Lib Dems (Labour, Greens, people of no party afilliation) are prepared to campaign for it whilst attacking the LDs for their present policy.  You seem to think the voters are too stupid to see any distinction.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

That's right. We're all London pluralists. We've no other motivations.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> D'oh - it's *because* we credit the voters with enough intelligence to recognise the difference between short-term party politial considerations and the question of the voting system which will shape the political context for a generaion that many non-Lib Dems (Labour, Greens, people of no party afilliation) are prepared to campaign for it whilst attacking the LDs for their present policy.  You seem to think the voters are too stupid to see any distinction.


no I don't, I'm one of them, after all. However, if you know the guy trying to sell you a used motor has some well dodgy track record, it does make me a helluva lot more cautious about the cars_ bona fides_.
Hold on; _you_ were the one who was endlessly reminding us, earlier in this thread, of all the dodgy people in the 'no' camp and all the fine chaps in the 'yes' camp. Now _you're_ saying that's _precisely_ what we should disregard, that it doesn't matter? Fucking hell, you hypocrite, you're all over the place!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

He's shameless mate, and he's shameless because he  is desperate.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He's shameless mate, and he's shameless because he  is desperate.


you're too bloody right there.....it _looks_ desperate


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

By all means people should look at the totality of each campaign and make their judgements - and of course Clegg and the LDs are a constituent part of the YES campaign, but far from the only one or the most influential.  And  that doesn't mean the question is a proxy for whether you support the LDs role in setting up the coalition or that how it effects the LDs is the most salient aspect about AV. 

Ultimately, it's about whether people want to entertain the prospect of a Tory majority after the next GE.  If you would be happy with that by all means deliver the Tory press the verdict they're after.  Otherwise, punish the LDs at the locals, but deliver Cameron a bloody nose at the same time.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

When you say wank like totality you mean people hate the lib-dems. And you want to pretend that they don't.

Don't ever go into politics - you're shit at it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> By all means people should look at the totality of each campaign and make their judgements - and of course Clegg and the LDs are a constituent part of the YES campaign, but far from the only one or the most influential.  And  that doesn't mean the question is a proxy for whether you support the LDs role in setting up the coalition or that how it effects the LDs is the most salient aspect about AV.
> 
> Ultimately, it's about whether people want to entertain the prospect of a Tory majority after the next GE.  If you would be happy with that by all means deliver the Tory press the verdict they're after.  Otherwise, punish the LDs at the locals, but deliver Cameron a bloody nose at the same time.


 


> Ultimately, it's about whether people want to entertain the prospect of a Tory majority after the next GE



No it's not. Saying it over makes you look like a cock.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

not just me saying it - backed up by psephology:
http://labouryes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The-Last-Chance-Saloon-Labour-and-AV.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

A link to the labour yes campaign. Yes i would suspect a group that you're part of and paid to be part of agrees with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Hey look it's will straw, son of and paid  latimer project leader (let's join up with the lib-dems) running the site - what  a shock! 

In it up to your shit coloured eyeballs.


----------



## Santino (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> D'oh - it's *because* we credit the voters with enough intelligence to recognise the difference between short-term party politial considerations and the question of the voting system which will shape the political context for a generaion that many non-Lib Dems (Labour, Greens, people of no party afilliation) are prepared to campaign for it whilst attacking the LDs for their present policy.  You seem to think the voters are too stupid to see any distinction.


 
How will AV shape the political context? Will it enable a genuine alternative to emerge (please show your working)? Will it push the Tories out of goverment forever (please show your working)? Will it deliver more seats for smaller parties (please show your working)?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Ultimately, it's about whether people want to entertain the prospect of a Tory majority after the next GE.  If you would be happy with that by all means deliver the Tory press the verdict they're after.  Otherwise, punish the LDs at the locals, but deliver Cameron a bloody nose at the same time.


jesus you're really fucking desperate now! It's not about that _at all_, not least going by your own posts earlier in the thread. A 'no' vote does not make a tory majority that much more likely after the next election, especially not if they don't get their gerrymandering through as well. where Labour and the tories are in the polls is much more relevant
And you're doing it _again_ - *in your very next post* after criticising me for saying people will look at the context of this being a lib dem pet project, you're trying to drum up support by painting the 'no' campaign as being linked with the tory press! fucking hell!
You really are somersaulting left right and centre. are you _sure_ you're not a libdem?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

This is what pluralism means - one, two, many positions.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

Santino said:


> How will AV shape the political context?  Will it push the Tories out of goverment forever (please show your working)?


No, but it will make it much harder them to form a majority without a programme that is capable of attracting the support of many more people outside the core Tory vote than they have to achieve under FPTP where they can routinely win seats on 30-40% of the vote. 



> Will it deliver more seats for smaller parties (please show your working)?


In the short term, no it won't.  But it will release people who want to vote for smaller parties to do so without the fear they will be losing their chance to influence the outcome by doing so.

Will it help an alternative to emerge? Partly for the reason above I would say that it, will but that is a longer term project and there is no causal relation.  There's no shortcut to produce such an alternative by tinkering with the electoral system.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Hey look it's will straw, son of and paid  latimer project leader (let's join up with the lib-dems) running the site - what  a shock!
> .



You seem to be more interested in the Latimer project than anyone else I know.  Why does it fascinate you so?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

Political instinct.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2010)

All pluralists think alike and are part of some single agenda?  How very paranoid


----------



## Santino (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> No, but it will make it much harder them to form a majority without a programme that is capable of attracting the support of many more people outside the core Tory vote than they have to achieve under FPTP where they can routinely win seats on 30-40% of the vote.



There's a gap in your argument. Who's going to be winning in these seats to stop the Tories getting in?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

articul8 said:


> All pluralists think alike and are part of some single agenda?  How very paranoid


 
Thus revealing that you're operating as their left. Yeah. We got you.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 24, 2010)

Pluralist left?  Yes sounds like a fair cop.  But as distinct from liberal pluralist.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 24, 2010)

Santino said:


> There's a gap in your argument. Who's going to be winning in these seats to stop the Tories getting in?


 
LDs but with LDs having to succesfully tack left to appeal for Lab/Green 2nd preferences.  Would it be better for Tories to win?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

That's right, i really want a lid-dem party that has to pretend to be left-wing instead of the tories. They'll save us.

Given the game away there.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 24, 2010)

LDs can be useful idiots.  At the moment they are just idiots.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

Yes, useful idiots - good phrase._ Let's elect them and hope they do nice things for us._ Useful idiots indeed.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 24, 2010)

So it's better for all these seats to fall to the Tories, and give Cameron a majority?  Getting LDs elected is the least worst option in this scenario - but only providing that voters have the opportunity to demonstrate (in an AV system) that they are not LD supporters primarily.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

That's right, i'm a tory. Only tories hate the lib-dems and think that a plan that involves electing them and putting pressure on them is a bit daft. Useful idiots.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 25, 2010)

articul8 said:


> So it's better for all these seats to fall to the Tories, and give Cameron a majority?  Getting LDs elected is the least worst option in this scenario - but only providing that voters have the opportunity to demonstrate (in an AV system) that they are not LD supporters primarily.


Pinning your hopes on a party which is currently doing everything it can to destroy the welfare state, pathetic


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 26, 2010)

articul8 said:


> So it's better for all these seats to fall to the Tories, and give Cameron a majority?  Getting LDs elected is the least worst option in this scenario - but only providing that voters have the opportunity to demonstrate (in an AV system) that they are not LD supporters primarily.


 
A Tory majority as opposed to one where they have to rely on the votes of the viscious neoliberal Orange Book gang might actually be a bit milder...


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> Pinning your hopes on a party which is currently doing everything it can to destroy the welfare state, pathetic


 
No hopes beyond divide and rule - replacing a Tory by a LD who has demonstrably been put  in there by centre-left tactical votes weakens the right-wing bloc.  Of course if Clegg et al go into the next election promising to continue the coalition they will get wiped out totally.


----------



## Random (Dec 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Of course if Clegg et al go into the next election promising to continue the coalition they will get wiped out totally.


Which will, according to you, be a setback for socialism...


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

Would it necessarily be a victory for the left, if the result is more seats handed directly to the Tories?  Surely a better approach is to build such pressure on the coalition that the LD grassroots are forced into conflict with their parliamentary leadership forcing some kind of break with the Clegg/Cameron axis?  Which isn't to put undue hopes in LD councillors or activists, just that their vacillating opportunist character makes them susceptible to pressure from without.


----------



## Random (Dec 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> Would it necessarily be a victory for the left, if the result is more seats handed directly to the Tories?  Surely a better approach is to build such pressure on the coalition that the LD grassroots are forced into conflict with their parliamentary leadership forcing some kind of break with the Clegg/Cameron axis?


 Like, for example, by opposing the AV referendum?

edit: I don't know why I'm surprised by you supporting the Lib Dems seeing as how they pay your wages.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

Losing the AV vote would bind the otherwise disenchanted MPs (the Simon Hughes tendendency) to Clegg et al out of sheer terror at an early election.  Would strip the local opposition of any purchase as far as the leadership goes.

And you know full well I neither support, nor have i ever supported, the Lib Dems.  I want to see them smashed out of site when a force to their left can fill the vacuum.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

I like that _when_, support then up till that date though.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

Not support, just awareness that tactics in relation to them need to take some consideration of where they are a temporary expedient as a least worst option, and those where they are an outright class enemy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

> Not support, just awareness...


You're shit.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

You can only draw that conclusion if you are arguing that it would make no odds whether there is a Tory majority or a Labour majority after the next GE.  Is that your position?  If not, then their ability to take seats from the Tories is of tactical benefit in the short term under a system where their victories would be manifestly down to centre-left tactical votes,


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

So, you now get to it, if you want to support labour then vote lib-dem.

Exactly as i said was your real position months ago. (once i found out you were a labour party member who'd posted years of stuff on a lie that is)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

It is better that people who hate the Tories and their Cleggite allies vote to defeat them where this is a realistic possibility (which most often means voting Labour).  Where it isn't, and a LD MP represents the local opposition to the Tories, then and only then might be it be worth considering a tactical vote for the least worst option.  I would like to see the next GE elect a Labour government drawn substantially to the left of where it was in 2010 by a mass anti-cuts movement.  But I also want to see a realignment of the left and an end to the parliamentarist logic of Labourism as a further consequence.

And on the bullshit about lies, again - what lies?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

We've done this. You lied that you weren't a labour party member when you were. That such burning radicalism now means voting lib-dem. Is this emblazoned on your radical vicars-mags masthead (not they'd need telling)?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

I support the Labour party in the sense that a rope supports a hanging man.  My politics have never been simply Labourist.  I don't consider being a highly critical member of the Labour Party to be the most imporant feature of my politics.  But I've never denied it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

articul8 said:


> I support the Labour party in the sense that a rope supports a hanging man.  My politics have never been simply Labourist.  I don't consider being a highly critical member of the Labour Party to be the most imporant feature of my politics.  But I've never denied it.


 
Yes, yes you do vlad, By paying subs, voting for it and arguing that everyone else should. Like little Laurie Penny you've spent xmas doing Lenin but getting it wrong. Vince Cable is 'highly critical' but onside. So what? 

Never denied it? You hid it so that you didn't have to be put in a situation in which it had to be denied. You're peter _and_ pilate (you also hide your catholicism btw).


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

What is this, a confessional or something?!  I'm some sort of secret papist now to boot?  You seem to have some weird fantasy going on that the world is run by secret Latimer liberals on the orders of the vatican?

Seriously, are you a well man?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

I know fine well who runs things. I know well who runs your little world as well. 

Why did you dump the privately educated obxbridge voice of a generation? Going to get an answer or is the contacts books too important?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

Where was Christopher Agammenon Pallis educated?  Or are we operating double standards?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

Desperate as fuck.

Why did you dump the privately educated obxbridge voice of a generation? Going to get an answer or is the contacts books too important?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

She has found her metier elsewhere it seems.  But I don't see that her education or background automatically disqualifies her views, any more than they did your man.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

You said you sacked her (effectively). Not that she started writing elsewhere. Why did you sack her (effectively)?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

no defence of Oxbridge man Pallis then?  She hasn't been sacked.  But she won't be commissioned to write the kind of material that the NS/Guardian are lapping up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

Why not - you've got other people churning that pap out. Why did _you_ choose to get rid of her? You trumpeted it after all.

Palllis. No. Not needed.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 27, 2010)

It's not about the educational background, is it?  It's about privilege being disavowed whilst also being reasserted in ways that are unavailable for others.  I try to commission pieces that are rooted in experiences that don't have a ready access in the official liberal media.  Recuperation happens though.  Is that a surprise?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2010)

Not much of an answer. Odd that the disavowed are _still_ the chosen.


----------



## Santino (Dec 28, 2010)

"Official liberal media".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

YG has it today at

FPTP: 41
AV: 32
DK:  21
WV: 7


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Angus Reid with very diff results.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

AV referendum date may be delayed by peers, BBC learns

Labour idiocy - get it tied to may, get it tied to the lib-dems and the regional elections.

Bit more info on that - it seems to be about the new (fewer) constituencies then, which makes more sense for labour.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I support the Labour party in the sense that a rope supports a hanging man.  My politics have never been simply Labourist.  I don't consider being a highly critical member of the Labour Party to be the most imporant feature of my politics.  But I've never denied it.


you're either a member of Labour - or you're not. There's no middle ground. And that must mean that, on balance, you have enough faith in enough of their policy-mix, in what you feel they stand for, to make the bits you don't like tolerable. No rope-and-hanged-man about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

I like the comparison to lenin though


----------



## Random (Jan 13, 2011)

Here's the original quote freom Lenin. 





> If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois "democracy"), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> AV referendum date may be delayed by peers, BBC learns
> 
> Labour idiocy - get it tied to may, get it tied to the lib-dems and the regional elections.
> 
> Bit more info on that - it seems to be about the new (fewer) constituencies then, which makes more sense for labour.



Did the Tories do this deliberately? Or is it just creative incompetence?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

Do what?


----------



## Santino (Jan 13, 2011)

Is Labour hoping that the govt will drop the boundary review proposals to ensure that the referendum on AV will go through?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> Is Labour hoping that the govt will drop the boundary review proposals to ensure that the referendum on AV will go through?


I think they prolly are. They certainly are more worried about the gerrymandering than AV


----------



## articul8 (Jan 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> And that must mean
> that, on balance, you have enough faith in enough of their policy-mix, in what you feel they stand for, to make the bits you don't like tolerable. No rope-and-hanged-man about it.


Faith in the "policy mix"?! No not at all, on the contrary.  But it occupies a political and electoral space that will make it a pole of attraction for millions of working class voters desperate to kick out at the coalition.   So linking up the more radical elements of Labour - especially at a grassroots level - with other forces against the cuts, at least threatens to pressurise the leadership to shift left.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I like the comparison to lenin though


ditto! 10 out of 10 for front!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> So linking up the more radical elements of Labour - especially at a grassroots level - with other forces against the cuts, at least threatens to pressurise the leadership to shift left.


but left activists in the LP (including myself, once) have been trying to achieve that for decades, with F- all success.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 14, 2011)

Yes.  And the left whose horizons begin and end with the existing structures of the Labour party are fucked.  I'm not arguing for that, or even that working in Labour is a better place to start than working and campainging outside.  And of course you can aim at upsurges from below, revolutionary general strikes and all the rest of it. (not that the existing ultra-left has achieved jack shit in this country either).  But at a certain stage, the extra-parliamentary left has to engage with role of electoral politics in the ideological legitimation of particular ways of looking at society.  

I think AV would offer a chink of light for letting the labour left and extra-labour left to work together and bring influence to bear internally and externally.  But of course it's not only going to be at the electoral level that Labour will be pushed to the left - it will be in the anti-cuts movement, and trade union militancy.    I don't think the old model of "our party for our class" [which was never true by the way] will work - there will be a more complex set of party alignments which emerge.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 19, 2011)

BUMPED in view of current news.

Any thoughts on House of Lords shenanigans right now? 

We have Labour peers aiming to be as obstructive and filibustering as possible 

This seems to be aiming at getting *blatantly pro-Tory seats-gerrymandering* over 'boundary changes' *separated* from the AV aspect of the referendum bill ...

Little as I like the HoL, I'm all for what Labour are doing here, and I hope they succeed. 

If the upcoming referendum contains anything other than *just* the electoral reform bit, I'm definitely voting NO. And not _necessarily_ yes even then ....


----------



## Santino (Jan 19, 2011)

That's not how it works. The bill does two things: 1) changes constituency boundaries; and 2) sets up a referendum on AV. The first would go through whatever the result of the referendum.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> That's not how it works. The bill does two things: 1) changes constituency boundaries; and 2) sets up a referendum on AV. The first would go through whatever the result of the referendum.



OK, I was always a bit confused about that 

But if the two aspects are separated in Parliament, then surely there's at least SOME chance that he merits/demerits and details of the boundary changes part will be scrutinised much more closely in committee etc?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 19, 2011)

Difficulty is that the two elements are yoked together in order to keep coalition together - they come as a package in the coalition agreement (ie. for political expediency rather than constitutional necessity).  I don't expect them to be decoupled, unfortunately.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Difficulty is that the two elements are yoked together in order to keep coalition together - they come as a package in the coalition agreement (ie. for political expediency rather than constitutional necessity).  I don't expect them to be decoupled, unfortunately.



You are right I fear. Neither do I  expect that ...  

Tories have been utterly nowhere at offering _any_ kind of justification of their boundary change plans ....


----------



## Lakina (Jan 20, 2011)

In the name of Jesus, no.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2011)

The Labour Representation Committee's NC have just voted to support the NO campaign.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 6, 2011)

Only the rightwing in Labour support the Yes Campaign.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2011)

bollocks - since when have Livingstone, Tony Benn, Diane Abbott, etc represented "the right"?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2011)

[re LRC] Really?  Not surprising but disappointing.  McDonnell has previously supported (not sure whether this will change his position) - and I gather PCS will too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2011)

Well it's your claim that it's only the disgusting old tories supporting the no vote out of the window isn't it? Not that it ever stood up to a seconds critical scrutiny anyway. The GMB's support for the No vote undermines the same sort of case you're still obv trying to make as regards unions.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2011)

It shows the British left retains an uncanny ability to shoot itself in the foot.  supporters of PR who link arms with people who don't want the system to change one iota are being stupid beyond belief.  

People who are adopting that position have a duty to offer an alternative plausible strategy for getting PR quicker.  If they can I'd be delighted.  But sadly, they are just helping to reinforce Tory/conservative Labourist hegemony for the forseeable future.  

Sadly union leaderships are mostly happy to defend their present power-base rather than see anything change too.  You happy supporting them?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2011)

It shows we're all thick but you - clearly. As i said before, please please continue to run the yes campaign in this manner -and get yourself out on the knocker as well. You'd do a world of damage.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2011)

Socialism Today had an article opposing AV this month. Not that the SP or anyone else has a monoploy on being "the true voice of the left" but if all of these left wing organistions (and i mean real left wing organisations, and not green party shite etc) are coming out with oppoising views to it, do you not think it is time to at least listen to their concerns rather than dismissing any opposition to it as being supportive of tories? 

i mean if the Labour representation committee etc have even come out against it as well ??


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you're either a member of Labour - or you're not. There's no middle ground. And that must mean that, on balance, you have enough faith in enough of their policy-mix, in what you feel they stand for, to make the bits you don't like tolerable. No rope-and-hanged-man about it.


 
If youre in the labour party and are an active member of it, you must support it on some level surely, you must think that even if its policies are shit at the moment they "could" get better?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2011)

Also it's not just about left wing organisations, i have no fucking idea how this pointless referendum is gonna make anything better for ordinary people in the country. I just don't see how it is a pressing issue or anything.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> If youre in the labour party and are an active member of it, you must support it on some level surely, you must think that even if its policies are shit at the moment they "could" get better?


exactly!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Labour leader says he would refuse platform with Lib Dem leader because Clegg's name would put off potential AV backers



> Labour leader Ed Miliband told the Yes to the Alternative Vote campaign at a private meeting that he would not share a platform with Nick Clegg during the referendum campaign. He said Clegg's name had become so toxic with Labour voters he would put off potential AV backers.
> 
> Miliband said at last week's meeting he was willing to share a platform with other Liberal Democrats, including Charles Kennedy, Lady Williams and Lord Ashdown. One source said: "His position is pretty well ABC – Anyone But Clegg."
> 
> ...



I see the other YES campaigners are also still labouring under the illusion that the lib-dems are a centre-left party (never mind the argument about labour).



> ...it would have been a coup if the leaders of the two centre-left parties had shared a platform.



I note also that some NO people have finally picked up on the fact that 



> five out of six members of the Yes steering committee have worked for or supported the Liberal Democrat party in the past 12 months.



If they look at the local organisers they'll find a hell of a lot more as well.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

There's nothing new in all that - (except by my calculations they are wrong on the 5 out 6 figure) - but no-one is denying that the LDs are involved.  But they are not exclusively in control.  I'm perfectly relaxed about an ABC strategy.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

In the way that your party leader was 'relaxed' about the super-rich. There is something new in that anyway - the YES campaign have had to change their tack. Unless they originally planned to be forced to change tack in February this is new.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

to be fair I don't think Mandelson was ever leader .  How has Yes "changed tack"?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> to be fair I don't think Mandelson was ever leader.  How has Yes "changed tack"?


 
Sorry, not the leader of your party - your leaders closest advisor at that point. 

How has the yes campaign changed tack? Did you read the article? The original plan was to present a united labour/lib-dem leadership front in order to neutralise the popular hatred of lib-dems by diluting it with the electoral credibility labour somehow still has. The labour leader recognised that the hatred of the lib-dems today is such that it would actually work in reverse - he/they would risk infection by merely being seen to stand anywhere near with lib-dems (doesn't say much about the rest of you up close with the lib-dems day-in-day-out does it?) So they stopped your plan. You now have to change it.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

The idea that was ever "the plan" shows how little you know of the strategy.  There is no change of plan.  Has Ed Miliband said he will now oppose AV?  No.  Has he said he won't be on a campaign platform?  No.  Clegg is not in the driving seat. *and never was*.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

That's right, you  attempted to engage the labour leader in taking part in a lib-dem/labour leader united front as part of your strategy because this was never part of the plan. In fact, the plan was for this not to happen. Hence the talks to make it happen.

I didn't ever say Clegg was in the driving seat - he's the main beneficiary of your hard working min wage (?) intern think tank pluralist idiocy though.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Socialism Today had an article opposing AV this month. Not that the SP or anyone else has a monoploy on being "the true voice of the left" but if all of these left wing organistions (and i mean real left wing organisations, and not green party shite etc) are coming out with oppoising views to it, do you not think it is time to at least listen to their concerns rather than dismissing any opposition to it as being supportive of tories?
> 
> i mean if the Labour representation committee etc have even come out against it as well ??



I know Clive and debated both publically and privately with him - although the ST article appears not to be online .  It is a shame that they are taking this stance.  But I think they may be out of step with their own comrades in the PCS on it.  

Frankly, I think the present state of the far left is a good reason not to take their strategic advice on pretty much anything.   Of course, I don't think this is a bigger issue than fighting the cuts - and i spend more time in local anti-cuts meetings than in LP meetings.  And it doesn't go as far and isn't as radical a change as we would ultimately like to see. 

But if you want to campaign for an anti-cuts alternative, the reality is that it means surrendering your ability to punish the coalition parties, *unless you have the ability to transfer to Labour* as the least worst alternative in the immediate context.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

I think you sitting a pluralist cabin with the people making the cuts talking about this meaningless shit is a good reason not to listen to you as regards ant-cuts stuff - or anything much else.

Again the royal fucking 'we'? Who are 'we'?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's right, you  attempted to engage the labour leader in taking part in a lib-dem/labour leader united front as part of your strategy because this was never part of the plan. In fact, the plan was for this not to happen. Hence the talks to make it happen.
> 
> I didn't ever say Clegg was in the driving seat - he's the main beneficiary of your hard working min wage (?) intern think tank pluralist idiocy though.


 
no-one attempted to engage him in that, expect EM himself who first advocated it and then backed off!  I think the line he is taking now will be helpful rather than harmful.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> no-one attempted to engage him in that, expect EM himself who first advocated it and then backed off!  I think the line he is taking now will be helpful rather than harmful.


 
Yeah right, nice media management. I really believe you.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think you sitting a pluralist cabin with the people making the cuts talking about this meaningless shit is a good reason not to listen to you as regards ant-cuts stuff - or anything much else.



"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present.  Do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present.  Do you?


 
Exactly. We is the good people. The arrogant thatcherite assumption of a position that speaks for all. Are you one of the good people? The LRC aren't. The GMB aren't. I'm not. Are you not? Who here is not?

Get out on that fucking knocker. You'll fuck your lots last chance.

You missed out pluralism or a variant thereof this time.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I know Clive and debated both publically and privately with him - although the ST article appears not to be online .  It is a shame that they are taking this stance.  But I think they may be out of step with their own comrades in the PCS on it.
> 
> Frankly, I think the present state of the far left is a good reason not to take their strategic advice on pretty much anything.   Of course, I don't think this is a bigger issue than fighting the cuts - and i spend more time in local anti-cuts meetings than in LP meetings.  And it doesn't go as far and isn't as radical a change as we would ultimately like to see.
> 
> But if you want to campaign for an anti-cuts alternative, the reality is that it means surrendering your ability to punish the coalition parties, *unless you have the ability to transfer to Labour* as the least worst alternative in the immediate context.


 
I take your point about not taking the strategic advice of the far left on anything. But how on earth will AV, a less progressive sytem than even FPTP, help to establish either a to the left alternative of labour or help anti-cuts candidates from save our service groups in their campaigns, or anyone else for that matter? I just don't get how it will help? Help anything?

And you are in the labour party and the largest left-wing group in the labour party has come out (rightly) against it. surely their opinions / concerns etc are worth listening to?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8, not having a pop, but you talk like somebody who is trapped in a bubble full of other progressive pluralistic meedja types. I mean, does anybody listen to this shit? Apart from other progressive pluralistic meedja types, obviously.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

You know he's paid to argue for AV by the Electoral Reform Society right FW?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present.  Do you?


 
How will AV do this when it is more fucking regressive than FPTP?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> How will AV do this when it is more fucking regressive than FPTP?


 
"Regressive" in what sense?  It allows for the disaggregation of 1st preferences so that people who have previously voted Labour or Lib Dem in order not to lose their chance to actually influence who gets elected could instead opt to give a 1st preference to the party they most support.  Without that, there will be a inexorable squeezing of the left/Green vote.  

The Greens - for example - simply have no idea how many supporters they have in England and Wales.  They can infer it from PR elections, but the turnouts are so much lower that they don't really know it.  At the last election the limited number who voted Green in some cases objectively helped the Tories (take Hendon which Labour lost by just over 100 votes when the Greens got 500).  Is this really what Green voters intended?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You know he's paid to argue for AV by the Electoral Reform Society right FW?


They seriously think it's worth him doing it on _here_?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

I doubt that - the people who fund the ERS - Murdoch etc wouldn't care. But even on here he's won no one  - i expect he's driven a few away in fact, and that on a board that should be favourable to his soppy pluralism.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly. We is the good people. The arrogant thatcherite assumption of a position that speaks for all. Are you one of the good people? The LRC aren't. The GMB aren't. I'm not. Are you not? Who here is not?
> .


 
Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative.  Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out.  They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge.  I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "Regressive" in what sense?  It allows for the disaggregation of 1st preferences so that people who have previously voted Labour or Lib Dem in order not to lose their chance to actually influence who gets elected could instead opt to give a 1st preference to the party they most support.  Without that, there will be a inexorable squeezing of the left/Green vote.
> 
> The Greens - for example - simply have no idea how many supporters they have in England and Wales.  They can infer it from PR elections, but the turnouts are so much lower that they don't really know it.  At the last election the limited number who voted Green in some cases objectively helped the Tories (take Hendon which Labour lost by just over 100 votes when the Greens got 500).  Is this really what Green voters intended?


 
You can say disaggregation all you like - people see lib-dems. Learn politics.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

So basically even though in some cases it actually leads to larger parliamentary majorities and is more of a disadvantage than FPTP is, it's a good thing because parties can now tell how many votes supporters they have (Without being able to do anything about it?)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative.  Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out.  They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge.  I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.



What's that got to do with your assumption that your we covers me or anyone else?

You want to join up with the lib-dems  -don't you dare wag your finger at other ('parts') for being consistent in their politics. You've just said that everyone who i thought would support me is shit and have become a force for evil after not. Stalinism lives in the intern think tanks.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

How is it more disadvantageous than FPTP?  It's not necessarily proportional, but it does reduce need for tactical voting, and squeeze of smaller parties.  Would I like PR?  Yes.  WOuld it help to reject the slightest change from FPTP?  No.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> So basically even though in some cases it actually leads to larger parliamentary majorities and is more of a disadvantage than FPTP is, it's a good thing because parties can now tell how many votes supporters they have (Without being able to do anything about it?)


 
What a victory. The greens will now know how many voters they have. A far superior option to attacking the coalition at their lib-dem weak base i order to fuck the whole thing up. The greens will know how many votes they really have.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative.  Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out.  They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge.  I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.


 
Huh? A lot of them don't think that the labour party is that alternative ... at the moment. Why are you speaking as though this is a bad thing though, when you are in the labour party yourself? Surely you agree with its aims to at least some extent (or if you don't, think that it will BECOME that party?)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

disadvantageous to who?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You want to join up with the lib-dems


In no way on any issue other than where democrats/voters/the left have common interests.  Everywhere else then campaign hard against them.



> You've just said that everyone who i thought would support me is shit and have become a force for evil after not. Stalinism lives in the intern think tanks.


 No i haven't - you misunderstood what I said.  I respect and will work with lots of people who disagree me on this.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What a victory. The greens will now know how many voters they have. A far superior option to attacking the coalition at their lib-dem weak base i order to fuck the whole thing up. The greens will know how many votes they really have.


 
Tell you something if they get behind this bollocks then their assessment of how many voters they have as a result may not be entirely accurate for long, bit like the lib-dems


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> attacking the coalition at their lib-dem weak base i order to fuck the whole thing up..


 A no vote won't fuck the whole thing up any more than a yes vote - which would allow voters to switch preferences to crush LDs harder - and virtually wipe them out in Wales and Sccotland.  They are fucked whichever way.  Whereas a NO vote is a boost for Cameron.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> In no way on any issue other than where democrats/voters/the left have common interests.  Everywhere else then campaign hard against them.
> 
> 
> No i haven't - you misunderstood what I said.  I respect and will work with lots of people who disagree me on this.



Except on the one that is their and the coalitions life-line.

No, i got it very clear. I understood both the form of argument and the content.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Whereas a NO vote is a boost for Cameron.


 
No it isn't. Voters really don't like divided governments/parties.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *How is it more disadvantageous than FPTP? * It's not necessarily proportional, but it does reduce need for tactical voting, and squeeze of smaller parties.  Would I like PR?  Yes.  *WOuld it help to reject the slightest change from FPTP? * No.


 
1. Because it can be even less proportional than FPTP.

2. Does it help to accept a potentially regressive change just because it's the only one on offer? No.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A no vote won't fuck the whole thing up any more than a yes vote - which would allow voters to switch preferences to crush LDs harder - and virtually wipe them out in Wales and Sccotland.  They are fucked whichever way.  Whereas a NO vote is a boost for Cameron.



It might, the chances are far higher that it will than a yes vote. People on the ground understand this. And please leave off with the fluttering eyelashes of a yes vote may "allow voters to switch preferences to crush LDs harder" when your whole long term strategy is based on their continued existence and forming a lib-lab coalition. At least be honest when you're lying.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What a victory. The greens will now know how many voters they have. A far superior option to attacking the coalition at their lib-dem weak base i order to fuck the whole thing up. The greens will know how many votes they really have.


 
I can't wait  although actually i think if the green party got anywhere near power i'd hate them more than i do the lib dems


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I can't wait  although actually i think if the green party got anywhere near power i'd hate them more than i do the lib dems


 
The Greens would have the decency to split. Some of them would become london  think tank pluralists putting their individual hobby horses before the wider needs of the w/c.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Surely you agree with its aims to at least some extent (or if you don't, think that it will BECOME that party?)


No.  I think it occupies an electoral space under a system which makes it almost impossible not to engage with it, and that overcoming it's almost total monopoly over the British left will take people inside and out working together on developing new political forms.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

So you joined a party that you don't agree with on any policies. And you're here telling people here how to vote? Whilst being paid to argue for that vote. You see why people might think that you're a bit of a twat?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 7, 2011)

Jesus this is desperate stuff


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

> new political forms.



ugh


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 7, 2011)

Who the fuck are the democrats?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No.  I think it occupies an electoral space under a system which makes it almost impossible not to engage with it, and that overcoming it's almost total monopoly over the British left will take people inside and out working together on developing new political forms.


 

It's weird how 'engage with it' becomes 'join it' without any fuss whatsoever. Almost as if there can be no other modes of engagement.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Who the fuck are the democrats?


 
The people who agree with articul8 - it's the royal we in another form.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

Its impossible not to engage with the tories either, does that mean that we should join them? Deep entryism lol.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So you joined a party that you don't agree with on any policies. And you're here telling people here how to vote? Whilst being paid to argue for that vote. You see why people might think that you're a bit of a twat?



I never said I don't agree with them on anything at all!  I am in the party that is the most effective local opposition to the LDs, for whom millions of working class people continue to vote, and which has always contained a socialist component.  I am not paid to promote any particular party, just a more democratic electoral system.  If that makes me a twat, then it just goes to show how utterly irrelevant armchair anarchists and utlra-left sectarians are in the general scheme of things.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

That's the use of the negative royal we. The first inclusive, the second exclusionary. Both based on arrogant thatcherite assumptions.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

I don't think I know anyone who gives a shit about this referendum. In fact I know *one* person who said it would be a good idea to have AV and they are in the same party as I am.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I never said I don't agree with them on anything at all!  I am in the party that is the most effective local opposition to the LDs, for whom millions of working class people continue to vote, and which has always contained a socialist component.  I am not paid to promote any particular party, just a more democratic electoral system.  If that makes me a twat, then it just goes to show how utterly irrelevant armchair anarchists and utlra-left sectarians are in the general scheme of things.


 
How much do they pay you? Who pays?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

I don't see how the referendum is relevant, how is having a sligtly different voting system going to be of any use to people who have lost their jobs and are having their lives and homes put at risk with the loss of vital serivces? I mean it's not as though it's even fuckin actual PR ..


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I never said I don't agree with them on anything at all!  I am in the party that is the most effective local opposition to the LDs, for whom millions of working class people continue to vote, and which has always contained a socialist component.  I am not paid to promote any particular party, just a more democratic electoral system.  If that makes me a twat, then it just goes to show how utterly irrelevant armchair anarchists and utlra-left sectarians are in the general scheme of things.


 
A socialist component which has just come out against this shitty "reform". Do you think the LRC are ultra-left sectarians?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

It's a step back from PR as well - not a step towards. It's ultra-FPTP


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

Well exactly!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> A socialist component which has just come out against this shitty "reform". Do you think the LRC are ultra-left sectarians?


 
Don't worry, a) it's only _parts_ and b) there's a tribalist labourist clique (odd thing for a labour party member to moan about) around John McDonnell that he never trusted anyway.

So they can fuck right off. Which is why he went to their conference. Because of the triablist labour-supporting vibe,.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

No it isn't - 
a) the true extent of disproportionality is masked under FPTP by tactical voting.  AV would reveal how many voters had backed parties without representation.
b) a no vote would be seen as an endorsement of the current system, ie that people have no wish to reform it
c) A yes vote on AV would demonstrate public support for voting reform, and to realise PR for the 2nd chamber.  A No vote would make the wheels grind even slower.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Would it pull back the veil? So fucking what? The veil is being pulled back every single day by the cuts your lib-dem mates are forcing through.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't worry, a) it's only _parts_ and b) there's a tribalist labourist clique (odd thing for a labour party member to moan about) around John Mcdonlell that he never trusted anyway.
> 
> So they can fuck right off. Which is why he went to their conference. Because of the triablist labour-supporting vibe,.


 
wtf? There was a big debate at the LRC conference about the degree to which they should be seeking to organise and include people who aren't members of the Labour party alongside those that are.  Unfortunately that motion lost to people who wanted to assert the centrality of organising in the Labour party.  Compass are also having an "opening out" debate.  This is not such an unusual position.  And who is telling anyone to fuck off.   I'm not surprised about this.  I'll still work with the LRC locally.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

> b) a no vote would be seen as an endorsement of the current system, ie that people have no wish to reform it



Huh? Don't they kind of assume that whatever ordinary people think doesn't matter anyway - why would they care about this? Don't you think that it could be taken another way, as a sort of "barometer" of the gov't's performance?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> your lib-dem mates.


 This is what passes for debate now?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Don't you think that it could be taken another way, as a sort of "barometer" of the gov't's performance?


 
With Cameron opposed and Ed Miliband in favour.  Why would it?  Frankly, you lot are paying the Lib Dems a massive backhanded compliment.  Deafting Clegg and his small rapidly diminishing party is so important that we should pass up a once in a generation reform to insist on reform to the voting system that has been Labour policy since the days of Keir Hardie?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> wtf? There was a big debate at the LRC conference about the degree to which they should be seeking to organise and include people who aren't members of the Labour party alongside those that are.  Unfortunately that motion lost to people who wanted to assert the centrality of organising in the Labour party.  Compass are also having an "opening out" debate.  This is not such an unusual position.  And who is telling anyone to fuck off.   I'm not surprised about this.  I'll still work with the LRC locally.


 
Both a and b are your own prior points. Outside of the labour party means lib-dems. It's explicit for Compass. How about for you? As you're there already.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I don't see how the referendum is relevant, how is having a sligtly different voting system going to be of any use to people who have lost their jobs and are having their lives and homes put at risk with the loss of vital serivces? I mean it's not as though it's even fuckin actual PR ..


 
PR wouldn't cure unemployment either.  It's an absurd yardstick to use.  Would it help the left not to see anti-Tory votes split at the next election and thus make a Tory government less likely?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This is what passes for debate now?


 
It's certainly part and parcel of it along with your ultra-left time-wasting brained, terminally stupid type stuff yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

But it's not a reform of the voting system, it won't make anything better. It is a reactionary type of reform for reasons that have been gone into massive detail earlier on in the thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> PR wouldn't cure unemployment either.  It's an absurd yardstick to use.  Would it help the left not to see anti-Tory votes split at the next election and thus make a Tory government less likely?


 
Vote for the tories to get labour councillors making cuts out of the council,and make cuts by labour councillors less likely.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> PR wouldn't cure unemployment either.  It's an absurd yardstick to use.  Would it help the left not to see anti-Tory votes split at the next election and thus make a Tory government less likely?


 
I'd think it was a fucking laughable and incompetent attempt at a distraction if they had a PR referendum at this time as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> PR wouldn't cure unemployment either.  It's an absurd yardstick to use.  Would it help the left not to see anti-Tory votes split at the next election and thus make a Tory government less likely?


 
I.e bring on the lib-dems. He thinks the lib-dems are left. The party in the coalition with the tories imposing all the cuts that her opposes are actually secretly not pro-cuts or pro-tory. It's a map and strategy drawn up sometime in the 80s that needs serious updating.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Both a and b are your own prior points. Outside of the labour party means lib-dems. It's explicit for Compass. How about for you? As you're there already.


Outside of Labour means - to me - means groups like the Greens, Pcs and Fbu, socialists, left nationalists (eg. Plaid left) and yes people who are leaving the LDs in disgust.  ANd most of all people outside of formal politics but politicised by tuiton fees, EMA, Libraries, etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

And you think these people would want to vote yes for a shitty lib dem referendum?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> With Cameron opposed and Ed Miliband in favour.  Why would it?  Frankly, you lot are paying the Lib Dems a massive backhanded compliment.  Deafting Clegg and his small rapidly diminishing party is so important that we should pass up a once in a generation reform to insist on reform to the voting system that has been Labour policy since the days of Keir Hardie?


 
Yes it's that important. You know full well the arguments put as to why. I know full why the opposing arguments (_you're all stupid_) as to why your hobby horse should win.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Vote for the tories to get labour councillors making cuts out of the council,and make cuts by labour councillors less likely.


 
wot?  
" I don't want it as it's not PR, but if it was PR I wouldn't give a shit either"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Outside of Labour means - to me - means groups like the Greens, Pcs and Fbu, socialists, left nationalists (eg. Plaid left) and yes people who are leaving the LDs in disgust.  ANd most of all people outside of formal politics but politicised by tuiton fees, EMA, Libraries, etc.



 Compass were explict that they meant lib-dems. 

Yeah, all those people are hot for your think tank pluralism. Do a paper for them.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> wot?
> " I don't want it as it's not PR, but if it was PR I wouldn't give a shit either"


 
No I just mean that there's a reason why they're offering this shite at the moment and it seems like people like you have been taken in by it


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it's that important. You know full well the arguments put as to why. I know full why the opposing arguments (_you're all stupid_) as to why your hobby horse should win.


 
I recognise - but disagree - with your analysis and the tactics you draw from it.  But you seem incapable of seeing that I don't harbour some secret project for Labour to link-arms in the centre with the Lib Dems.  Some people who are advocating a Yes vote probably do want that.  But at least they are after some kind of realignment.    In Labour the people who don't want any change at all are the people who think the party is already as good as it needs to be and just needs to hang around for a year or two to come back to power.  

Butchers - how do you see an alternative to the coalition emerging on an electoral plane?  Or don't you - is it going to some kind of revolutionary putsch that gets rid of Cameron and Clegg?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> even on here he's won no one  - i expect he's driven a few away in fact, .


 me, for one


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Compass were explict that they meant lib-dems.
> 
> Yeah, all those people are hot for your think tank pluralism. Do a paper for them.


 
Even compass didn't only mean Lib Dems.  But sure they would take existing Lib Dems - I would ask why someone like that would choose still to be in the lib dems at this point.  I did write a paper for LRC selling the merits of PR for the left.  Looks like I did too good a job


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

It's actually undermining the anti-cuts campaign to think that the lib-dems are worth giveing concessions to or in any way better than the tories,


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> me, for one


 
given your difficulties distinguishing your arse from your elbow I'm not surprised.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

fucking compass


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2011)

Lib Dems want AV . Lib Dems have proven themselves to be two faced cunts who will do anything for power so I will not be voting at all . Fuck the fucking lot of the fucking cunts


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I recognise - but disagree - with your analysis and the tactics you draw from it.  But you seem incapable of seeing that I don't harbour some secret project for Labour to link-arms in the centre with the Lib Dems.  Some people who are advocating a Yes vote probably do want that.  But at least they are after some kind of realignment.    In Labour the people who don't want any change at all are the people who think the party is already as good as it needs to be and just needs to hang around for a year or two to come back to power.
> 
> Butchers - how do you see an alternative to the coalition emerging on an electoral plane?  Or don't you - is it going to some kind of revolutionary putsch that gets rid of Cameron and Clegg?


 
You think AV will force these tribalists  Leftwards? Why? They'll be forced into a coalition with the lib-dem neo-liberals. Why would that force them leftwards?

There is no other other electoral option than labour. How progressive of you to reduce extra-parliamentary movements to putschs though - Franklin would be proud.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's actually undermining the anti-cuts campaign to think that the lib-dems are worth giveing concessions to or in any way better than the tories,


 
I don't think AV is a concession that should be given to the LDs.  I see it as the most that can be forced out of the Tories on electoral reform as this point in time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Even compass didn't only mean Lib Dems.  But sure they would take existing Lib Dems - I would ask why someone like that would choose still to be in the lib dems at this point.  I did write a paper for LRC selling the merits of PR for the left.  Looks like I did too good a job


 
Don't wink at me. We're not in the think tank now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't think AV is a concession that should be given to the LDs.  I see it as the most that can be forced out of the Tories on electoral reform as this point in time.


 
It's the most the lib-dems could get out of the tories. What a ringing endorsement.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's the most the lib-dems could get out of the tories. What a ringing endorsement.



and look at what it's cost us for them to get it.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> given your difficulties distinguishing your arse from your elbow I'm not surprised.


is that _really_ your best shot?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There is no other other electoral option than labour. How progressive of you to reduce extra-parliamentary movements to putschs though - Franklin would be proud.


 
There is another electoral option in the short term?  What?  

Maybe you can put forward a plausible purely extra-parliamentary strategy?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> How much do they pay you? Who pays?


too much, and the ERS


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There is another electoral option in the short term?  What?
> 
> Maybe you can put forward a plausible purely extra-parliamentary strategy?



Did you read what i said? You managed to get one point totally back to front and then brushed off the implications your own post for the traditions you used to pretend to represent. Those traditions would, of course give the answer for your question as well. I quite clearly back the IWCA strategy which is part of those traditions.

I do like the logic though - answer everything about how to change social conditions - _or_ join labour then the ERS then campaign for AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> too much, and the ERS


Random found out - it was murdoch and basically every cunt going.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you read what i said? You managed to get one point totally back to front and then brushed off the implications your own post for the traditions you used to pretend to represent. Those traditions would, of course give the answer for your question as well. I quite clearly back the IWCA strategy which is part of those traditions.



Except on the threads which ask for an evaluation of why the IWCA has if anything gone backwards from the base it established, you and your erstwhile allies have barely offered a single line in response.  

I do like the logic though - answer everything about how to change social conditions - _or_ join labour then the ERS then campaign for AV.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Random found out - it was murdoch and basically every cunt going.


ahh yes I remember that.....


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Except on the threads which ask for an evaluation of why the IWCA has if anything gone backwards from the base it established, you and your erstwhile allies have barely offered a single line in response.
> 
> I do like the logic though - answer everything about how to change social conditions - _or_ join labour then the ERS then campaign for AV.



The IWCA strategy not the IWCA. Do you disagree with it?

It's ok join labour, go to oxbridge, join a think thank, be an intern  - escape routes for all all.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The IWCA is dead long live the IWCA strategy.





> Do you disagree with it?


 how is it different from the strategy to build the IWCA itself?



> It's ok join labour,, go to oxbridge, join a think thank, be an intern  - escape routes for all all.


How does campaigning for electoral reform make me a class traitor?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how is it different from the strategy to build the IWCA itself?
> 
> 
> How does campaigning for electoral reform make me a class traitor?



Because it doesn't need an IWCA brand.

I didn't say that it did. Why are you making shit up?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because it doesn't need an IWCA brand.


It's all in the brand?



> I didn't say that it did. Why are you making shit up?


 The implication is that I've wondered off down some privileged oxbridge/Westminster/think-tank cul-de-sac.  I don't see my job and my out-of-office politics as being in contradiction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's all in the brand?
> 
> 
> The implication is that I've wondered off down some privileged oxbridge/Westminster/think-tank cul-de-sac.  I don't see my job and my out-of-office politics as being in contradiction.



Again,you get it back to front.

I've no idea about you - that's the milieu that you're swimming in now.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Again,you get it back to front.


 
So the difficulties encountered by the IWCA aren't in any way instructive for the strategy of the IWCA.  Eh?


----------



## netbob (Feb 7, 2011)

Now with a 40% turnout requirement by the looks of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12388249


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

40% 

Should be able to do that, don't like the implications


----------



## OneStrike (Feb 7, 2011)

Today's YouGov polls show the libs soaring to 9%, though the Tory's slip to 37%

7th Feb CON 37%, LAB 43%, LD 9%; APP -25

http://today.yougov.co.uk/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Stay at home


----------



## moochedit (Feb 7, 2011)

> The elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, has given a warning that if it misses that deadline *there will not be enough time to prepare for a referendum on 5 May*.



Looks like it's going to be delayed then or if they accept the amendment and go ahead on 5 may,  it has no chance of passing now with the 40% requirement.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 7, 2011)

If you don't trust the politicians to tell the truth, as I don't, and you've got the time, then you can make up your own mind by reading the Report that proposed it:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 7, 2011)

You're a politician


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 7, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a politician



No I'm a social entrepreneur, scientist, IT professional and wannabe social reformer,  who is powerless on an uninspiring town council. Having the title councillor gives me the legitimacy to argue for the new society I believe in:
http://jonathanbishop.com/index.php...ature-and-cause-of-the-wealth-of-communities/

My High Functioning Autism makes me pre-disposed to tell the truth and my fellowship of the British Computer Society means its not worth the risk af lying s I'll lose my reputation and everything I worked for. I went for an interview with the Labour Party to stand as a candidate for the European Parliament. They said they've never met someone with as much honesty and integrity as me - they didn't put me on the list. I would rather resign like Aneurin Bevan did than say or do something I don't believe in, no matter how much  my party wants me to.

If you watched BBC 1 Wales a few minutes ago, you'd have seen more about the society I want to create.

Here is an idea I had for the town council, which when I presented the motion, the people on my own side scoffed and an oppostion member berated me for making a "speech". What did he expect me to do, as someone who goes to a speakers club about twice a month and who does everything he does to the best of his ability would do?!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/l...nysangharad-park-war-memorial-91466-27899069/

This is a project I did with a co-operative social enterprise I founded, and delivered while I was a councillor, but put in action before I got the title:
http://www.delicious.com/jonathanbishop/gbl

I might see about getting some people together to deliver my war memorial though that social enterprise. I'd like to get the public involved in creating a design for the front of an interactive kiosk, which could be made by a professional sculptor. People in the Park could then learn about the history of the Land Army and the roll of honor could be updated as new names come to light. 

The other war memorial may be the first to get off the ground, like the Russians were the first in Space, but lets see who gets to the moon first!


----------



## Quartz (Feb 8, 2011)

I've reported this thread asking that the title be changed to say May 2011.


----------



## moochedit (Feb 8, 2011)

link



> The Rooker amendment would mean that *parliament would have to decide whether to accept a yes vote if turnout fell below 40%*. Under the government's plans a simple yes vote, regardless of the turnout, would lead to the introduction of AV for elections to the Commons as long as the plans to reduce the number of MPs are also in place.





> The public will *still get to vote on electoral reform on May 5 *in spite of the government losing a vote in the Lords by just one vote on the plan for a referendum on the alternative vote, coalition sources insisted on Monday night



link


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 8, 2011)

What's going to annoy the libdems most, not voting or voting no? I'm not following this shit so someone tell me please.


----------



## moochedit (Feb 8, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> What's going to annoy the libdems most, not voting or voting no?


 
it looks like a yes vote *could* still pass if there is under 40% turnout and parliament agrees to accept it, so i *think* voting no would piss them off more ? (it is a bit confusing though)


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> What's going to annoy the libdems most, not voting or voting no? I'm not following this shit so someone tell me please.


moochedit is right, if it was a yes vote on the <40% turnout we could still get AV so if you really don't want AV or want to fuck up the LibDems you should probably vote no.

I'm actually surprised that it's dragged on this long in the Lords, I thought the Labour Peers would have some fun but ultimately they wouldn't block it.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 8, 2011)

Hi,

If you want to know what your current MP has said on the issue, you can visit this site:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com

If you want to know what any MP has said on it, or anything else since electronic records began then you can use this site:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2011)

moochedit said:


> it looks like a yes vote *could* still pass if there is under 40% turnout and parliament agrees to accept it, so i *think* voting no would piss them off more ? (it is a bit confusing though)


unlikely, as there's simply too many "anti" Tory & Labour MPs for it to pass the necessary commons vote


----------



## moochedit (Feb 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> unlikely, as there's simply too many "anti" Tory & Labour MPs for it to pass the necessary commons vote


 
good point.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2011)

moochedit said:


> good point.



It's not, Anti MPs can be leant on, while it's appealing to keep the turn out low, I think that because it's going to be on an existing election day which is probably going to get a higher than normal turnout so people can punish the coalition, it's best not to rely on low turn out and make sure you vote no.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2011)

I am definitly going to vote no.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Has a8 not won you over with his sophisticated arguments?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2011)

No


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> No


 
That's because you're unsophisticated.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> No


 
But what about the disaggregation?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2011)

Lol so parties will know how many votes they're REALLY getting? erm yeah ... except tatctical voting is just as likely uinder AV, as it is anywhere else !


----------



## kabbes (Feb 8, 2011)

a8 convinced me to vote "no"


----------



## Santino (Feb 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> a8 convinced me to vote "no"


 
Has he got an evening job working for the 'No' campaign?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Has he got an evening job working for the 'No' campaign?


 
I hear that he also gets his chicks for free.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's because you're unsophisticated.


I must be positively stone-age, then


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not, Anti MPs can be leant on, while it's appealing to keep the turn out low, I think that because it's going to be on an existing election day which is probably going to get a higher than normal turnout so people can punish the coalition, it's best not to rely on low turn out and make sure you vote no.


In, the event of a sub-40% turnout, why would disco want to 'lean on' his MPs to vote into legislation something he's just spent weeks arguing against?surely,it'll be a free vote
e2a: but I'll still vote,and vote 'no'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> In, the event of a sub-40% turnout, why would disco want to 'lean on' his MPs to vote into legislation something he's just spent weeks arguing against?surely,it'll be a free vote
> e2a: but I'll still vote,and vote 'no'.



There's free votes and "free" votes.

He may well decide that letting the referendum pass in order to prevent the Libs collapsing into acrimony and panic too soon.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 8, 2011)

so the broad urban consensus is a "no", then?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

It's a clear fuck the lib-dems


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 8, 2011)

That'll do me!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's a clear fuck the lib-dems


 
The lib dems are already fucked. In fact they're dead.  You're necrophiliacs.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> a8 convinced me to vote "no"



I was always going to vote no because of the gerrymandering of seats element being tied in. I'm not especially anti AV as such/on its own, could even be go to see some merit in AV, but artiul8 is not doing too good a job of arguing the case to say the least.

In any event, the biggest factor by far for me is that the LDs deserve a thorough kicking


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Jesus, how many more times? - the boundaries are *not* affected by the referendum outcome.  If the Bill passes, the boundaries changes/reduction in MPs will already be set in stone.  The AV bit is all that remins up for discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Lots more noes. Keep it up.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

and how many "yes I will vote IWCA's?"  hmm...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Fan-effing -tastic.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

It's a comment on your post. And how good that post  was. It was Fan-effing -tastic.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Let's have a thread where you spell out your positive strategy for building an alternative, and account for why no-one is remotely interested


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

OR; Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

positive, plualist, diverse..what have i missed?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Feb 8, 2011)

I was planning to abstain. Having read this thread it'll be no from me.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

this is the limit of your positive strategy?  Boost the Tories by shooting down democratic reform?  Great - the Tory-anarchist alliance is alive and well


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> this is the limit of your positive strategy?  Boost the Tories by shooting down democratic reform?  Great - the Tory-anarchist alliance is alive and well


 
I thinki i've just won.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Stamp the feet the lib-dems pay for all you like. *This* is politics. You're shit at it.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

shit - we've lost urban75? the game is up - becuase the odds and sods of that bulletin board are an uncanny litmus test of public opinion


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> shit - we've lost urban75? the game is up - becuase the odds and sods of that bulletin board are an uncanny litmus test of public opinion


 
If you can't win here you're dead everywhere else


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

yeh right - we should have chucked all our efforts at winning over the social misfits who can clock up over 76,000 posts on a bulletin board


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

See what lies underneath? Just scratch it.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

they don't like it up 'em, they do not like it up 'em


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm quite partial to it. You think that you're cop jones panicking and running around? Yeah. You're right, for once.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yeh right - we should have chucked all our efforts at winning over the social misfits who can clock up over 76,000 posts on a bulletin board


 
Who are 'we'?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Panic?  No - if the referendum goes down the world won't fall in.  It will just be an opportunity missed.  Anti-cuts and green votes will objective help the tories.  And Cameron's chances of getting a majority will have been boosted.

If you are against AV, then why is it that you believe that right wing parties are better able to win over 50+ of the vote than centre/left parties?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

We the illuminati, obviously


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Don't you do politics then?

You can fuck off with your pathetic paid smileys as well.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

er yes.  I think it's entirely possible that anti-cuts candidates could pick up preferences from across the spectrum


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Panic?  No - if the referendum goes down the world won't fall in.  It will just be an opportunity missed.  Anti-cuts and green votes will objective help the tories.  And Cameron's chances of getting a majority will have been boosted.
> 
> If you are against AV, then why is it that you believe that right wing parties are better able to win over 50+ of the vote than centre/left parties?



Who said i'm against AV. I could not give a fuck. That's you - and you're paid too.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

This one is sponsored by the liberal democrats


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> er yes.  I think it's entirely possible that anti-cuts candidates could pick up preferences from across the spectrum


 
When?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

at the next election - if AV was in place


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This one is sponsored by the liberal democrats


 Wouldn't be the worst of your bosses funding would it?

Glad you find it so funny. Ha Ha


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> at the next election - if AV was in place


 
So vote Av to stop the cuts after 2015.

Star


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wouldn't be the worst of your bosses funding would it?
> 
> Glad you find it so funny. Ha Ha


 
The ERS doesn't get a penny off the Lib dems (except through running private ballots for them - just as we run private ballots for just about any (legal) organisation that wants them),


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Nope -  who do you get money off mr principles? 

We _know_ don't we.

Let me guess those principles are _plural_.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

how are you proposing to stop the cuts?  I will back unions/community groups in fighting back. But realistically the coalition will be replaced by a Labour government


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Desperate. Change the topic quick! Ever seen a bureaucrat on the run. You have now


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

I get money from my employers.  I don't feel obliged to defend their every move.  But by and large the money is raised through conducting private ballots for the internal democratic culture of private organisations like trade unions


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I get money from my employers.  I don't feel obliged to defend their every move.  But by and large the money is raised through conducting private ballots for the internal democratic culture of private organisations like trade unions


 
Who else? 'by and large' - fuck off.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Desperate. Change the topic quick! Ever seen a bureaucrat on the run. You have now


 
on the run?  How?  from what?  I spend more time fighting the LDs alongside the local anti-cuts group than in Labour meetings.  But ultimately, who will people turn to?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> on the run?  How?  from what?  I spend more time fighting the LDs alongside the local anti-cuts group than in Labour meetings.  But ultimately, who will people turn to?


 
Tonight? From me.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

So workers should be judged by the probity of their employers?  Really?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tonight? From me.


 
er no.  I stand my ground.  It is perfectly possible to be vehemently against the LDs and the cuts, and to fight for a step forward in terms of democratic reform.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> So workers should be judged by the probity of their employers?  Really?


 
So your employers - whose argument you're paid to forward - are shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> er no.  I stand my ground.  It is perfectly possible to be vehemently against the LDs and the cuts, and to fight for a step forward in terms of democratic reform.


 It is, where are you doing this? Without the we.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

I didn't say that.  I don't agree with the official position of my employers in some regards.  Nor do I approve of every commercial decision taken by it's sister organisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

2-0

Sister organisation. ahhh.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It is, where are you doing this? Without the we.


 
in my life.  In the way I spend my time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Two faced cunt.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

how?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how?


 How you seek to present once face to some people then another to others. Are you kidding you two face cunt. (i've seen both sides  btw)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

Anyway, don't do what you were going to people, which was obv vote yes....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 8, 2011)

a8, this is spectacular. I can't believe people pay you for this shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

> Sister organisation



What horrible stuff have the 'Sister organisation' got up to?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Not at all.  You want me to be clearly selling out and moving to the right, to conform to your prejudices.  I'm not.  I'm against the cuts, against the coalition, and against the Labour party where it is responsible for pushing the cuts agenda.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> a8, this is spectacular. I can't believe people pay you for this shit.


 
10.000+ posts yourself.  get out more?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

they are the only ones that make money.   We just spend it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> 10.000+ posts yourself.  get out more?


 
Pathetic. And you're being paid for this.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not at all.  You want me to be clearly selling out and moving to the right, to conform to your prejudices.  I'm not.  I'm against the cuts, against the coalition, and against the Labour party where it is responsible for pushing the cuts agenda.


 
It's good that you think my views are just prejudices. I don't care _how you view_ how i view them. You're messily selling out, not cleanly.


----------



## Santino (Feb 8, 2011)

When you mention people's post counts, you have probably lost the argument.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Pathetic. And you're being paid for this.


No-one pays me to post here to talk to social inadequates.  It's like my bit to help the big society


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> When you mention people's post counts, you have probably lost the argument.


 
Whilst true, it was lost long ago.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're messily selling out, not cleanly.


 
Sorry about that.  Maybe I should join the Tories and the CBI and have done with it rather than being anti-cuts and anti-coalition?  It would sort out the mess in your mind.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No-one pays me to post here to talk to social inadequates.  It's like my bit to help the big society


 
I bet you have a hectic social life, mixing it with the pluralists and the progressives and the muscular liberals.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2011)

I've never met any muscular liberals - they are mostly of the weedy variety


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 8, 2011)

And who would know better than you


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> I bet you have a hectic social life, mixing it with the pluralists and the progressives and the *muscular liberals*.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No-one pays me to post here to talk to social inadequates.  It's like my bit to help the big society


 
im sad to say but i actually thought better of you.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

was out of order there, yes sorry  (didn't mean it really)


----------



## kabbes (Feb 9, 2011)

The AV campaign's money would be better spent paying you to stop talking, tbh, a8.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There's free votes and "free" votes.


explain,please?


> He may well decide that letting the referendum pass in order to prevent the Libs collapsing into acrimony and panic too soon


wouldn't that a) cause a Tory backbench revolt (given that many of 'em are ambivalent about cameron - and the coalition - anyway) and b) make him look a complete arse,after all his "no" campaigning?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The AV campaign's money would be better spent paying you to stop talking, tbh, a8.


 
27,000+


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> this is the limit of your positive strategy?  Boost the Tories by shooting down democratic reform?  Great - the Tory-anarchist alliance is alive and well


It is NOT "democratic reform":it is a stitch-up with cosmetics.Stop lying


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> by and large the money is raised through conducting private ballots for the internal democratic culture of private organisations like trade unions


and FTSE-250 corporations. How very socialist of you


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2011)

I'll be voting NO.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It is NOT "democratic reform":it is a stitch-up with cosmetics.Stop lying



Exactly. I've had arguments with Take back Parliament who continue to labour under the delusion that AV will eventually lead to real PR. I told them they had more chance of meeting Jesus in Tesco than achieving real PR in their lifetimes.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> and FTSE-250 corporations. How very socialist of you


 
a8 is a 'pragmatist' not some away with fairies socialist, and pragmatically if there is nothing to be achieved regarding PR then they might as well take the opportunity to make a few quid arguing for something else.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

That's the 'sister organisation'. I wonder how their tax looks.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> 27,000+


 
That's because my employer _does_ pay me to talk with halfwits on this message board.  Admittedly they don't know this.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

and meanwhile despite all the chatter - YouGov's latest poll shows the Yes support 8% up - a dramatic closing of the gap making the two options neck and neck.  

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-080211.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

Yes, as the tories start to realise that it's in their interest. Exactly as i've argued and you have argued against.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

Yeah, but it's the tories doing what i said. They are the wind beneath your wings.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

I'd like to see some evidence for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

Your own backfiring gloating link above. Uk poll sum it up as:



> Looking at the breakdown of support in this most recent poll Liberal Democrat supporters, always strongly in favour of AV, have become even more pro-AV, with 84% saying they would vote in favour of AV, Conservative supporters while still opposed to AV were also slightly less hostile, with the proportion of Tory voters saying they would back AV rising to 28%.



Almost a 1/3 of tories supporting AV - why?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).



Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).


"could be" means "you don't know"


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.


 
No but in this context, it is the Labour MPs that are perceived (not entirely fairly) to be blocking the will of the elected chamber.  The Libs and Cons are seeking to rubber stamp the will of the commons.  (obviously there is more to it than that, but the press maybe having an effect).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Almost a 1/3 of tories supporting AV - why?


 
Firstly there is a big difference between tory MPs, cllrs, activists (who are almost unanimously against - the Yes campaign has even been excluded from the right to (pay them) to go their conference such is their hatred of reform.
In terms of voters - it is true that there is a layer of people who voted Tory at the last election who don't judge every issue through the prism of party interests - as may would have voted for Blair previously.  It is these swing voters, that Labour needs to win back in order to kick out the Tories, that appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system,.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No but in this context, it is the Labour MPs that are perceived (not entirely fairly) to be blocking the will of the elected chamber.  The Libs and Cons are seeking to rubber stamp the will of the commons.  (obviously there is more to it than that, but the press maybe having an effect).



Yes and I remember the Thatcher and Major governments using their inbuilt Lords majority in the same way.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Firstly there is a big difference between tory MPs, cllrs, activists (who are almost unanimously against - the Yes campaign has even been excluded from the right to (pay them) to go their conference such is their hatred of reform.
> In terms of voters - it is true that there is a layer of people who voted Tory at the last election who don't judge every issue through the prism of party interests - as may would have voted for Blair previously.  It is these swing voters, that Labour needs to win back in order to kick out the Tories, that appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system,.


 
So when i say it's grass roots and doesn't need formal recognition i'm right?

Layer? Odd that your own organisation, the ones that produces your wages, the one who you used to argue brought together your personal views and your professional life but now say that they're separate things, brought out a study attacking the fact that these people are central to the electoral process - that 13 000 people decide the outcome. Now you want to target and use them.

Also, why waffle about how and what labour needs to do to win? I asked you why 1/3 of tories are now supporting AV.  Have you an answer? I have. It's because they're starting to recognise that AV will help them.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.


Yeah....the Labour ones aren't inbred etonians with ownership of half of shropshire


----------



## Random (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system.


 Lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

I like this tribal thing, what is it? Does it mean hating the lib-dems?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So when i say it's grass roots and doesn't need formal recognition i'm right?



Every indication is that the official Tory associations and the Tory core support are very much for a No.  This is a shift in the opinion of swing voters.  If - as the NO camp in Labour hope - we are still left with a FPTP system, then alienating these people is a deeply stupid thing to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

You mean _yes, you're right._ Not interested in your labour  waffle.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

no you're wrong


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Every indication is that the official Tory associations and the Tory core support are very much for a No.  This is a shift in the opinion of swing voters.  If - as the NO camp in Labour hope - we are still left with a FPTP system, then alienating these people is a deeply stupid thing to do.


 
What in the poll makes you say that it's a shift in swing voters?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> no you're wrong



I'm wrong to say that the tory vote for AV has increased whilst the overall vote for AV has gone up. I wonder why. The poll you linked to to support your argument is wrong?


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> unlikely, as there's simply too many "anti" Tory & Labour MPs for it to pass the necessary commons vote


 
I don't know if any of you know, but the judiciary has ruled that manifestos 'carry no legitimate expectations' - in other words they are not worth the paper they are written on or the bytes of memory they consume.

This was Labour's Manifesto for the General Election last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_04_10_labour_manifesto.pdf

If you search for 'Alternative Vote' you'll see they made a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum on AV. It was a Labour Government that set up the Jenkins Inquiry which proposed AV, and they were in government for three terms until adding it to their manifesto. AV wasn't in the Tories' manifesto, but their MPs will be asked to vote for - why won't Labour MPs? Instead of opposing the Bill, maybe they could try to improve it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

The Jenkins report recommend AV+ not AV.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

No, you're wrong in the implication that the voters in question are long-term Tory identifiers rather than swing voters.  We have our own much more extensive internal polling (based on a 10,000 strong sample - unprecedented in public polling) which shows us who these people are.   Is stands to reason that these are the people most prepared to defy a position backed almost unanimously by the Conservative parliamentary party.  This isn't the blue rinsers!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

jonathanbishop said:


> Instead of opposing the Bill, maybe they could try to improve it?


The ONLY way to improve it is with PROPER PR


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No, you're wrong in the implication that the voters in question are long-term Tory identifiers rather than swing voters.  We have our own much more extensive internal polling (based on a 10,000 strong sample - unprecedented in public polling) which shows us who these people are.   Is stands to reason that these are the people most prepared to defy a position backed almost unanimously by the Conservative parliamentary party.  This isn't the blue rinsers!



(note the 'long term' introduced). So what you're saying is that you have the proof but it's such good proof we can't see it.

I'm not wrong to say then that the tory vote for AV has increased whilst the overall vote for AV has gone up?

Why have you ignored the points about your groups attacks on the idea of appealing to swing voters whilst adopting a swing voter approach?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

How are we going to get "proper PR"?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

"we"?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (note the 'long term' introduced). So what you're saying is that you have the proof but it's such good proof we can't see it.


We're hardly going to publish the entire goldmine of info that shows us which demographic groups we need to target in order to win the referendum.  The reasons for this are pretty bloody obvious.



> Why have you ignored the points about your groups attacks on the idea of appealing to swing voters whilst adopting a swing voter approach?


 
it's FPTP that makes that logic inevitable - a YES/NO plebiscite is like a FPTP contest in a 2 horse race from that respect.  But we want to *reform* the system so the whole of politics doesn't operate by this logic.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I'll be voting NO.


 
I don't know how I'm voting for certain yet - I want to hear the debate. My thinking at the moment is I would like equally sized constituencies, but with two MPs instead of one in order to introduce competition so the MPs' monopolies end and mean they have to work harder to 'gain market share' to secure re-election next time. But that is not what is on the table.

AV won't deliver this, as it only works with single member constituencies, which means that AV is not proportional representation, it is more like the current first-past-the-post-system but you don't just one chance to vote, meaning 'every vote will count'. Lib Dems don't really want AV, they want 'Single Transferable Vote' like they use in Northern Ireland and Scotland and in some parts of the EU for election to the European Parliament (Governments were given a choice between STV and the list system - ours chose the list system - under this it is more difficult for the public to have influence and the bigger parties are therefore better off).

While AV will give the public the opportunity to vote for their preferred party and tactically at the same time, meaning if you wanted to stop the Tories and Lib Dems getting in and you were a socialist but not to keen on Labour you could vote Socialist Labour 1, Plaid 2, Labour 3, then if Socialist Labour got the lest votes, you vote would go to Plaid, then if Plaid got the least votes your vote would go to Labour. It may mean that in the next rounds Labour would get over 50% of the votes - more votes than the Tories and Lib Dems - so would get elected. However, it could also mean that people could vote Socialist Labour first without the fear of the Tories or Lib Dems getting in because of they vote being worthless as it is under the current first-past-the-post system, as AV would mean the party with over 50% of the vote would get elected. The same applies to other minor parties, such as the BNP, which should make us consider the consequence of voting yes, even if it gives us more freedom to vote for who we want.

I don't know why the big parties want it, it will give the public more freedom to vote.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How are we going to get "proper PR"?


not this way, if British History is any guide.And please don't identify me with you


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> We're hardly going to publish the entire goldmine of info that shows us which demographic groups we need to target in order to win the referendum.  The reasons for this are pretty bloody obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> it's FPTP that makes that logic inevitable - a YES/NO plebiscite is like a FPTP contest in a 2 horse race from that respect.  But we want to *reform* the system so the whole of politics doesn't operate by this logic.


 
Numerous pms of support.

So you're doing it, but you have to. Actually, you don't this is a referendum. You're confusing your ERS brief with your labour brief.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> not this way, if British History is any guide.And please don't identify me with you


 
I shouldn't have done you that honour.  How are you going to get PR then?  Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case.  When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR".  So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.


----------



## flicy (Feb 9, 2011)

I don't want PR or AV because they will always result in a coaltion. FBTP may not be perfect, but at least the winning government can act on their manifesto pledges or be held to account. In a coaltion no parties manifesto can be honoured. which would render manifesto's pretty pointless, & with us having no idea what any party stood for.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

What sort of govt has fptp just delivered?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're confusing your ERS brief with your labour brief.


 
No confusion - what is good for Labour is what helps position the party in the best possible place to win over disillusioned Lib Dems and Tories at the next GE at the same time as mobilising its core vote.   So, campaign against the cuts, campaign for a fairer voting system that makes MPs work harder to reach out to a wider section of the community.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

Us, we. Are you kidding?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

flicy said:


> FBTP may not be perfect, but at least the winning government can act on their manifesto pledges or be held to account. In a coaltion no parties manifesto can be honoured. which would render manifesto's pretty pointless, & with us having no idea what any party stood for.


 
Hung parliaments, hence coalitions, are here to stay even under FPTP.  It's a result of the fracturing of the old two party duopoly.  IPPR demonstrated this in their recent report.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Us, we. Are you kidding?


 
we did i say "us, we"?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> we did i say "us, we"?


 
We did on the above post didn't we? 

Edit: sorry the us was flicy. It's the exact same as your 'we'.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I shouldn't have done you that honour.  How are you going to get PR then?  Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case.  When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR".  So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.


as usual,you are both a)wrong,and b)stunningly ignorant. Will answer in full later


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

i look forward to hearing how black is in fact white and I'm so wrong and ignorant in saying otherwise.  The Speakers conference of 1931 recommended AV and the House of commons backed that recommendation.  let's hear how that didn't happen..I'm all ears.   Let's have History CSE from the Streatham school of the terminally backward.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Edit: sorry the us was flicy. It's the exact same as your 'we'.


 
I didn't say us or we in the post relating to Labour.  I've only ever used it in the sense of "we..." people who want to see PR.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Jesus, how many more times? - the boundaries are *not* affected by the referendum outcome.  If the Bill passes, the boundaries changes/reduction in MPs will already be set in stone.  The AV bit is all that remins up for discussion.



Whatever. The Tories have tied the two together in any event, and Lib Dems have lied and lied again in painting Labour opponents to seat gerrymandering as opponents of AV (which they wouldn't be, _necessarily_, if the two aspects were separated).. The gerrymandering thing on its own would persuade me to vote against AV *on principle* -- when it comes with such cynical pro-Tory shit preloaded in with it.

And the Lib Dems still need a kicking


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say us or we in the post relating to Labour.  I've only ever used it in the sense of "we..." people who want to see PR.


 
Not true.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not true.


No?  where then?  I might ocassionally slip into "we the Labour left"...but I don't intend to blur any distinctions.  I am anti-cuts, anti-coalition and pro-reform of the electoral system.  This is not an eccentic position to take (viz. Billy Hayes, Jon Cruddas, Caroline Lucas, Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn, Mark Serwotka?, John McDonnell?...)


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I shouldn't have done you that honour.  How are you going to get PR then?  Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case.  When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR".  So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.


Right, now to re-educate quite possibly the least valuable employee the ERS has ever had!
1) If you knew anything about British history - and you clearly do NOT - beyond the odd snippet you've gleaned from the ERS website - you would appreciate that the pace of electoral & constitutional reform in this country is glacally slow; it took until 1832 for any but gentry to be enfranchised, and until 1918 for women to follow suit. Therefore, introducing NOT-PR, which is what AV is - in other words, _slightly_-improved FPTP, and no _real_ progress whatsoever, will most likely delay REAL PR by anything up to 100 years.
2) The '31 vote...oh dear. An _amendment _was passed, and the bill continued, but then - as you'd know if you knew British history - the government fell, and the legislative schedule with it, as is customary, (Erskine May, who you'll also not have heard of)  before the third reading could happen.
3) again - AV is NOT progress. It's a sham.   
4) do you actually understand the difference between making a speech, and voting? The one is no guide to the other.
5) It also doesn't follow the bill's successful passage woulda led to PR
God, why do they pay you.
BTW, your resorting to pathetic, laughable insults shows you've lost the debate


----------



## articul8 (Feb 10, 2011)

One highly misleading account amongst a whole heap of unsubstanitated assertions and irrelevances.

Re 1931 - "the bill continued" is a laughable way of saying "was bogged down by opposition in the Lords who after undue postponement passed a hostile amendment meaning that it would have had to be revoked in the Commons producing interminable constitutional ping pong"  These were the days before the Salisbury convention so "the bill continuing" to face opposition in the Lords would effectively mean potentially holding up the entire legislative programme of the government.  In other words the opportunity for the Bill to go through was lost *in the passing of a wrecking amedment* not in the fall of a government. 

The idea that wrecking AV because it makes PR more likely has been tried - and found wanting - before.  Nothing in the above post suggests any reason why it would work this time when it failed in 1931. The ERS - which was on the side of the Lords on that occasion - has thankfully learnt its lesson.  This is why the pre-eminent body campaigning for PR is for a Yes vote on AV.  For all your laughable personal insults (I haven't heard of Erskine May?  Reallly?...) the reality is that your position is intellectually threadbare and is most certainly not based on historical experience.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say us or we in the post relating to Labour.  I've only ever used it in the sense of "we..." people who want to see PR.


what utter lies!


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 10, 2011)

Nice work a8.  You've convinced me to vote against AV


----------



## Santino (Feb 10, 2011)

I hope his pay is not performance-related.

Or do I?


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 10, 2011)

I hope that cost him a tenner


----------



## kabbes (Feb 10, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Nice work a8.  You've convinced me to vote against AV


 
When this thread started, I was genuinely undecided and slightly favourable to a yes vote.  This thread -- and a8 in particular -- really has convinced me to vote no.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2011)

kabbes said:


> When this thread started, I was genuinely undecided and slightly favourable to a yes vote.  This thread -- and a8 in particular -- really has convinced me to vote no.


likewise.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 10, 2011)

Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?  

Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it.  Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.


----------



## Santino (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.


 
Your continued presence on this thread and anothers supports that contention.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?
> 
> Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it.  Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.


 
lol


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?
> 
> .


@work-when I have time


----------



## Belushi (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it.


 
Surprised they let you reveal that on a public bulletin board.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 10, 2011)

the headline message is not a secret - it's the detailed results as profiled by demographic groups that I won't be leaking here .   It doesn't mean we're being remotely complacent.  Support for a NO vote tends to harden in the final weeks so


----------



## Random (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No confusion - what is good for Labour is what helps position the party in the best possible place to win over disillusioned Lib Dems and Tories at the next GE at the same time as mobilising its core vote.   So, campaign against the cuts, campaign for a fairer voting system that makes MPs work harder to reach out to a wider section of the community.


 What makes you think that a Labour government would not introduce very similar cuts? The austeity policies aren't here because the Conservatives and Lib Dems are evil (although they are) but because the capitalists who run the UK have decided that now is a good time to get the knives out and gut the working class. A labour soft cop government will be bringing in the same or similar cuts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 10, 2011)

as soon as the AV vote is behind us, whatever the result, the LDs will have a lot less reason to stick around.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 10, 2011)

Random said:


> What makes you think that a Labour government would not introduce very similar cuts? The austeity policies aren't here because the Conservatives and Lib Dems are evil (although they are) but because the capitalists who run the UK have decided that now is a good time to get the knives out and gut the working class. A labour soft cop government will be bringing in the same or similar cuts.



I think a Labour government would have introduced damaging cuts but less severe, less quickly and less regressively.  But I am not of the (pre-)school that thinks that all that is needed to kick the ass of the Lib Dems (though we should do that too), return Labour and all will be well.  It won't.   And where Labour councillors are pushing through coalition cuts that is deeply problematic.  But given that Labour votes are the only way of shifting the coalition parties - then fighting the internal battles to shape what kind of Labour government we get is important, but the space in which that takes place will be determined by the extra-parliamentary level of community politics and trade union militancy.


----------



## Random (Feb 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But given that Labour votes are the only way of shifting the coalition parties



"Electing a pro-cuts party is the only way to shift the pro-cuts parties." There's something deeply wrong with this statement.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 10, 2011)

It is not a normative statement, it is an objective description of where we are.   The opposition to the coalition will result in the election at a Labour led administration sooner or later.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 10, 2011)

kabbes said:


> When this thread started, I was genuinely undecided and slightly favourable to a yes vote.  This thread -- and a8 in particular -- really has convinced me to vote no.


I'm not sure; I like the idea of people being able to vote for who they really want but have a backup just in case, as AV anf STV allows. But I"m in favour of multi-member constituencies. FPTP and STV can do that, but AV can't. So I guess that means I want STV, which is what the Lib Dems actually want, so maybe I should vote no for the status quo. I suspect AV is just a way for Nick Clegg to appease his MPs when he did the deal with the Tories, as it was the least worst option for the Tories.


----------



## Roonster (Feb 11, 2011)

AV is simply a pathetic attempt by the Lib-Dems to gain perhaps a couple more seats.. if you vote tory your second preference is unlikley to be labour.. the lib-dems are likely to be your second preference, vote labour the lib-dems are your likely second.. it's all a load of bollocks!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

jonathanbishop said:


> . So I guess that means I want STV, which is what the Lib Dems actually want, so maybe I should vote no for the status quo.


 
How does that follow - what are the benefits of keeping FPTP?  If you want STV then the shift to preferential voting prepares the ground.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If you want STV then the shift to preferential voting prepares the ground.


 
Yeah.  In 100 years' time.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

Not necessarily - but frankly given that a majority against PR exists on both Labour and Tory benches - and will do the foreseeable future given that it is the system that hands power to them, I don';t see what the alternative is.

More worryingly for PR supporters - Tory backbenchers could well. use a vote to keep FPTP in the Commons as an excuse to backtrack on PR for the Lords.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 11, 2011)

AV isn't an alternative to FPTP.  It *is* FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

That's absurd - why do you think the historically anti-PR forces (Tories, Prescott/Blunkett/Reid etc. ) are so opposed to AV then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not necessarily - but frankly given that a majority against PR exists on both Labour and Tory benches - and will do the foreseeable future given that it is the system that hands power to them, *I don';t see what the alternative is*.
> 
> More worryingly for PR supporters - Tory backbenchers could well. use a vote to keep FPTP in the Commons as an excuse to backtrack on PR for the Lords.



And your response to this is to campaign for a potentially worse variant of FPTP!

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kabbes (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That's absurd - why do you think the historically anti-PR forces (Tories, Prescott/Blunkett/Reid etc. ) are so opposed to AV then?


 
For the millionth time on this thread, a8, I couldn't give a crap what they think.  I have my own brain and can do my own thinking on the subject.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How does that follow - what are the benefits of keeping FPTP?  If you want STV then the shift to preferential voting prepares the ground.


 
You could be right. I haven't checked the Bill, but usually they put in a clause that a referendum can't be re-held on the same proposition for another 10 years. So if we vote 'yes' then we will be stuck with AV for another 10 years, whereas if we vote no then STV could be brought to the table at any time.

I know that a new Parliament theoretically and reverse the decision of a previously Parliament, but the political ramifications would be too big.

As kabbes says, AV is a lot like FPTP, except for these:
1. FPTP means a candidate can theoretically only need a majority of 1 vote, where with AV they need 50%+1 of the vote
2. FPTP can be used in multi-member wards
3. As AV is more complicated due to the preferential voting, so all the case law around FPTP would be irrelevant. At the moment for example if someone draws a smiley face next to the candidates name it counts as a vote. So long as the law says that an 'X' or other symbol counts as a '1', then there shouldn't be a problem as people get used to the system, so what happened it Scotland with STV doesn't happen in the rest of the UK.

BTW, why is it when I try to type FPTP my mind tells me to type FTP! Does that mean I'm more IT oriented than political?!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 11, 2011)

10 years and then some, I'd say.  Nobody is seriously going to suggest changing the whole damn system AGAIN within the next 30 years at least.  You don't make a massive constitutional change and then immediately make another one.  I'll be an old man by the time the issue is back on the table.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> 10 years and then some, I'd say.  Nobody is seriously going to suggest changing the whole damn system AGAIN within the next 30 years at least.  You don't make a massive constitutional change and then immediately make another one.  I'll be an old man by the time the issue is back on the table.


 
You could be right; it took about 30 years between the first Assembly referendum and the one in the 1990s before devolution came to Wales.

Knowing that only makes whether to vote yes or no more unclear!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> 10 years and then some, I'd say.  Nobody is seriously going to suggest changing the whole damn system AGAIN within the next 30 years at least.  You don't make a massive constitutional change and then immediately make another one.  I'll be an old man by the time the issue is back on the table.


 
OK - but people have been campaigning to move beyond FPTP since the 1880s and now we finally get the chance to finally make some movement in 2011 you want to shoot it down - how, given the institutional resistance of both Tory and Labour MPs to shift to PR, how are you going to get it back on the agenda in a shorter time frame when the public will have just voted down even a modest change in the system?

Plus, you might even strengthen the hand of the Tory rearguard to block PR in the Lords as they can claim the public has no appetite for different systems.


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> OK - but people have been campaigning to move beyond FPTP since the 1880s and now we finally get the chance to finally make some movement in 2011 you want to shoot it down - how, given the institutional resistance of both Tory and Labour MPs to shift to PR, how are you going to get it back on the agenda in a shorter time frame when the public will have just voted down even a modest change in the system?
> 
> Plus, you might even strengthen the hand of the Tory rearguard to block PR in the Lords as they can claim the public has no appetite for different systems.



Your mate Clegg has fucked us either way.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And your response to this is to campaign for a potentially worse variant of FPTP!


 
I don't accept that it is worse.   It frees people up to vote for who they actually support.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And your response to this is to campaign for a potentially worse variant of FPTP!


 
How is it potentially worse? Could you outline a realistic scenario in which AV produces a less representative result than FPTP?


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't accept that it is worse.   It frees people up to vote for who they actually support.


 
And elects someone they didn't vote for. Hoo-fucking-ray.


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How is it potentially worse? Could you outline a realistic scenario in which AV produces a less representative result than FPTP?


 
How about a scenario in which lots of Lib Dem voters put Tory as their second preference, and the Tories get an even greater share of seats than currently, i.e. even less proportional to their share of the vote?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2011)

The Jenkins report found that AV could be less proportional than FPTP; a conclusion that the Lib Dems cited in their opposition to AV prior to last year's election. Also an opinion which used to be promoted by none other than the Electoral Reform Society, who in the past have stated that:

AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP... It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint.​
Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

Cheers!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> How about a scenario in which lots of Lib Dem voters put Tory as their second preference, and the Tories get an even greater share of seats than currently, i.e. even less proportional to their share of the vote?


 
It's debatable as to whether or not that is less proportional. AV provides some opportunity to signal your least favourite candidate as well as your favourite (assuming there are only three main candidates). I still haven't seen a totally convincing argument to say that Thatcher would have been elected by AV throughout the 80s. In fact there appears to be evidence that she wouldn't have been, which makes sense given the levels of hatred for her – those who hated her would be able not only to not vote for her once, but effectively to not vote for her twice. 



Louis MacNeice said:


> The Jenkins report found that AV could be less proportional than FPTP; a conclusion that the Lib Dems cited in their opposition to AV prior to last year's election. Also an opinion which used to be promoted by none other than the Electoral Reform Society, who in the past have stated that:
> 
> AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP... It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint.​
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Um, that's just a statement that it could be less proportional, not an argument that it is. That quote from the Electoral Reform Society is so vague as to be meaningless.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 11, 2011)

As always, it depends on your definitions.  What do you mean by "proportional"?  Proportional in terms of first choices only?  First and second choices?  Anything-but-last choices?  These things may all contradict each other.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> As always, it depends on your definitions.  What do you mean by "proportional"?  Proportional in terms of first choices only?  First and second choices?  Anything-but-last choices?  These things may all contradict each other.


 
Yes. And in a situation where there are three choices, I would argue that 'most hated' is just as important a category as 'most liked'. That's the main problem I have with the currrent system – that it gives no weight at all to 'most hated', except when voters take it upon themselves to vote tactically, a situation which, as far as I can see, is profoundly undemocratic.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Um, that's just a statement that *it could be less proportional*, not an argument that it is. That quote from the Electoral Reform Society is so vague as to be meaningless.



That's what I said. It's also what the ERS said and the Jenkins Report. Your point is?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's what I said. It's also what the ERS said and the Jenkins Report. Your point is?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
My point is that all you're doing is appealing to authority, which is a waste of time really.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My point is that all you're doing is appealing to authority, which is a waste of time really.


 
You can go and read the Jenkins Report or research the past statements of the ERS; then you can make your own mind up regarding the appeal or otherwise of their authority (or as I'd prefer to put it make up your own mind regarding their evidence and methodology).

I am glad to see you've let go of the claim that I was saying AV is less proportional than FPTP.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

So you never got to the point of actually understanding why the report reached those conclusions so that you could precis their argument in a couple of sentences, then? 

I'd suggest you go back and reread the report a little more closely.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you never got to the point of actually understanding why the report reached those conclusions so that you could precis their argument in a couple of sentences, then?
> 
> I'd suggest you go back and reread the report a little more closely.



I'd suggest you stop trying to imagine what I have or haven't done not only because you are not very good at it, but also because I'm not here to do your work for you. Over to you LBJ; will you jump through my hoop?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

No. You've given me no reason to believe that jumping through your hoop is worth my while. 

I don't need to imagine whether or not you have presented an argument here. You haven't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I am glad to see you've let go of the claim that I was saying AV is less proportional than FPTP.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I've reread what I wrote and that was simply a mistake in writing on my part. All you have been doing is stating that AV could be less proportional is what I meant to say, but at no point have you said how. Telling me to go and research your position so that I can present your argument for you is pathetic, I'm afraid. You should be able to defend your position yourself, should you not?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP... It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint.​
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Disproportionality is not the only flaw in FPTP that stands in need of correcting.  Having an accurate picture of 1st preference support can help smaller parties build up their local base and fight local elections more successfully.  Votes that currently appear as "for" big parties can disaggregate and the real support for smaller parties is demonstrated.  

Any "Pull to the centre" effect is more than offset by the widening of the base of marginal seats - which already imposes a massive gravitational pull to the centre under FPTP.  Besides which there are seats like Hendon that went Tory in the GE because of the Greens.  Labour would have every incentive to appeal to these Green voters on a left/environmental basis.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Your mate Clegg has fucked us either way.


 
what is this shit?  I've never defended Clegg in any respect - he's a loathsome right wing neoliberal scumbag.


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Having an accurate picture of 1st preference support can help smaller parties build up their local base and fight local elections more successfully.  Votes that currently appear as "for" big parties can disaggregate and the real support for smaller parties is demonstrated.


 
You keep saying this like it's an established fact. Can you present the merest suggestion of evidence for it? Has it happened anywhere, at least once?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> You keep saying this like it's an established fact. Can you present the merest suggestion of evidence for it? Has it happened anywhere, at least once?



It offers the *basis* for building a base, not a guarantee.  But since Australia is the only comparable nation to use AV, the evidence there wouldn't be enough to either clinch or disprove the thesis.  The socialist left has previously made some breakthroughs in local government in Aus from what I recall over recent years - but even PR doesn't guarantee left successes - look at Scotland.  

But the failure of the SSP to build on an initial breakthrough doesn't mean PR isn't a more advantageous climate.  Neither do the limits to Green/Socialist gains in local government in Aus mean that there are no benefits to the British left/


----------



## Santino (Feb 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It offers the *basis* for building a base, not a guarantee.  But since Australia is the only comparable nation to use AV, the evidence there wouldn't be enough to either clinch or disprove the thesis.  The socialist left has previously made some breakthroughs in local government in Aus from what I recall over recent years - but even PR doesn't guarantee left successes - look at Scotland.
> 
> But the failure of the SSP to build on an initial breakthrough doesn't mean PR isn't a more advantageous climate.  Neither do the limits to Green/Socialist gains in local government in Aus mean that there are no benefits to the British left/


 
What is the *basis* for the claim that AV will do anything other than entrench the dominance of the existing parties? Give us something, anything, other than what you 'reckon' might happen.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 11, 2011)

Evidence of how AV can be less "proportional" than FPTP 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8506306.stm


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> As always, it depends on your definitions.  What do you mean by "proportional"?  Proportional in terms of first choices only?  First and second choices?  Anything-but-last choices?  These things may all contradict each other.


 
You're right kabbes - How can it be proportional if only one candidate gets elected and they must have 50%+1 of the vote!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> What is the *basis* for the claim that AV will do anything other than entrench the dominance of the existing parties? Give us something, anything, other than what you 'reckon' might happen.


 
What is the basis for saying that AV would 'entrench the dominance of the existing parties'?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2011)

because your second preference vote gets added onto another candidate's majority, even if you don't want them in power, instead of counting agaist that candidate in the first place.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2011)

and in theory, correct me if i'm wrong, but couldn't a candidate could win despite another candidate getting a larger percentage of the vote, due to second preferences.


----------



## Santino (Feb 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is the basis for saying that AV would 'entrench the dominance of the existing parties'?


 
Because it's what happened in Australia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> because your second preference vote gets added onto another candidate's majority, even if you don't want them in power, instead of counting agaist that candidate in the first place.



If you don't want them in power, you don't give them your second preference – you don't have to give any second preference if you don't want to.



frogwoman said:


> and in theory, correct me if i'm wrong, but couldn't a candidate could win despite another candidate getting a larger percentage of the vote, due to second preferences.



Another candidate can get a larger percentage of the 1st prefs and still lose, yes. That's the whole point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Because it's what happened in Australia.


 
Is it? 

I'm going on wikipedia here, but it says that Australia introduced preferential voting in 1918! Is it wrong? 

I just don't see the mechanism by which this would happen. The existing parties appear to me to have entrenched their dominance pretty effectively under the current system in the UK. How would AV make this even more the case?


----------



## Santino (Feb 12, 2011)

This is all bollocks anyway. You're not going to effect meaningful socio-economic change by tweaking the electoral system.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is all bollocks anyway. You're not going to effect meaningful socio-economic change by tweaking the electoral system.


 
Well yes, I agree with that! 

It would have been pleasing to have seen the Tories almost annihilated in 1997, though. If that BBC link from earlier is accurate, the LibDems would have become the official opposition in 1997 under AV. That could have changed a lot.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is all bollocks anyway. You're not going to effect meaningful socio-economic change by tweaking the electoral system.


 
Yeah - the parties are still likely to put their 'yes men' up. Maybe if there were open primaries like in the US where the public choose the candidate instead of the parties then it would be more likely to happen.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, I agree with that!
> 
> It would have been pleasing to have seen the Tories almost annihilated in 1997, though. If that BBC link from earlier is accurate, the LibDems would have become the official opposition in 1997 under AV. That could have changed a lot.


 
What would it have changed?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> and in theory, correct me if i'm wrong, but couldn't a candidate could win despite another candidate getting a larger percentage of the vote, due to second preferences.


 
Yes, and why is this not desirable if it means the winner has a broader basis of support than the candidate with most first preferences?  Eg. in the Labour leadership election under FPTP David Miliband would have won because the non-Blairite vote was split between the other candidates.

AV is not a proportional system.  But it is not always or necessarily less proportional than FPTP.  But disproportionality is not the only flaw in FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is all bollocks anyway. You're not going to effect meaningful socio-economic change by tweaking the electoral system.


 
No-one is claiming there is a direct causal link.  But it would begin to introduce a different political dynamic which allows voices critical of the existing socio-economic dispensation to more accurately demonstrate their support and be taken more seriously in the electoral debates on these questions.  It would also subtly shift the dynamic of the policy targeting process which under FPTP is orientated around a very narrow group of swing voters in key marginal seats.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2011)

Because it could lead to a situation where the lib-dems (or whoever) win despite their recieivng the least votes.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

No - any party that had the least votes would be eliminated in the first round.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How are we going to get "proper PR"?


 
To paraphrase Willie Shakespeare:

The first thing "we" do is, we kill all the gradualists.


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Because it could lead to a situation where the lib-dems (or whoever) win despite their recieivng the least votes.


 
A few of people I know in Pontypridd wanted to vote Green/Socialist Labour in the last election, but definitely didn't want the Lib Dem Mike Powell to get in. With AV people could vote Green or Socialist Labour and use up all their votes on all candidates except Mike Powell, so it could mean the 'boogieman' candidates like him are kept out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?
> 
> Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it.  Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.


 
The problem with this post is that when you say "coherent justification", it's not what you actually mean, because anyone reading the thread can see that you've been given coherent justifications aplenty.
What you appear to take the phrase to mean is "you haven't given a justification that I approve of for your position, therefore it *can't* be a coherent one". Anyone (besides yourself) reading this thread can see this.
As for your internal polling, unless you're looking at the datasets (as opposed to the headline figures), you're seeing an interpretation. Even then, unless your sample size is above a "critical mass", and is adjusted for demographic loading, it's not going to give an accurate reflection of voter intentions.
Having long ago learned (and got paid for doing so!) to construct polls, I'm generally cynical as to their utility for anything other than ego-boosting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> AV isn't an alternative to FPTP.  It *is* FPTP.


 
Or, as some of us have been saying since the referendum was set (and some of us even before then), "FPTP with bells on". It allows the *possiblity* of the injection of new political blood, and slightly greater accountability to the electorate into the mix, but in reality means that the same three mainstream parties as now will continue to dominate parliamentary politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That's absurd - why do you think the historically anti-PR forces (Tories, Prescott/Blunkett/Reid etc. ) are so opposed to AV then?


 
Couldn't possibly be personal, rather than political interest, could it?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

What practically the enitre Tory party are putting their party's political interests aside for the duration of the referendum?  Jesus


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem with this post is that when you say "coherent justification", it's not what you actually mean, because anyone reading the thread can see that you've been given coherent justifications aplenty.
> What you appear to take the phrase to mean is "you haven't given a justification that I approve of for your position, therefore it *can't* be a coherent one".



You misunderstand me - there are entirely coherent reasons to believe that AV isn't the best system for electing MPs, that it doesn't go as far as is necessary, that it isn't going to give small parties their due representation etc.etc.  This is entirely true, and I would share these criticisms.

But I *don't* see any coherence in the argument that says because AV is only a relatively moderate change, it would therefore be better to make no change at alll, even though there is no remotely realistic chance of introducing PR for the commons in the forseeable future.  

I mean there is a certain logic to Butchers position of "electoral reform even full PR would mean jack shit anyway so lets put the boot into the Liberals" (even though I don't think he has fully thought through the consequences of this).  

But the argument that says we want PR but AV isn't good enough needs to make the case that FPTP ( with all the problems with a tiny handful of swing voters in the marginals deciding it, the political cross-dressing it encourages, thee blight of concealed tactcal voting etc.) is superior to AV and therefore sticking with what we've got is desirable over against making a small (but potentially significant) change.



> As for your internal polling, unless you're looking at the datasets (as opposed to the headline figures), you're seeing an interpretation. Even then, unless your sample size is above a "critical mass", and is adjusted for demographic loading, it's not going to give an accurate reflection of voter intentions.
> Having long ago learned (and got paid for doing so!) to construct polls, I'm generally cynical as to their utility for anything other than ego-boosting.


 
I have looked at the datasets, the sample size is huge and demographically weighted, and furthermore because it's our internal polling - to tell us how things are really going and therefore to show what we need to improve on and where the opposition comes from - it isn't designed to give us positive results.  That was a bonus (though I don't deny that there is plenty of work to do to stop the DKs falling into the No camp).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

And where is Streathamite on the 1931 vote which shows rejecting AV for purist pro-PR reasons achieved precisely jack shit?


----------



## Santino (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But it would begin to introduce a different political dynamic which allows voices critical of the existing socio-economic dispensation to more accurately demonstrate their support and be taken more seriously in the electoral debates on these questions.  It would also subtly shift the dynamic of the policy targeting process which under FPTP is orientated around a very narrow group of swing voters in key marginal seats.



You've still not shown a shred of evidence for any of this. An equally plausible effect it will have is that mainstream parties pay even less attention to radicals. E.g, Labour ignores anyone to the left of it because it knows it'll get their votes anyway to keep out Tories and Lib Dems. 

If the best you can offer is stories based on what you reckon might happen you must be really desperate.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> You've still not shown a shred of evidence for any of this.


 
Yes i have I have given the example of a constituency (Hendon - but it is far from unrepresentative) which would have gone Labour rather than Tory under AV, *if Labour had successfully won more transfers from the Greens.  They would have every incentive to appeal to a party which has manifesto to the left on most issues.

But if you want a practical example, look at the Mayoral race in London (under SV - basically a truncated AV).  Ken Livingstone knows that it was in his electoral interests to develop closer relations to the Greens, the centre-left LDs (not the ones in direct opposition to Labour), and Respect/Left List or whoever etc.   [It hasn't escaped my attention that Boris won last time.But this wasn't due to LD 2nd preferences - it was due to the lead he took in 1st preferences due to higher than usual Tory turnout in the outers]  

In fact, Ken Livingstone might owe his continued presence as Labour candidate = as opposed to someone like Oona King - because the parties know he's better placed to work the system. And  Progressive London" wouldn't need to exist as an organisation if it wasn't for a system which meant preferences we're needed.  

Now, a slightly better Labour party might not be what you are aiming for.  Fair enough, I don't think it's sufficient myself.  But it does show that the effect of preferential systems isn't always to drag politicians to the centre.


----------



## Santino (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes i have I have given the example of a constituency (Hendon - but it is far from unrepresentative) which would have gone Labour rather than Tory under AV, *if Labour had successfully won more transfers from the Greens.  They would have every incentive to appeal to a party which has manifesto to the left on most issues.
> 
> But if you want a practical example, look at the Mayoral race in London (under SV - basically a truncated AV).  Ken Livingstone knows that it was in his electoral interests to develop closer relations to the Greens, the centre-left LDs (not the ones in direct opposition to Labour), and Respect/Left List or whoever etc.   [It hasn't escaped my attention that Boris won last time.But this wasn't due to LD 2nd preferences - it was due to the lead he took in 1st preferences due to higher than usual Tory turnout in the outers]
> 
> ...


 
So the evidence that AV "would begin to introduce a different political dynamic which allows voices critical of the existing socio-economic dispensation to more accurately demonstrate their support" is... that Labour would have won in Hendon. Do you see why everyone thinks you're, at best, deluded?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

err if Labour had taken seats like Hendon (far from the only example - as the British Election Survey shows) we might not have the Tories in government, and the cuts - though real and damaging - would not be occuring at the same rate or to the same extent then they are.  Fewer people would be out of work etc..


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 12, 2011)

What ifs and maybes. Not good enough. What if Thatcher had never been born?


----------



## Santino (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> err if Labour had taken seats like Hendon (far from the only example - as the British Election Survey shows) we might not have the Tories in government, and the cuts - though real and damaging - would not be occuring at the same rate or to the same extent then they are.  Fewer people would be out of work etc..


 
You're not trying to prove that Labour would have won the 2009 election, you're supposed to be proving that AV leads to more radical politicians getting elected. Remember?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

FPTP in 2010 = Tories in govt.  AV might well have meant Tories not in government. 

I've never claimed it is enough of a reform to get left wing parties represented unless they do considerably better in building support.  I do claim that in some circumstances AV can give Labour MPs an incentive to widen their appeal and *to some degree* shift their message to the left.

What we do know is that FPTP will neither get more radical MPs elected or encourage major parties to loosen their obsession with swing voters in middle England Maginals.  

So what you need to show is why it's worth keeping FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> What ifs and maybes. Not good enough.


 
Given that we've never used AV to elect MPs, all I can do is point to probabilties are relevant comparators.  On what basis are you arguing we may as well keep FPTP?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 12, 2011)

so we'd have a labour or even god forbid lib dem gov't instead, carrying out the aame cuts, at a "slightly slower rate"?!


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> FPTP in 2010 = Tories in govt.  AV might well have meant Tories not in government.


 
You could be right - all those Labour voters who voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out could have voted 1 Labour and 2 Lib Dem


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> so we'd have a labour or even god forbid lib dem gov't instead, carrying out the aame cuts, at a "slightly slower rate"?!



The cuts wouldn't have been as severe, schools wouldn't have had their Building Schools for the Future improvements cancelled, Future Jobs fund to help young people wouldn't have gone, NHS reforms would have been much more limited with the NHS as "preferred provider" (Burnham), etc.

Not utopia, still problematic - but less catastrophic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Given that we've never used AV to elect MPs, all I can do is point to probabilties are relevant comparators.  On what basis are you arguing we may as well keep FPTP?



Poor deluded fool. I would argue that we need real PR not this fudge of a system. However AV is little different to FPTP and nothing that you or TBP say in its defence can alter that.

So why did you leave out my comment about Thatcher? It was entirely relevant to your 'what if' narrative.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You misunderstand me - there are entirely coherent reasons to believe that AV isn't the best system for electing MPs, that it doesn't go as far as is necessary, that it isn't going to give small parties their due representation etc.etc.  This is entirely true, and I would share these criticisms.
> 
> But I *don't* see any coherence in the argument that says because AV is only a relatively moderate change, it would therefore be better to make no change at alll, even though there is no remotely realistic chance of introducing PR for the commons in the forseeable future.


There's an issue here in that it can't even in good light, and plenty of slap, be dressed up as being even "relatively moderate change". It's not structurally designed to be a "relatively moderate change" from FPTP. As a replacement for FPTP, all it manages is to be "not quite FPTP. It still leaves (however hard you argue that it creates a *possibility* of difference) the three big beo-lib parties holding the reins of power.


> I mean there is a certain logic to Butchers position of "electoral reform even full PR would mean jack shit anyway so lets put the boot into the Liberals" (even though I don't think he has fully thought through the consequences of this).
> 
> But the argument that says we want PR but AV isn't good enough needs to make the case that FPTP ( with all the problems with a tiny handful of swing voters in the marginals deciding it, the political cross-dressing it encourages, thee blight of concealed tactcal voting etc.) is superior to AV and therefore sticking with what we've got is desirable over against making a small (but potentially significant) change.


My argument is that AV won't, however much its' virtues are extolled, and situations where it might make a difference are theorised, make a difference that can't be compensated for by the party machines of our three mainstream parties. Any social and/or political "good" that might proceed from AV if an ideal-type AV was in place will be negated by the machines (although it might give them a couple of years-worth of sleepless nights until they've got their compensatory mechanisms fine-tuned.




> I have looked at the datasets, the sample size is huge and demographically weighted, and furthermore because it's our internal polling - to tell us how things are really going and therefore to show what we need to improve on and where the opposition comes from - it isn't designed to give us positive results.  That was a bonus (though I don't deny that there is plenty of work to do to stop the DKs falling into the No camp).


 
How huge, if you don't mind me asking? Are we talking smaller than or greater than one hundredth of one percent of the electorate?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2011)

I agree with a8, I think. I can't see how AV isn't preferable to the current system. It is a small tweak, nothing more, but it is a small tweak in the right direction. I think indicating your most hated candidate is probably more important in the current system than indicating your preferred choice. And there are a lot of 'anyone but the Tories' people. I suspect that long-term the Tories could lose out massively with this (possibly would have been down to 70 seats in 1997) – that's as good a reason as any to think it an improvement on now.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 13, 2011)

My constituency is a classic marginal. I would get no 2nd preference choice. It's Lab, Tories, LD or Green. I can't say that I'm impressed with any of them. UKIP and the BNP also stand candidates here. Proper PR would mean more parties (like the SP) standing candidates here, which will not happen under AV.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The cuts wouldn't have been as severe, schools wouldn't have had their Building Schools for the Future improvements cancelled, Future Jobs fund to help young people wouldn't have gone, NHS reforms would have been much more limited with the NHS as "preferred provider" (Burnham), etc.
> 
> Not utopia, still problematic - but less catastrophic.


 
You missed the words "as quickly" after "as severe".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2011)

Why would the tories have been wiped out in 97? It seems most likely that the seats they manged to win that year were their safest ones, ones that would not be effected by AV - not one ones that would be turned over by tactical anti-tory voting. If anything i would expect the labour majority to have been _reduced_ by them not winning in close seats due to the tories having the lib-dems as 2nd prefs rather than just abstaining. That's where any effect would be felt. It seems clear it shovels votes towards the lib-dems from both sides until they reach the size of the other two. Great.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with a8, I think. I can't see how AV isn't preferable to the current system. It is a small tweak, nothing more, but it is a small tweak in the right direction. I think indicating your most hated candidate is probably more important in the current system than indicating your preferred choice. And there are a lot of 'anyone but the Tories' people. I suspect that long-term the Tories could lose out massively with this (possibly would have been down to 70 seats in 1997) – that's as good a reason as any to think it an improvement on now.


 
What it might have meant last year, or even fourteen years ago isn't the issue, it's what it will mean in any future election.
Long-term it *might* mean an erosion of the mainstream parties, but  that doesn't help us now, does it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2011)

By long term you mean on the geological scale right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> My constituency is a classic marginal. I would get no 2nd preference choice. It's Lab, Tories, LD or Green. I can't say that I'm impressed with any of them. UKIP and the BNP also stand candidates here. Proper PR would mean more parties (like the SP) standing candidates here, which will not happen under AV.


 
This constituency (Streatham) has been Labour since '97, with a significant majority each and every time, so 2nd-preference is pretty meaningless except if our local MP is caught nuts-deep in a Great Dane.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> By long term you mean on the geological scale right?


 
Not quite, the next century or so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> This constituency (Streatham) has been Labour since '97, with a significant majority each and every time, so 2nd-preference is pretty meaningless except if our local MP is caught nuts-deep in a Great Dane.



Yep. AV is a mirage. Those who support it seem to have not thought it through properly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would the tories have been wiped out in 97? It seems most likely that the seats they manged to win that year were their safest ones, ones that would not be effected by AV - not one ones that would be turned over by tactical anti-tory voting.


And this is the issue with AV: There will always be constituencies, under FPTP and AV, that are "safe". 
Still, if you're part of a party machine, or are tied to the current modes of politics, safe seats are part and parcel of the strategic and tactical underpinnings of party parliamentary politics. 


> If anything i would expect the labour majority to have been _reduced_ by them not winning in close seats due to the tories having the lib-dems as 2nd prefs rather than just abstaining. That's where any effect would be felt. It seems clear it shovels votes towards the lib-dems from both sides until they reach the size of the other two. Great.


 
Yep, fantastic, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep. AV is a mirage. Those who support it seem to have not thought it through properly.


 
I disagree. I'm sure they have thought about it, long and hard, and as long as it benefits *them* they don't give a fuck that it short-changes everyone else.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would the tories have been wiped out in 97? It seems most likely that the seats they manged to win that year were their safest ones, ones that would not be effected by AV - not one ones that would be turned over by tactical anti-tory voting. If anything i would expect the labour majority to have been _reduced_ by them not winning in close seats due to the tories having the lib-dems as 2nd prefs rather than just abstaining. That's where any effect would be felt. It seems clear it shovels votes towards the lib-dems from both sides until they reach the size of the other two. Great.


 
yep


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would the tories have been wiped out in 97? .


 
The BBC link from earlier in the thread suggests this would have happened. There is a flaw in the study's methodology in that it doesn't take into account the tactical voting that takes place under the current system, so I'm not sure how much to trust it as an accurate reflection of what would have happened, but it suggests that the Tories would have dropped to 70 seats and third – ie losing its status as the official opposition.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2011)

I'm suggesting that it wouldn't - not with 10 million votes (never mind the hidden tactical voters whose return would push it higher). And if it did then that would be even more un-proportional than FPTP has ever been.  10 million plus votes and 70 seats? 33% votes and 8% of the seats?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm suggesting that it wouldn't - not with 10 million votes (never mind the hidden tactical voters whose return would push it higher). And if it did then that would be even more un-proportional than FPTP has ever been.


 
Depends what you call proportional. AV allows for 'least liked' to be weighed against 'most liked'.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2011)

If you're arguing for AV on the grounds that it's more proportional than FPTP then using an example of 33% of the vote gaining 8% of the seats as a supportive example then i can only suggest that articul8 signs you up to his strategy team.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 13, 2011)

Looking at those figures more closely, they do show a pattern under AV. As you might expect, the Libdems gain most 2nd prefs from both Labour and Tories, but that fact only has a small effect on the overall result – a handful of seats gained by the lds at the expense of the other two, but only a handful. 

What seems, not surprisingly, to be the crucial figure is the 2nd prefs of the ld voters. I'm slightly surprised by the figures in that they suggest more 2nd prefs for the tories than labour right through the Thatcher years. That does surprise me, I admit, and it undermines some of what I've been saying. Then, there is a decisive shift towards Labour in 97, which is what leads to the collapse in the tory seats. Even relatively small shifts in the 2nd prefs of the libdems can have large effects on the results, it seems. 

So, perhaps, AV would lead to a veering of strategists away from their obsession with wooing swing voters in marginal constituencies towards wooing LibDem voters in all constituencies. I agree that this is not exactly an ideal situation – whether or not it would represent even more of a pull to the centre than the current situation I could not say, though: the current system, with its obsession with a tiny number of 'swing' voters already has this effect pretty powerfully. I would argue that it also leads to the argument being carried out on entirely phony grounds: swing voters aren't renowned for their deep political analysis; on the contrary, I would suggest that someone who doesn't know who to vote for is more likely to be ill-informed than someone who does, and a system that pushes all parties to obsess on the opinions of a tiny group of ill-informed people is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds.

Of course, the effect having been in coalition with the tories will have on the lds is hard to factor in – these stats from past elections may have little bearing on the next election.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> This constituency (Streatham) has been Labour since '97, with a significant majority each and every time, so 2nd-preference is pretty meaningless except if our local MP is caught nuts-deep in a Great Dane.


 
That AV won't eliminate every safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal.  How does keeping FPTP help?  

No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2011)

> I’m writing this in the middle of an election campaign for the UK Youth Parliament, but today I’m taking time off and I’m reflecting on how I got here.



Uh huh


----------



## bonathanjishop (Feb 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.


 
It's easier for most people to understand and produces less spoilt ballots. Preferential voting hasn't been used in England & Wales so could cause a lot of confusion. Preferential voting systems such as AV and STV take longer than FPTP to count and have more complications:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6622963.stm


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.


 
This is getting noticed
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/14/has-the-no-to-av-campaign-got-a-message-problem/


----------



## Combustible (Feb 14, 2011)

It also creates a centrist bias, may make it harder for smaller parties and may produce a less proportional result.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2011)

Combustible said:


> It also creates a centrist bias, may make it harder for smaller parties and may produce a less proportional result.


 
The current system creates a strong 'centrist bias' by concentrating the minds of all main parties on the thoughts of a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Would AV be worse, or better? The answer doesn't seem obvious to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The current system creates a strong 'centrist bias' by concentrating the minds of all main parties on the thoughts of a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Would AV be worse, or better? The answer doesn't seem obvious to me.


 
Why does it have to be worse or better? Why should we argue on those grounds? Vote no, hurt the lib-dems, hurt the coalition, another front to stop the cuts.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why does it have to be worse or better? Why should we argue on those grounds? Vote no, hurt the lib-dems, hurt the coalition, another front to stop the cuts.


 
I think that's a very short-sighted attitude.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

Why?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That AV won't eliminate every safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal.  How does keeping FPTP help?
> 
> No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.


 
It's not incumbent on people to do so, and nobody has (as far as I recall) actually made that argument in the first place. The argument is (and has always been) that AV is no better than FPTP, that any putative gains it gives to the electorate can be easily nullified by the big parties.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 14, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I think that's a very short-sighted attitude.


 
Which is more important, attacking the cuts and those pushing them through, or seeking possible marginal changes to the electoral system (changes which could further entrench the limited centrist politics currently on offer)?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which is more important, attacking the cuts and those pushing them through, or seeking possible marginal changes to the electoral system (changes which could further entrench the limited centrist politics currently on offer)?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
exactly.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

Bringing about a defeat for the LD's on the subject of AV will not, of itself, bring down the government. FPTP is so clearly less democratic than AV (however much PR would be preferable), that voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Bringing about a defeat for the LD's on the subject of AV will not, of itself, bring down the government. FPTP is so clearly less democratic than AV (however much PR would be preferable), that voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted.


 
It doesn't need to, no one has argued that it will. There's posts above which demonstrate that AV has the potential to be less proportional than FPTP (you neglected to say what 'democratic' meant so i assume that you meant this. Please exapnd if you meant something different). Make an argument why "voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted" - given that a lot of us don't share the same aims as you. What is it short sighted in relation to?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> any putative gains it gives to the electorate can be easily nullified by the big parties.


 
If the big parties all believed that, then no-one would waste time and energy opposing it.   But the Tories are against it practically to a man or woman - Cameron will call for a NO vote, the Taxpayers Alliance have lent their chief exec to head it up, climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance it.  Which kind of suggests they are less than relaxed about it?  



#


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

> climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance i



Oh no!!! 

The game changes.

Also, 'they' includes the party of which you are  - no doubt a tireless  - member.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which is more important, attacking the cuts and those pushing them through
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
How is voting down AV attacking the Tories - who are only too happy to see it fall.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh no!!!
> 
> The game changes.


 
why do these people give a shit if makes no difference?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is voting down AV attacking the Tories - who are only too happy to see it fall.


 
Have you even been on this thread? Are you so intellectually voracious that you can't remember anything? The argument is that is will hit the lib-dems, and so the coalition and accentuate internal contradictions (based on either self interest or principles - doesn't matter) that will stalemate cuts on the parliamentary front. You've had this argument explained to you countless times on this thread. Why pretend otherwise? Why insult us so?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It doesn't need to, no one has argued that it will. There's posts above which demonstrate that AV has the potential to be less proportional than FPTP (you neglected to say what 'democratic' meant so i assume that you meant this. Please exapnd if you meant something different). Make an argument why "voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted" - given that a lot of us don't share the same aims as you. What is it short sighted in relation to?


 
When I was young and lived in Argyll, an election meant a choice between Tory or Liberal, as the Labour Party stood no chance, and, at that time, the SNP had yet to rise. It seems to me that in that situation it’s an obvious advantage for democracy (or, if you prefer, choice), if a voter can choose Labour, without fear of increasing the Tory’s majority. PR, of course requires a less important role for constituencies, but while PR is unavailable I think that AV is better for democracy while elections are  governed by constituencies. To simply vote No, in order to spite the LD’s does appear to me to be short-sighted.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

I must have missed the bit where the lib-dems aren't making any cuts.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

What kind of government do we have at the moment? 

anyone?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> why do these people give a shit if makes no difference?


 
Oh it does make a huge difference then. If you want to play that game. It *must* make a massive difference if 'climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance' a no campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What kind of government do we have at the moment?
> 
> anyone?


 
The one articul8 wants just with tories changed for labour. And the disaggregation of course.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've had this argument explained to you countless times on this thread. Why pretend otherwise? Why insult us so?


 
Having an argument explained doesn't automatically make it right.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Having an argument explained doesn't automatically make it right.


 
In this case it does. The point, however, is to correct an inaccurate characterisation of a position.

Say something. Please. Say something.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Say something. Please. Say something.


 
You are the performing monkey on these boards.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Have you even been on this thread? Are you so intellectually voracious that you can't remember anything? The argument is that is will hit the lib-dems, and so the coalition and accentuate internal contradictions (based on either self interest or principles - doesn't matter) that will stalemate cuts on the parliamentary front. You've had this argument explained to you countless times on this thread. Why pretend otherwise? Why insult us so?


 
How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts?  I just don't begin to see this.  In reality, if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority.  Some step forward.  The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote.  If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The one articul8 wants just with tories changed for labour. And the disaggregation of course.


 
so it makes no difference, we might as well have Tory government?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is voting down AV attacking the Tories - who are only too happy to see it fall.


 
The coalition consists of two parties and it is both parties that are enabling the vote on AV. The LD's need some big ticket item to keep any supprters on board. The Tories need the LD for voting numbers and as a whipping boy. The defeat of AV will hurt both coalition partners, because it hurts the coalition.

I notice you didn't answer my question; I not at all surprised. Would you like to have a go at it now?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts?  I just don't begin to see this.  In reality, *if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority*.  Some step forward.  The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote.  If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!



What?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts?  I just don't begin to see this.  In reality, if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority.  Some step forward.  The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote.  If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!



How many times do you need this telling? It's bizarre, it really is. It's all in brief in my post above anyway - either engage with what it says or don't. Don't just say that you _don't see it._ As to a 100% sure tory majority under a FPTP gen election right now - are you mad? And you really really need to stop the tories vote no approach. Socialist vote no. Now what? Neo-liberals vote yes. Now what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> so it makes no difference, we might as well have Tory government?


 
Here we see the AV funnel working in all it's glory.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

If you've got a spare 20 minutes  say over a  cup of tea and a sarnie, do re-read the thread. It's interesting. (yes it is)


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

I've read the thread and *nowhere* have you've explained *how* voting down AV would undermine the coalition without *at the same time* strenghtening the hand of the Tories.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That AV won't eliminate every safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal.  How does keeping FPTP help?
> 
> No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.



What makes you think that it will "eliminate" safe seats? 

You say "No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV" but neither you nor Take Back Parliament has put forward a cast iron argument that demonstrates that AV is a superior system to the current one.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As to a 100% sure tory majority under a FPTP gen election right now


 
The UK elected a Tory majority government twice after the recession of the early eighties and the miners strike, including after the poll tax.  Yes, there is mass opposition to the cuts.  But don't underestimate the strength of the Tory core vote and the tabloid press.

I'm not saying that you have to be a Tory to vote No.  I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for the Tories to uninamously support and help finance something that they didn't believe would work in their party's interest.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've read the thread and *nowhere* have you've explained *how* voting down AV would undermine the coalition without *at the same time* strenghtening the hand of the Tories.


 
It's fingers in the ears time! Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> What makes you think that it will "eliminate" safe seats?


 
Read my post?  I specifically acknoweldge that it "won't" eliminate safe seats.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a step forward from FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What?


 
Labour loses more from the reduction/equalisation of seats if FPTP is in place than if AV is in place.  That's what.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Read my post?  I specifically acknoweldge that it "won't" eliminate safe seats.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a step forward from FPTP.


 
Sorry but I don't buy that one either. It's funny how you ignored my point about my local constituency, which is a marginal that is only contested by the 3 main parties with some input from UKIP and the BNP. Where's the 'choice' there?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> It's fingers in the ears time! Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!


 
Well kindly repost this devastating argument that I evidently missed


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Sorry but I don't buy that one either. It's funny how you ignored my point about my local constituency, which is a marginal that is only contested by the 3 main parties with some input from UKIP and the BNP. Where's the 'choice' there?


 
there would be *more* marginals under AV.  It won't make every seat a marginal


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well kindly repost this devastating argument that I evidently missed


 
It makes more sense that your weak 'argument' in support of AV, which is not proportional nor will it lead to PR. Indeed, your mind has been closed to any points that have been put to you. 

Try again.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> there would be *more* marginals under AV.  It won't make every seat a marginal


 
So where's the much-vaunted 'choice' then?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The defeat of AV will hurt both coalition partners


 
Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them?  They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

<Taps watch>

Choice?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them?  They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.



Because they're about to redraw electoral boundaries that favour them.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> So where's the much-vaunted 'choice' then?


 
There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal.  That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.

And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out.  That is a "choice" that doesn't exist at present.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them?  They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.


 
They're not.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Because they're about to redraw electoral boundaries that favour them.


 
yes, and?  If that meant they didn't care whether AV went through they wouldn't need to even go through the motions of campaigning against it, let alone lining up unanimously, seconding staff and getting big-hitters like the Taxpayers Alliance involved in stopping it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal.  That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.
> 
> And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out,



In these seats there can be a disaggregation then a vote for the lib-dems. Fantastic.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yes, and?  If that meant they didn't care whether AV went through they wouldn't need to even go through the motions of campaigning against it, let alone lining up unanimously, seconding staff and getting big-hitters like the Taxpayers Alliance involved in stopping it.


 
Are you a tory nino? You sure sound like one. Tories oppose AV (in name) so do you. QED.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal.  That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.
> 
> And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out,



So what if there is no 2nd or 3rd preference? My constituency has always been a marginal as long as I can remember. There's no indication that AV will change that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you a tory nino? You sure sound like one.


 
Er, surely you should address that question to a8?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If the big parties all believed that, then no-one would waste time and energy opposing it.   But the Tories are against it practically to a man or woman - Cameron will call for a NO vote, the Taxpayers Alliance have lent their chief exec to head it up, climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance it.  Which kind of suggests they are less than relaxed about it?
> 
> 
> 
> #


 
IMO you're mistaking annoyance at a change in the electoral _status quo_ with a fear of some mythical loss of power and influence under AV. Conservatives (small or large 'c') have that moniker for a reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal.  That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.
> 
> And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out.  That is a "choice" that doesn't exist at present.



Now they have a three way choice! Pluralism in action.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

STV or MML is the way to go. Not divvy AV.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now they have a three way choice! Pluralism in action.


 
A choice between shite, faeces and stools.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, surely you should address that question to a8?


 
Sorry, i had the a8 campaign spectacles on.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, surely you should address that question to a8?


 
erm i think butchers was being sarcaistic


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> erm i think butchers was being sarcaistic


 
Sorry, it's been one of those shite days.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

disaggregation


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Sorry, it's been one of those shite days.


 
Hope you're OK mate


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, i had the a8 campaign spectacles on.


 
Fair dinkum.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> A choice between shite, faeces and stools.


 
But the disaggregation!! Did they say that at the day school or something a8? That'll get the tiny left vote hot.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The current system creates a strong 'centrist bias' by concentrating the minds of all main parties on the thoughts of a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Would AV be worse, or better? The answer doesn't seem obvious to me.


 
Indeed and AV doesn't solve the problem of bias toward swing voters in marginal seats.  With AV there is an added bias that 2nd preference vote will often go to the more centrist parties (or parties perceived to be centrist).  That is Lab and Con 2nd prefs will be more likely to go to the Lib Dems just because they are seen to be in the middle of them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Hope you're OK mate


 
Yeah, I'll be ok.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Indeed and AV doesn't solve the problem of bias toward swing voters in marginal seats.  With AV there is an added bias that 2nd preference vote will often go to the more centrist parties (or parties perceived to be centrist).  That is Lab and Con 2nd prefs will be more likely to go to the Lib Dems just because they are seen to be in the middle of them.


 
This old canard has been shot down more than once.  In Lab/Con marginals Labour could reasonably profit from winning 2nd preferences from voters not only from the LIb Dems, but also from Greens and anti-cuts parties.  There would be forces to exert some pressure from the left, where currently there are none.

And by definition if MPs to have reach out to a broader spectrum of the electorate (which would be the case in the two thirds of constituencies where the MP hasn't been elected by over 50%) then they have to appeal to more people.  More marginals, and more people you need to appeal to.  Not the end of marginals/swing voters but considerably widening the circle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> What makes you think that it will "eliminate" safe seats?
> 
> You say "No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV" but neither you nor Take Back Parliament has put forward a cast iron argument that demonstrates that AV is a superior system to the current one.


 
Because such an argument doesn't exist. It *can't* exist.

It's an argument that can only be made *after the fact* of it proving (or not) to be superior. Everything articul8 has said on this thread is based on (quite possibly well-informed) speculation. All the polls in the world can only apprise you of possibilities. Every poll is merely a snapshot of opinion at a certain time. He doesn't *know* how effective AV might be at achieving anything. He's just got his fingers and toes crossed, hoping that he's right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The UK elected a Tory majority government twice after the recession of the early eighties and the miners strike, including after the poll tax.  Yes, there is mass opposition to the cuts.  But don't underestimate the strength of the Tory core vote and the tabloid press.
> 
> I'm not saying that you have to be a Tory to vote No.  I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for the Tories to uninamously support and help finance something that they didn't believe would work in their party's interest.


 
Your first paragraph elides any mention of *why* they won those elections, I notice.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In these seats there can be a disaggregation then a vote for the lib-dems. Fantastic.


 
How is it *less* desirable than Green/Labour/left voters appearing as out-and-out Lib Dems just because they want to stop the Tories.  OK, at the next election these will be fewer in number, because of the understandable contempt for the coalition.  But it will be more than you currently expect, as we'll have had a good 18 months of LD repositioning,


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This old canard has been shot down more than once.  In Lab/Con marginals Labour could reasonably profit from winning 2nd preferences from voters not only from the LIb Dems, but also from Greens and anti-cuts parties.  There would be forces to exert some pressure from the left, where currently there are none.
> 
> And by definition if MPs to have reach out to a broader spectrum of the electorate (which would be the case in the two thirds of constituencies where the MP hasn't been elected by over 50%) then they have to appeal to more people.  More marginals, and more people you need to appeal to.  Not the end of marginals/swing voters but considerably widening the circle.



Not by you and not on this thread it hasn't. It's not a canard and it's actually been reinforced by real life events. Notwithstanding your madness that the lib-dems are on the left and anti-tory, whilst being in coalition with them. They really hate them blood tories grrrr etc


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> STV or MML is the way to go. Not divvy AV.


 
MML?  You mean MMP?

Yes I agree!  But since it's not on the ballot paper it's a question of inching forward or endorsing the status quo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Read my post?  I specifically acknoweldge that it "won't" eliminate safe seats.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a step forward from FPTP.


 
What you actually said was:
"That AV won't eliminate *every* safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal." (my emphasis)

Therefore your post implies that it will eliminate *some* safe seats, although you fail to quantify how it will make more seats more marginal (except if 2nd preferences are used as you predict rather than as foils), or what proportion (by even a vague degree) it'll make "more marginal".
You're talking speculative pie-in-the-sky. Best-case scenarios for AV-supporters.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not by you and not on this thread it hasn't. It's not a canard and it's actually been reinforced by real life events. Notwithstanding your madness that the lib-dems are on the left and anti-tory, whilst being in coalition with them. They really hate them blood tories grrrr etc


 
Real life events suggest that under FPTP Green, single-issue or left/anti-cuts platforms will help the Tories by splitting the opposition vote - so they will either be squeezed or be wasted.  Under AV people are free to vote for the position they like best and then switch to cast an effective vote.

Labour will benefit by attracting these people.  At the moment they don't count.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is it *less* desirable than Green/Labour/left voters appearing as out-and-out Lib Dems just because they want to stop the Tories.  OK, at the next election these will be fewer in number, because of the understandable contempt for the coalition.  But it will be more than you currently expect, as we'll have had a good 18 months of LD repositioning,


 
Your argument is that there'll be more labour voters, the inescapable fact etc. It's also that a forever lab-lib-dem coalition is what's going to happen and is what's desirable. It's the flip side of auto-labourism. 

Desirable? Your term. Why?  I know what i want and why. I've outlined it a  number of times. I've backed it up with reference to actual real life politics.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

A labour/lib dem coalition is *preferable* to a Tory majority.  Isn't it?  It isn't *desirable* in itself, but dragging the ideological centre of gravity to the left is worthwhile.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Real life events suggest that under FPTP Green, single-issue or left/anti-cuts platforms will help the Tories by splitting the opposition vote - so they will either be squeezed or be wasted.  Under AV people are free to vote for the position they like best and then switch to cast an effective vote.
> 
> Labour will benefit by attracting these people.  At the moment they don't count.



When did this vote turn into a helping labour issue? As a party menber it might be for you - it's not for me.

FPTP helped labour in 97, 2002 and 2005 if you want to put it in instrumental terms - so why get rid of it?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

Surely voting for the government's stupid referendum is a way of endorsing the status quo?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A labour/lib dem coalition is *preferable* to a Tory majority.  Isn't it?  It isn't *desirable* in itself, but dragging the ideological centre of gravity to the left is worthwhile.


 
You're arguing _for_ a lab-lib-dem coalition stamping on our faces for ever though. That's your selling point.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A labour/lib dem coalition is *preferable* to a Tory majority.  Isn't it?  It isn't *desirable* in itself, but dragging the ideological centre of gravity to the left is worthwhile.


 
How did the ideological centre of gravity get dragged to the left under labour? I must have imagined tony blair etc then? 

And what is so great about labour in coalition with the lib dems? It's the lib dems driving this ideological crap you might as well have a coalition between your party and the tories !


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

Again with this madness that the lib-dems are left? WTF? Have you really missed out on the last 8 months?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> How did the ideological centre of gravity get dragged to the left under labour? I must have imagined tony blair etc then?


 
It didn't.  But that was because of the armlock of swing voters in key middle England marginals.  Anything that reduces the squeeze of left votes (allowing the votes of the big parties to disaggregate ) and increases the number of target seats and the volume of voters who preferences are needed weakens this effect.  Ultimately, Labour was able to rely on "there's nowhere else" for its core vote to go.  My contention is that AV would help smaller parties to establish their presence over time, if not immediately in terms of the representation they are due.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Again with this madness that the lib-dems are left? WTF? Have you really missed out on the last 8 months?


 
You don't think that a Lib/Lab coalition would have been to the left, however minimally, of the Con-Lib one?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You don't think that a Lib/Lab coalition would have been to the left, however minimally, of the Con-Lib one?


 
I think that you're mad. If you think any difference would be down to the lib-dems then you need locking up.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're arguing _for_ a lab-lib-dem coalition stamping on our faces for ever though. That's your selling point.


 
how?  I'm for a realignment of the left where the labour left, greens, dissident liberals, radicalised students etc. can happen - if the labour right wants to bloc with the LDs let them.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

a realignment


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think that you're mad. If you think any difference would be down to the lib-dems then you need locking up.


 
I'm not saying that it would be "down to the LDs" - I'm saying that if the Tories were in a weaker position vis. Labour and LDs the result would be a shift - to some degree - to the left from where we are now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It didn't.  But that was because of the armlock of swing voters in key middle England marginals.  Anything that reduces the squeeze of left votes (allowing the votes of the big parties to disaggregate ) and increases the number of target seats and the volume of voters who preferences are needed weakens this effect.  Ultimately, Labour was able to rely on "there's nowhere else" for its core vote to go.  My contention is that AV would help smaller parties to establish their presence over time, if not immediately in terms of the representation they are due.



This  squeeze on he left vote - any evidence for it? It might make about 0..119% of a difference.  Or, as per your model, the three big parties _start to take notice _of what they say 

Victrory!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It didn't.  But that was because of the armlock of swing voters in key middle England marginals.  Anything that reduces the squeeze of left votes (allowing the votes of the big parties to disaggregate ) and increases the number of target seats and the volume of voters who preferences are needed weakens this effect.  Ultimately, Labour was able to rely on "there's nowhere else" for its core vote to go.  My contention is that AV would help smaller parties to establish their presence over time, if not immediately in terms of the representation they are due.


 
How would labour and lib-dems in coalition be any different from a labour-tory coalition?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how?  I'm for a realignment of the left where the labour left, greens, dissident liberals, radicalised students etc. can happen - if the labour right wants to bloc with the LDs let them.


 
Because your argumenty is thast AV delivers an anti-tory situation forever by the lib-dem voters being anti-tory. How? By a lab-lib-dem coalition, that's the only way. Are you following your own arguments?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or, as per your model, the three big parties _start to take notice _of what they say
> Victrory!!!


 
Getting a little more purchase on the ideological centre of gravity might not be a revolutionary position, no.  But does that mean it's not worth winning?  Really?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because your argumenty is thast AV delivers an anti-tory situation forever by the lib-dem voters being anti-tory. How? By a lab-lib-dem coalition, that's the only way. Are you following your own arguments?


 
No situation can last for ever.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying that it would be "down to the LDs" - I'm saying that if the Tories were in a weaker position vis. Labour and LDs the result would be a shift - to some degree - to the left from where we are now.



So vote no to AV then and put the tories in a weaker position.

Don't you have any _politics_ on all this?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> How would labour and lib-dems in coalition be any different from a labour-tory coalition?


 
think future jobs fund, sure start centres, building schools for the future, PCTs etc etc would have been axed?  really?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

yeah, i do actually


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So vote no to AV then and put the tories in a weaker position.
> 
> Don't you have any _politics_ on all this?


 
How is voting for what the Tories want putting them in a weaker position?  And you say my logic is tortuous!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2011)

the lib-dems are the ones driving a lot of this ideological shit anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Getting a little more purchase on the ideological centre of gravity might not be a revolutionary position, no.  But does that mean it's not worth winning?  Really?


 
And,  the most pathetic defence yet - the big boys might notice.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is voting for what the Tories want putting them in a weaker position?  And you say my logic is tortuous!


 
Easy, how is voting for what the neo-liberals want putting them in a weaker position?

Your logic isn't tortuous, It's contradictory and looks like an omelet thrown at a wall.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> the lib-dems are the ones driving a lot of this ideological shit anyway



Even if the Labour leadership was happy to go along this line, their room for manoeuvre would be far more limited than Cameron's


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Easy, how is voting for what the neo-liberals want putting them in a weaker position?
> 
> .


 
See above - damaging the Tories is more important and urgent task.  The LDs if forced into coalition with Labour would find that their ability to push this neoliberal shite through would be much less.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

What about all them labour and unions voting NO? Why are they doing that under your logic? You support them but they're tories? Or is is that you. the one, see much farther than them, again.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> See above - damaging the Tories is more important and urgent task.  The LDs if forced into coalition with Labour would find that their ability to push this neoliberal shite through would be much less.


 
So already it's a coalition! Why are you even in the fucking party? You're not labour.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

I am hardly out on my own - Labour supporters from Mandelson and Adonis all the way over to Livingstone and Tony Benn are voting YES.  The NO camp should be aware that they are actively spurning a chance to weaken the Tories.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So already it's a coalition! Why are you even in the fucking party? You're not labour.


 
A coalition might well result.  But the medium term consquence of this being "condition normal" will be a realignment of the left - and at that stage I'd be pushing for Labour to link up with forces to its left.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I am hardly out on my own - Labour supporters from Mandelson and Adonis all the way over to Livingstone and Tony Benn are voting YES.  The NO camp should be aware that they are actively spurning a chance to weaken the Tories.


 No they're not, they're refusing to subordinate a political opportunity to a think tanks hobby horse. "should be aware"  who are you, lord Haw haw?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

You think ERS is so influential that has taken prisoner the leader of the Labour party, the bulk of his shadow cabinet, and a good chunk of the PLP just to ride its "hobbby horse" - i think that's what's called a backhanded compliment.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A coalition might well result.  But the medium term consquence of this being "condition normal" will be a realignment of the left - and at that stage I'd be pushing for Labour to link up with forces to its left.


 
Might well? It will, That's why you're arguing for it. Show me this 'realignment of the left' - it's fantasy stuff, Something you didn't support when it was first mooted has become an invaluable tool for a realignment of the left. Do you know _exactly_ when you became a laboutr/lib-dem hack?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think ERS is so influential that has taken prisoner the leader of the Labour party, the bulk of his shadow cabinet, and a good chunk of the PLP just to ride its "hobbby horse" - i think that's what's called a backhanded compliment.


 
OH my god, them too!!! 

They don't make it their business to get paid to offer shit arguments for AV. You do.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

why is a realignment of the left "fantasy"?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

> a realignment of the left



via AV is fantasy. As you know,


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> One highly misleading account amongst a whole heap of unsubstanitated assertions and irrelevances.
> 
> Re 1931 - "the bill continued" is a laughable way of saying "was bogged down by opposition in the Lords who after undue postponement passed a hostile amendment meaning that it would have had to be revoked in the Commons producing interminable constitutional ping pong"  These were the days before the Salisbury convention so "the bill continuing" to face opposition in the Lords would effectively mean potentially holding up the entire legislative programme of the government.  In other words the opportunity for the Bill to go through was lost *in the passing of a wrecking amedment* not in the fall of a government.


Wrong. There was a convention long predating 1932, that the govt of the day can withdraw a bill that they have introduced at any time - and a 'wrecking amendment' seems  tailor-made for such circs. They - the govt didn't, in fact they didn't even reschdule it backwards.Whether this was because, by that stage in 1931, McDonald and Co were so seriously screwed as a govt, due to the financial crisis, or whatever reason,is a matter for endless historical debate;either way, it was the wider context of massive financial and political (not to mention constituional) crisis that did for it- as it very shortly did for the govt, and theLP which soon after crashed to disaster


> The idea that  wrecking AV because it makes PR more likely has been tried - and found wanting - before.


Except I haven't suggested that, have I? _You_ have argued throughout that if we reject this limp lettuce of an electoral reform, we will have to wait another 100-years-or-god-knows-how-long for REAL PR (hich this isn't, not by a mile), i'm simply saying it means _nothing_ of the sort.
Also, the past is no guide, and we are in totally uncharted teritory. But if people really want a proportional system, there's no reason why their popular agitation couldn't get them there quicker in future. You simply don't know, and noeither do I. And it still doesn't obscure the original, long-lost point, that there's no reason to assume, a 'Yes' vote, will make a changeover to full PR more likely



> Nothing in the above post suggests any reason why it would work this time when it failed in 1931.


except a) technically 'it' wasn't as clear cut by that, due to the wider reasons and context I mentioned, and, again, _we are in a totally different ball-game now_. UK politics has moved on, and the past is simply no guide.


> b) The ERS - which was on the side of the Lords on that occasion - has thankfully learnt its lesson.  This is why the pre-eminent body campaigning for PR is for a Yes vote on AV.


Pre-eminent? Er, yeah, _rrright_. Longest-established, sure, buitI haven't noticed hordes of people qeueing up to quote them as gospel.
And they really didn't have much choice to go for 'yes', but that doesn't mean anyone should take their opinions as gospel-especially given all those dodgy megacorps who effectively pay your salary


> For all your laughable personal insults (I haven't heard of Erskine May?  Reallly?...)


tbh, It's not just me who thinks that your performance on this thread has been dismal enough to cast doubt on your credibility in practically all areas of political debate...


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Let's have History CSE from the Streatham school of the terminally backward.


I nearly missed this last bit.
Oh REALLY? So labour party members now find it acceptable to sneet at inner city state comprehensives, do we? We've become THAt elitist, have we? To the point of sounding like some etonian tory scumbag? The party must be _very_ proud of you - the Tory party, that is.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

e2a: the reason why _I _ think 'Yes' winning the referendum would delay REAL PR by decades is simple; because ranged against them are a whole legion of some of the finest exponents of parliamentary and other political delaying tactics ever known. They would spin the line "well, we've got to give this system time to work, it's a huge change and it needs to run its' course" ad infinitum - and that, plus the tortuously slow pace of systemic, root-and-branch reform, would do for it, especially as the PR junkies don't have that sort of stamina or long-term strategic nous.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how?  I'm for a realignment of the left where the labour left, greens, dissident liberals, radicalised students etc. .


what, there IS a 'labour left' still going. Where?
e2a; in fact, the biggest obstacle to real growth and progress for the left, is the Labour Party, full stop


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

It's in the LRC, who just voted for a NO vote.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because such an argument doesn't exist. It *can't* exist.
> 
> It's an argument that can only be made *after the fact* of it proving (or not) to be superior. Everything articul8 has said on this thread is based on (quite possibly well-informed) speculation. All the polls in the world can only apprise you of possibilities. Every poll is merely a snapshot of opinion at a certain time. He doesn't *know* how effective AV might be at achieving anything. He's just got his fingers and toes crossed, hoping that he's right.



It's all a bit 'suck it and see' or throw it against the wall and see how well it sticks.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> MML?  You mean MMP?
> 
> Yes I agree!  But since it's not on the ballot paper it's a question of inching forward or endorsing the status quo.



Typo. If it's not on the ballot paper, then there isn't much of a choice. it reminds me of the referendum the British forced onto the Iraqi people in 1920 (?). Do you want to be ruled by a king? Yes or no?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Oh REALLY? So labour party members now find it acceptable to sneet at inner city state comprehensives, do we?


 
Hardly - I went to a state comp/inner city FE college.  In so far as i was sneering it was at your attempt to show that the Liberals didn't shoot themselves in the foot in the early 30s


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Hardly - I went to a state comp/inner city FE college.  In so far as i was sneering it was at your attempt to show that the Liberals didn't shoot themselves in the foot in the early 30s


you utter fucking liar.Why single out schools for working class kids in Streatham?That's the sort of remark people expect from Tories,*full stop*.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is voting for what the Tories want putting them in a weaker position?  And you say my logic is tortuous!


Because-obviously-it may strain the coalition


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Anything that reduces the squeeze of left votes (allowing the votes of the big parties to disaggregate ) and increases the number of target seats and the volume of voters who preferences are needed weakens this effect.


But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that


 
You must trust a8 on this. 

Do you?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You must trust a8 on this.
> 
> Do you?


That's a hard one....
<thinks for a microsecond>
why,that wise, visionary seer of our times,A8?
That's a "NO" vote, then!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that



Don't take my word for it 

By by definition - if two thirds of MPs currently are elected on less than 50%, and under AV 100% would need the support of over 50% in the final round - then more people will get to determine the outcome.  

On saftey of seats - show me one psephologist who says that the number of safe seats would be totally unaffected by AV


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Why single out schools for working class kids in Streatham?


 
I didn't - you are the only member of the Streatham school for the terminally backward I was referring to.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

a possible slight improvement is simply _not enough_


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I didn't - you are the only member of the Streatham school for the terminally backward I was referring to.


such _wriggling_....


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> a possible slight improvement is simply _not enough_


 
No it isn't enough.  But is it worth spurning?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2011)

Yes


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it isn't enough.  But is it worth spurning?


For the chance of destabilising the libdems, plus holding out honourably for the real thing? YES-a thousand times 'yes'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it isn't enough.  But is it worth spurning?


 
Yes. It guarantees nothing whilst strengthening the coalition. Oppose the coalition and pursue PR.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

It guarantees keeping in place a system that benefits the Tories - that's why they are financing the NO campaign and virtually all on board with the NO vote.  Oppose the coalition - take the reform that's on offer.  Come back for more.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> YES-a thousand times 'yes'



 I knew I'd win you round in the end.  Basically you are paying a massive backhanded compliment to the Lib Dems by saying that what is tactically damaging to them in the short term trumps what is in the interests of the voters (albeit relatively marginally so).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2011)

So what?

I note the 'we' effect is running one more. "we" know what's really good for you.  How? Because we are we


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2011)

Oh no a massive backhand compliment to the lib-dem dems!!!

I shall change. Lest i offer a false picture.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It guarantees keeping in place a system that benefits the Tories - that's why they are financing the NO campaign and virtually all on board with the NO vote.  *Oppose the coalition* - take *the reform that's on offer*.  *Come back for more.*



By shoring up one of its central planks?

The reform that might prove to be regressive in terms of proportionality?

Defer what you actually want to the distant future?

These are your arguments for voting yes?


Good grief - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I knew I'd win you round in the end.  Basically you are paying a massive backhanded compliment to the Lib Dems by saying that what is tactically damaging to them in the short term trumps what is in the interests of the voters (albeit relatively marginally so).


No,I'm not. I'm saying damaging the coalition is more important than a miniscule gain,which may itself delay _real_ change


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

It isn't a central plank, at all.  Clegg doesn't really give a shit to be honest.  He can always jump ship to the Tories anyway.

It is no less proportional as a system than FPTP.  Individual outcomes can occasionally (where there is a dramatic swing) be less proportional than under FPTP.  But with AV there can, and usually would, be more prortional results. 

I see no basis whatsoever for seeing AV a step backwards from FPTP.

Streathamite - your argument is essentially that of the Spart - the NHS and the welfare state just delay real revolutionary change we need.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Streathamite - your argument is essentially that of the Spart - the NHS and the welfare state just delay real revolutionary change we need.


jesus, wept you're doing it _again_.
For the *umpteenth fucking time*, I really don't care who you bracket me with-my mind is my own,likewise my arguments.DO YOU READ ME?
And that's a ridculous fucking comparison-Those 2 things were massive breakthroughs for the workers,this is a breakthrough for _no-one_,other than your employers that is 
And you wonder why I don't rate your grasp of UK history....


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It isn't a central plank, at all.  Clegg doesn't really give a shit to be honest.  He can always jump ship to the Tories anyway.


As far as, oooh, about 75% of the LD's membership were/are concerned, It was THE key plank-and more so with every day of terrible polls.
THAT is what counts


----------



## moon23 (Feb 15, 2011)

There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins. Personally I think AV is a better system though as you get to rank candidates, and MPs need to win a popular vote.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins. Personally I think AV is a better system though as you get to rank candidates, and MPs need to win a popular vote.


ahh...so you _personally_ prefer cosying up to Tories!
_Quel Surpris_ - NOT!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2011)

The prinipal beneficiaries of keeping FPTP are....? The Tories.   The No campaign gets most of its cash and staff from...?  The Tories.  

To the extent that a No vote hits the coalition, it does so in a way which the Tories stand to gain most from.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The prinipal beneficiaries of keeping FPTP are....? The Tories.   The No campaign gets most of its cash and staff from...?  The Tories.
> 
> To the extent that a No vote hits the coalition, it does so in a way which the Tories stand to gain most from.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<The point.





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Articul8.
Never mind!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins. Personally I think AV is a better system though as you get to rank candidates, and MPs need to win a popular vote.



Nothing like good old fashioned emotional blackmail, eh?

How is AV "better"? 

I realise I could be waiting all of eternity for an answer from you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins.


 
There will never be a chance 

you are finished


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The prinipal beneficiaries of keeping FPTP are....? The Tories.   The No campaign gets most of its cash and staff from...?  The Tories.


You really AREN'T going to learn from your mistakes, are you?
0/10


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP


Wot, with your magnificent _8%_? Yeah, _Sure_ there is.
Welcome to the wilderness - _again_.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2011)

There's a black cab somewhere with the words "Reserved for the Lib Dems".


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 16, 2011)

Undermining a8's claim that not having AV passed won't affect the coalition is the fact that there's already spats about Tory Peers not supporting the bill


> This prompted accusations of "betrayal" by the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown.
> 
> "We have delivered, in full, our side of the deal - the Conservatives seem unable to deliver theirs," he told the BBC.



Lords still pushing for 40% turnout threshold


----------



## moochedit (Feb 17, 2011)

bill passed



> A referendum on changing the voting system for general elections will take place on May 5 after the Government overcame stiff resistance from the House of Lords to get the legislation through Parliament.
> The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill received royal assent after a torrid passage through the Commons and Lords.





> The final hurdle facing the Bill was Labour peer Lord Rooker's determined efforts to insist that the result of the referendum should be binding only if at least 40% of voters cast their ballot. But the move, twice passed in the Lords only to be overturned in the Commons, was defeated by 221 votes to 153, Government majority 68, as the peer tried for a third time to write it into law.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2011)

AV got pretty much torn apart on Newsnight today with the consensus that it's just a way to keep the LibDems in power.



> Voters around the country are split on replacing the First Past the Post system with the Alternative Vote, a new ComRes poll commissioned by BBC Two's Newsnight suggests.
> 
> When asked do you want the UK to adopt the Alternative Vote system instead of the current First Past The Post system for electing MPs 41% agreed while the same amount disagreed.
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 17, 2011)

editor said:


> AV got pretty much torn apart on Newsnight today with the consensus that it's just a way to keep the LibDems in power.


 
Eh? How do you make that out?  The poll above shows people clearly split evenly.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 17, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Undermining a8's claim that not having AV passed won't affect the coalition is the fact that there's already spats about Tory Peers not supporting the bill


 
They wanted the referendum as agreed not loaded with artificial hurdles like thresholds - doesn't mean they will pull the plug if they lose the referendum.  They won't.


----------



## Termite Man (Feb 17, 2011)

So the referendum is 2 days after a long bank holiday weekend ( including royal wedding ) and just over a  week after Easter . Seems to me they have chosen a time for this when there will be minimal news coverage and people will be pre-occupied with other things .


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Eh? How do you make that out?  The poll above shows people clearly split evenly.


the consensus of the speakers on _Newsnight_, obviously


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> They wanted the referendum as agreed not loaded with artificial hurdles like thresholds - doesn't mean they will pull the plug if they lose the referendum.  They won't.


and you are so certain _why_?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Wot, with your magnificent _8%_? Yeah, _Sure_ there is.
> Welcome to the wilderness - _again_.



Shame it isn't a Magnificent 7%. That has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Shame it isn't a Magnificent 7%. That has a nice ring to it.



it will be soon...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Huge turnout at the Yes London launch.

Here's the bristol lib-dems kicking off the local one.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the bristol lib-dems kicking off the local one.


 
Actualy one of those girls is quite cute, plus she's clearly the kind of girl who will say 'yes' to anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

You'd think after the pluralists embarrassing running around after Clegg screaming _save us nick! _in the week after the general election they'd have dropped the purple shit by now...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Incidentally, that Yes to Fairer Votes site - would it surprise anyone to learn it's set up and owned by a prominent lib-dem?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Incidentally, fucking hell


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, that Yes to Fairer Votes site - would it surprise anyone to learn it's set up and owned by a prominent lib-dem?



Nope. When I went on the Take Back Parliament march last May, I was convinced that I was surrounded by Lib Dems. Turns out, I was right.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, fucking hell


 
God, this really is fucking shit vote.  Vote 'no' and align yourself with these sorts of utter cunts.  Vote 'yes' and get a shit system which wont change much and will bring us no nearer to proper reform.  Don't turn up and they will say there is no appetite for reform.

What a crock.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, that Yes to Fairer Votes site - would it surprise anyone to learn it's set up and owned by a prominent lib-dem?


of course not


----------



## articul8 (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Huge turnout at the Yes London launch.
> .


 
Yes, like that was the lauch  at 7am on a Thursday morning - it was a little visual stunt


----------



## articul8 (Feb 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> the consensus of the speakers on _Newsnight_, obviously


 
err - there were 3 speakers from either side


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2011)

The purple makes them look like they are associated with UKIP.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2011)

The pink No vote billboard is utterly cunty though.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 17, 2011)

I am going to vote no, because 1) AV will give more power to the Lib Dems and 2) because the voters for the losing candidate get their second preferences counted while the other voters do not, unless it is required to provide a winner. It gives the preferences of the losing candidate(s) a second chance for their preferences to count, a second chance which is not available to others.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 18, 2011)

Don't accept 1) - AV would have given Labour even larger majorities in 97, 01 and 05 and the LDs would have had no greater influence than they did under FPTP.

or 2) Everyone has the chance to have one vote that counts - preferences for (smaller party) candidates who are eliminated in earlier rou haven't had the opportunity to "count".  People whose first preferences continue to count in the final round have no need for their subsequent preferences to be activated since their 1st choice is still in the running.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

a) would it? b) so what? To a labour hack like you this might be important, don't assume the same for everyone.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Incidentally, fucking hell


 
That's shocking. The reason they dont have decent equipment has nothing to do with the referendum and everything to do with politicians who dont give a shit about the people they send to kill and die in dubious wars. They must think we're thick as fuck.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 18, 2011)

The "No" billboards are really good propaganda for the "Yes" campaign.


----------



## Santino (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm more anti-AV than ever after hearing how it will make MPs need 50% of their constituents' support. 

It doesn't of course, it requires that 50% of people voting hate someone else more, but of course it will give them the moral authority to claim that they represent the majority of their constituency, the cunts. 

Not to mention that the only comparable country with AV, Australia, has a far greater proportion of safe seats than Britain, suggesting that AV does exactly the opposite of what articul8 claims it will do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

The Av vote admitted that today - they had 10 great reasons to vote lib-dem/AV - one of them was that it means extremists never win. It funnels them all into the centre - exactly against what articul8 has argued on here.  One of the main drivers behind this campaign.

I want extremists to win.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

Maybe we could have an anti-AV vote and i don't want AV to win vote as 2nd pref - we should have two votes because our one isn't good enough unless it wins. We want two. Signed, the people who know.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 18, 2011)

the simple act of listening to clegg try and justify why AV might be a good thing is enough to make me want to destroy the whole concept (and rip down the artifice of democratic control more generally)

does that make me an extremist?


----------



## Santino (Feb 18, 2011)

A good joke on 10 O'Clock Live yesterday - 'I like AV, but it wouldn't be my first choice'.


----------



## Santino (Feb 18, 2011)

It appeals to that kind of idiot who wants all the politicians to sit down together to discuss the problems. You know who else wanted that? Darth Vader.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

What is is about the m/c that makes them think they're entitled to two votes?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> It appeals to that kind of idiot who wants all the politicians to sit down together to discuss the problems. You know who else wanted that? Darth Vader.


 
Kabbes isn't here, but yet, if only they could get together and work out how to fuck us up. Together.


----------



## Santino (Feb 19, 2011)

I look forward to the triumvirate of butchers, kabbes and Santino.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2011)

Frangipane?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What is is about the m/c that makes them think they're entitled to two votes?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 19, 2011)

People really shouldn't vote against AV on the basis that it may  benefit the LDs or that it will piss them off.

The equally vapid but counterbalancing argument is that voting for AV will piss off the tories.


----------



## Roonster (Feb 19, 2011)

this maybe a gut reaticion but fuck Clegg the lying cunt


----------



## binka (Feb 19, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People really shouldn't vote against AV on the basis that it may  benefit the LDs or that it will piss them off.
> 
> The equally vapid but counterbalancing argument is that voting for AV will piss off the tories.


 
can you supply us with a list of acceptable reasons we can use for voting no?

currently one of my reasons is i know someone from uni who is involved in the yes campaign via 'unlock democracy'. awful woman.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 19, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People really shouldn't vote against AV on the basis that it may  benefit the LDs or that it will piss them off.
> 
> The equally vapid but counterbalancing argument is that voting for AV will piss off the tories.


 
You're a Green right?  What do you think about the fact that AV could well make it harder for the Greens to win seats?  Greens won Brighton Pavilion with just over 30% of the vote in what is essentially a three way marginal.  AV would put up a further barrier as they will now need to get a sizeable chunk of 2nd preferences as well.  And whilst it's hard to predict how people will use their 2nd/3rd/4th preferences it seems fairly likely that these voters will vote for the established parties as these are probably votes people care less about and things like name recognition become more important.  I know the benefits for smaller parties are that people won't be as worried about wasting their vote but surely that issue fades when the Greens get a foothold anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People really shouldn't vote against AV on the basis that it may  benefit the LDs or that it will piss them off.
> 
> The equally vapid but counterbalancing argument is that voting for AV will piss off the tories.


 
Not equally vapid as hurting the Tories directly will not hurt the coalition. Have another go. More vapid, incorrect and not counterbalancing at all. 

Any content behind you finger wagging first paragraph? There's pretty clear arguments being offered as to why voting no precisely to hurt the lib-dems is a sound course of action. What do you have?


----------



## Voley (Feb 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'm more anti-AV than ever after hearing how it will make MPs need 50% of their constituents' support.


 
I only cottoned on to this for the first time yesterday, too. Useless fucking idea.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 19, 2011)

Combustible said:


> You're a Green right?  What do you think about the fact that AV could well make it harder for the Greens to win seats?  Greens won Brighton Pavilion with just over 30% of the vote in what is essentially a three way marginal.  AV would put up a further barrier as they will now need to get a sizeable chunk of 2nd preferences as well.  And whilst it's hard to predict how people will use their 2nd/3rd/4th preferences it seems fairly likely that these voters will vote for the established parties as these are probably votes people care less about and things like name recognition become more important.  I know the benefits for smaller parties are that people won't be as worried about wasting their vote but surely that issue fades when the Greens get a foothold anyway.



Why do you think that the Green party in England/Wales is campaigning for a *Yes* vote to AV?
Greens would have won Brighton Pavillion anyway under AV (according to the British Election Survey modelling of the 2010 election) - that they did so under FPTP was pretty much a freak result, as most Greens openly admit.

AV would empower every voter to vote Green as their 1st preference rather than the current situation where their vote gets massive squeezed.  OK this won't directly translate into more seats in Westminster.  But it will allow for more effective targeting for local elections, and the removal of FPTP will further keep up momentum for PR in the Lords.  

A no vote will not do the Greens any favours at all.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's pretty clear arguments being offered as to why voting no precisely to hurt the lib-dems is a sound course of action. What do you have?


 
No there aren't.  Hurting the Lib Dems in ways which make it harder to kick the Tories out of government is really fucking stupid.  The idea that it will plunge the entire coalition into deadlock over the cuts is total wish-fufilment without any basis in what will actually happen as a consequence of a No vote.  Clegg won't particularly care and the LD noises-off won't do anything substantial to destabilise the coalition's agenda.


----------



## Random (Feb 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> the removal of FPTP will further keep up momentum for PR in the Lords.


 Jesus. Work for socialism by lobbying the Lords. Why hasn't your brain crawled out of your nose in order to get away from your ideas yet?


----------



## Combustible (Feb 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why do you think that the Green party in England/Wales is campaigning for a *Yes* vote to AV?
> Greens would have won Brighton Pavillion anyway under AV (according to the British Election Survey modelling of the 2010 election) - that they did so under FPTP was pretty much a freak result, as most Greens openly admit.



It is entirely possible that the GP are wrong to do so.  If you read the report they admit that they believe that the Greens would have won Brighton Pavilion under AV but there is not strong evidence for this from the results of simulations.  From the report, pg 13



> Note that Table 8 reports the
> Greens as retaining their single seat of Brighton Pavilion, in spite of the
> indecisive result indicated by our simulations. This reflects our judge-
> ment (rather than any hard evidence) that the pattern of second prefer-
> ...


----------



## Random (Feb 19, 2011)

Can you imagine the GP discussion where they agreed to do this? "Let's all campaign for AV. OK, well it may not actually help us but, what harm can it do? Jumping into bed with the Lib dems, what harm can it do?"

This whole pro vs anti AV nonsense is just pointless arguing over a pointless system that is only interesting to the political elites and their faithful servants. If I lived in the UK I'd probably abstain or vote no, just to piss off the idiots who think that electoral reform is actually going to deliver some kind of progress.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2011)

I didn't think the Greens are campaigning for a yes vote, I know Caroline Lucas is in favour, but I thought once their amendment to allow a multiple choice referendum had been defeated they chose not to take a line, and allow free choice like Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2011)

Check out derek greens scathing view of av


----------



## Bear (Feb 19, 2011)

I don't know how to vote or if I even will.  Here's how I see it -

1. AV makes hung parliaments more likely. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.
2. AV helps Labour the most. Not sure if that's a good thing either.
3. AV makes it harder for small parties like the Greens. That's a bad thing.
4. AV in the UK would turn it from a 2 party system into a 3 party system.  Not exactly impressed with the liberals so it's not a great thing.
5. Oh who cares...


----------



## Random (Feb 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Check out derek greens scathing view of av


 


> AV can be seen as a means to prevent the growth of the Greens, if it is introduced it will make the system a little more democratic reducing the pressure for change in a very undemocratic system and if the referendum fails to introduce it will be said that voters are happy with first past the post.
> 
> I suspect it is more dangerous for the Green Party and democracy if AV is introduced.



Ouch! Sounds like the real villains here are the ones who put AV on the agenda as a Big Political Step. And who's that? Articul8, other electoralist left idiots and the lib dem slimes.


----------



## Random (Feb 19, 2011)

Bear said:


> I don't know how to vote or if I even will.  Here's how I see it -
> 
> 1. AV makes hung parliaments more likely. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.
> 2. AV helps Labour the most. Not sure if that's a good thing either.
> ...


 
Who cares indeed, fuck the lot of them.


----------



## flicy (Feb 19, 2011)

my main reason for being against AV or PR is that they almost certainly result in a coalition government. The only way voters can judge which party to vote for, is by their manifesto pledges. In a coalition those pledges cannot be met or held to account. Therefore no one would get what they thought they were voting for. I think it would put people off voting & put our democracy in danger. The only party likely to gain from AV is the Liberals, who may permanently end up as king makers & prevent the big parties from honouring their manifesto's as to a large extent they are doing now.


----------



## flicy (Feb 19, 2011)

little_legs said:


> some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.


I don't agree that FBTP is undemocratic. Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is. It is not perfect but it is the best we have. All other systems result in coalition's which I find undemocratic because none of the parties in a coalition can honour their manifesto pledges. So what would be the point in voting for the party that pledges to do the things you approve of.


----------



## greenman (Feb 19, 2011)

I think you are wrong in a number of cases there, Flicy.


> they almost certainly result in a coalition government


  Not according to John Curtice, electoral expert on the news the other night - AV not really much more likely to result in coalitions than what we have got.  And we got the current coalition through FPTP.


> Therefore no one would get what they thought they were voting for. I think it would put people off voting & put our democracy in danger.


  As someone who doesnt support either of the big parties I, and many many more, never "get what we vote for".  Get used to it.


> The only party likely to gain from AV is the Liberals


  If the coalition crash the economy, the Lib Dems are toast, AV or not.  The coalition _is_ crashing the economy.


> permanently end up as king makers & prevent the big parties from honouring their manifesto's as to a large extent they are doing now.


You are following this current government?  Which Tory _major_ policies are the Lib Dems blocking?  It is the Lib Dems who have ditched all their policies for power.  They needn't have - they could have done "confidence and supply". And do you have a_ problem _with a _possible_ block to Tory extremism?


> Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is


  I am afraid you are wrong - most British governments in living memory have only attracted the votes of *a minority *or _voters_, let alone the population as a whole!
In the end democracy, for me, is in the streets, the workplaces, the schools and colleges - not Westminster.  For me the chief reason for electoral reform is about legitimising a broader range of views rather than expecting major power shifts immediately. At the moment we have two corporate-captured parties with corporatist policies arguing over who is a more "competant" manager of capitalism.  The voting system allow this to happen by empowering middle class marginals that are then targetted by the corporatist captured parties and the corporatist media.  They will find it far harder to fight a propaganda war across the whole population.  This structural difference is _one_ of the reasons why British political discourse is so narrow compared to the rest of Europe.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't think even the most obsessed electoral reformer would say this is as big an issue as the cuts etc - but still, we finally have a chance to move on from the FPTP system that works to exclude the emergence of new forces to challenge the two (or two-and-a-bit) party system.
> 
> Few people think AV is the best alternative.  But it's likely to be the only one on offer.  It means that people can vote for a green or left/independent candidate without that meaning their vote is "wasted" and won't help to keep out the Tory (or Tory/Lib).
> 
> Let's 'AV it?


 

*NO!*


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Check out derek greens scathing view of av


 
Yes, but he's in a small minority and couldn't even persuade his own party colleagues. 

Sparky - no, the Greens have officially voted to campaign for a Yes vote.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Random said:


> Jesus. Work for socialism by lobbying the Lords. Why hasn't your brain crawled out of your nose in order to get away from your ideas yet?


 
i wasn't talking about lobbying the Lords - i was talking about keeping up the pressure for them to be replaced with a second chamber democratically elected under a PR system.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> i wasn't talking about lobbying the Lords - i was talking about keeping up the pressure for them to be replaced with a second chamber democratically elected under a PR system.


so if PR is good enough for the Lords, why not for the Commons?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> *NO!*


 
Shut it, Paisley!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so if PR is good enough for the Lords, why not for the Commons?



I'd prefer to see PR for the Commons.  But that's no reason to turn down the step forward that is on offer at the refererednum.  A No vote would retard the chances of getting PR far more seriously


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

flicy said:


> Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is. It is not perfect but it is the best we have. All other systems result in coalition's which I find undemocratic because none of the parties in a coalition can honour their manifesto pledges.


except usually it _isn't_. Never in my life have a UK party got 50%+...


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'd prefer to see PR for the Commons.  But that's no reason to turn down the step forward that is on offer at the refererednum.  A No vote would retard the chances of getting PR far more seriously


Yes it is and no it wouldn't-not necessarily,anyway


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Not only would a NO make it harder to get electoral reform of any description back on the agenda for donkeys years - it would risk PR for Lords because the Tories would use it as a convenient excuse to say the public likes the simplicity of FPTP.


----------



## Santino (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not only would a NO make it harder to get electoral reform of any description back on the agenda for donkeys years - it would risk PR for Lords because the Tories would use it as a convenient excuse to say the public likes the simplicity of FPTP.



Why is AV on the agenda now? Because of a grass-roots movement that gained sufficient popularity to pressurise Parliament into doing something, or because it's the hobby-horse of a few Tory apologist scum who saw an opportunity to get their pet policy an airing?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

if the mass pressure and desire is there,it will happen


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Why is AV on the agenda now? Because of a grass-roots movement that gained sufficient popularity to pressurise Parliament into doing something, or because it's the hobby-horse of a few Tory apologist scum who saw an opportunity to get their pet policy an airing?


 
A mixture of the two - a referendum on AV was inserted into the Labour manifesto as a result of the pressure of the MPs expenses scandal and the campaigning pressure that they came under.  There was significant pressure at the time of the coalition negotiation to address reforming FPTP.  The Tories conceded AV because otherwise they would have been left in an insecure minority position.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> if the mass pressure and desire is there,it will happen


 
and you say I'm ignorant of British history!  How long did it take to achieve universal manhood suffrage!!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> and you say I'm ignorant of British history!  How long did it take to achieve universal manhood suffrage!!


was there mass pressure,back then?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 21, 2011)

There was the first world war.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though


I'll answer for you:There wasn't


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 21, 2011)

There was a petition with c. 60 000 signatures handed in for womens suffrage, in 1867. Nothing nhappened ... Petitions, lol.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> There was a petition with c. 60 000 signatures handed in for womens suffrage, in 1867. Nothing nhappened ... Petitions, lol.


exactly-_petitions_


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - *didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years *or more though


err, sorry, just when do you think the 2nd Great Reform Bill was?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though



Yes, in 1848 while the rest of Europe was gripped by revolutionary fever, the Chartists hand in a petition that is practically laughed out of parliament. 

Not trying to take anything away from the Chartists, but petitions don't work.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> err, sorry, just when do you think the 2nd Great Reform Bill was?


 
It most certainly wasn't *universal* manhood suffrage - it was an extension to the franchise but retained a basic property entitlement - such that even after 1867 half of adult males still couldn't vote.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Not trying to take anything away from the Chartists, but petitions don't work.


 I think the Chartists did slightly more than put a petition together.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It most certainly wasn't *universal* manhood suffrage - it was an extension to the franchise but retained a basic property entitlement - such that even after 1867 half of adult males still couldn't vote.


Yes,I know that,and about the '84 bill-it's your basic numeracy I'm questioning!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 21, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I think the Chartists did slightly more than put a petition together.



I wasn't saying that they didn't. Perhaps you _imagined_ it?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> There was the first world war.


tbf,that helped get women the vote;A8 specified manhood suffrage


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Yes, but universal manhood suffrage at 18?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> err, sorry, just when do you think the 2nd Great Reform Bill was?


 
1867.  Your tone clearly suggests you were saying that this is when universal manhood suffrage was granted.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 22, 2011)

Not many of the current population were alive back in 1867 though.  And they didn't even have Facebook back then, let alone Twitter.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Not many of the current population were alive back in 1867 though.  And they didn't even have Facebook back then, let alone Twitter.


 
Poor bastards were stuck with MySpace.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 22, 2011)

There's just something about articul8's arguments that reminds me of football pundits dredging up what happened between Aston Villa and Liverpool in 1968 as an actual argument for how the result might go next Tuesday.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2011)

I'm well confused about which thread I'm on.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> 1867.  Your tone clearly suggests you were saying that this is when universal manhood suffrage was granted.


never mind


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 22, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes, but universal manhood suffrage at 18?



What? My manhood also has a vote? 

The word you're looking for is "male".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 22, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> What? My manhood also has a vote?



Only if it can hold a pencil and make a cross.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 22, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Only if it can hold a pencil and make a cross.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I'm sure that with a little practice...


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2011)

Thing in the Spectator 

 largest donator  to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services


----------



## Santino (Feb 24, 2011)

gosub said:


> Thing in the Spectator
> 
> largest donator  to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services


 
From that link:



> The [Electoral Reform] Society turns out to be the majority shareholder in Britain’s leading and highly profitable supplier of election services, and its dividends are funding the campaign. The business, which is called Electoral Reform Services Ltd, turns over £21m.


----------



## Random (Feb 24, 2011)

It's all true, but let's face it, the Spectator can fuck off.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 24, 2011)

it doesn't matter, none of the countries with different voting systems are any more or less democratic than the UK


----------



## Santino (Feb 24, 2011)

The Electoral Reform Society on AV:



> However, as AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc



http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2011)

Random said:


> It's all true, but let's face it, the Spectator can fuck off.


 
Of course they can, but it's pretty clear that what the ERS are up to with their claims of AV ushering in a new era is pretty similar to the lib-dems claim about a new politics before the general election. Pretty easy to use this to attack the spectators crusty conservatism  _and_ the outright shadiness of the ERS/lib-dems.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2011)

good find Santino.


given 






			
				 Electoral Reform Society said:
			
		

> The Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you're out to elect a single winner.
> 
> As a membership organisation, we've asked our members whether we should offer our full support to winning the referendum on AV. The result was an emphatic YES! You can join the Society online today.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 24, 2011)

a list of the ERS's clients:
Anglo American 
Automobile Association 
Aviva 
Barclays 
BBC 
BP 
British Airways 
BSkyB 
Cadbury Schweppes 
Channel 5 
Coca Cola 
Diageo 
GlaxoSmithKline 
HSBC 
ICI 
ITV 
InterContinental Hotels 
Lloyd's of London 
Lloyds TSB 
Marks and Spencer 
Merrill Lynch 
Nestlé 
News International 
Odeon and UCI Cinemas 
Prudential 
Royal Bank of Scotland 
Royal Mail 
Shell 
Starbucks 
Tesco 
Unilever 
United Utilities 
Virgin Media 
Visa 
Vodafone


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2011)

other clients isn't the point:

"So, should Britain decide to hold more complex elections as with the Alternative Voting system, ERSL could be well-placed to receive the contracts."

So the company in charge of administering the referendum on AV is itself funding one side of the campaign AND ENDORSING A YES VOTE. As the internal documents from the Society state, “it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).” And if ERSL profits then so will the Electoral Reform Society, which is currently straining its resources to persuade Britain to vote Yes. This is a financial conflict of interest of the very gravest kind.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2011)

I think they've messed that up - i'm pretty sure that the ERSL are not running the referendum, the Electoral Commision are. Expect that to be the ERS attack point if wrong.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 24, 2011)

gosub said:


> other clients isn't the point:
> 
> "So, should Britain decide to hold more complex elections as with the Alternative Voting system, ERSL could be well-placed to receive the contracts."
> 
> So the company in charge of administering the referendum on AV is itself funding one side of the campaign AND ENDORSING A YES VOTE. As the internal documents from the Society state, “it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).” And if ERSL profits then so will the Electoral Reform Society, which is currently straining its resources to persuade Britain to vote Yes. This is a financial conflict of interest of the very gravest kind.


Umm, I take your point entirely,but I was thinking from the POV of ripping the piss out of that uncompromising socialist and ERS employee, Articul8


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 24, 2011)

Santino said:


> The Electoral Reform Society on AV:
> 
> 
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55


 
Funny how they've changed their tune eh?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2011)

gosub said:


> Thing in the Spectator
> 
> largest donator  to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services


 
Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?

I'll c&p here since the same shit has been daubed over two threads.  This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.

There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Funny how they've changed their tune eh?


 
AV is less unsuitable as a system for electing a Parliament than FPTP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 24, 2011)

It is slightly odd, though, that you're campaigning for something you don't think is right. Why aren't you out there explaining that AV is not good enough and that STV, or whatever, is the change we should be being offered?


----------



## Red Faction (Feb 24, 2011)

a few years ago id have advocated STV or AV

currently- no fucking chance
means the lib dems would never leave power
fuck.  that.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is slightly odd, though, that you're campaigning for something you don't think is right. Why aren't you out there explaining that AV is not good enough and that STV, or whatever, is the change we should be being offered?


 
We've existed since 1884 with the principle aim of changing the way MPs are elected.   Our judgement is that the argument that best should be the enemy of the better is tactically self-defeating and would lead to no progress whatsoever.  We have the chance to make some progress.  Not enough, you're right.  But some.


----------



## gosub (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?
> 
> I'll c&p here since the same shit has been daubed over two threads.  This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.
> 
> There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.


 
I think I've bought one copy of the spector in my life, the week after the "we are all jihadists" protests, actually had some reasonable articles but not a regular reader. Do look at coffeshop, coz its free and has a number of journos  that will give some scope on a wide variety of subjects, some from perspectives that irritate the fuck out of me. part of a reasonably wide surf, and urban helps in that as its membership is full of people that do same. Don't think I'd ever buy a copy of the morning star, but if its relvent to a thread I've bothered reading, I will read a link. And I don't think I've ever sneered at a link purely on the basis of where it comes from. I've left that form of blind bigotery to others. I wasn't aware of Pressholdings funding by the taxpayer alliance, but then I also had to look up who printed the Spectator, coz I didn't know. I stricks me as odd the Barclay Brothers are tied up with taxPpyers alliance given they don't pay tax.

Falling for this crap....tis the first bit of news on AV thats made any sense to me. How anyone can enthuse about it has puzzled me. If there was a AV vote of voting reform AV would, for me behind PR, and then FPTP

Wasn't planning on voting, am now. Will be NO


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV is less unsuitable as a system for electing a Parliament than FPTP.


 
AV is not a proportional system and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 25, 2011)

How do you tell whether AV is more or less proportional without using a completely arbitrary way of weighting first and second choice preferences?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

Wolveryeti said:


> How do you tell whether AV is more or less proportional without using a completely arbitrary way of weighting first and second choice preferences?


You can't-it's completely pot-luck


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

Wolveryeti said:


> How do you tell whether AV is more or less proportional without using a completely arbitrary way of weighting first and second choice preferences?


 
In theory, by looking at how it distributes seats to various parties and comparing that to polls of people's preferences. The consensus seems to be that AV will favour 'centrist' politics, tightening the stranglehold of Tories, Lib Dems and Labour on parliament and ignoring any views beyond those groups.


----------



## love detective (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> We've existed since 1884 with the principle aim of changing the way MPs are elected.   Our judgement is that the argument that best should be the enemy of the better is tactically self-defeating and would lead to no progress whatsoever.  We have the chance to make some progress.  Not enough, you're right.  But some.


 
Martin Wolf (who is in favour of AV) today aknowledged in the FT that AV would pull politics towards the centre, yet in his mind this is a good thing as somewhat bizarely he claims _'the extremes have had too much weight hitherto'_

He ends his piece with the advice that _'Those with a conservative disposition should support the reform'_

(A8 is RP carrying a review of BTF at some point?)


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

It's a familiar claim - and if there were *only* three parties - it might be true.  But the effect of UKIP means the Tories will be split between those who want to go for Euro-sceptic 2nd prefs and those who want to go for LD pro-EU ones.  Likewise Labour would have incentives to appeal to the left - Plaid, SNP, Greens, TUSC and to anti-war Hughesite LDs

So I don't think Wolf is right. 

(sorry what is BTF?)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Yeah, like the UKIP voters would vote anyone but tory as any sort of pref and the left would vote anyone but labour - no matter what. 

In fact, you've just outlined a great model how the three main parties will hoover up these other votes and narrow politics down to them and them alone, exactly as Wolf claims.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm very skeptical of that claim personally. The current system pulls parties hard to the centre as they fight over the votes of a handful of swing voters in marginal constituencies. I've yet to be convinced that AV would be worse than the current system in that regard.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

May i also say in passing how pathetic, and no doubt humiliating, it is for a communist to put forward with a straight face the argument that AV is great because it means the three main parties will have to do what we, the electorate, really want.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, like the UKIP voters would vote anyone but tory as any sort of pref and the left would vote anyone but labour - no matter what.
> 
> In fact, you've just outlined a great model how the three main parties will hoover up these other votes and narrow politics down to them and them alone, exactly as Wolf claims.


 
It already is! Plaid and the SNP will still get seats, but other than the Celtic nationalists, which other parties have ever had a look-in under the current system? The Greens – one seat in one election. Wow! Sorry, that argument holds little weight.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm very skeptical of that claim personally. The current system pulls parties hard to the centre as they fight over the votes of a handful of swing voters in marginal constituencies. I've yet to be convinced that AV would be worse than the current system in that regard.


 
AV encourages them to fight for the marginal voters, plus voters of the other main parties. A Labour candidate in a marginal consitutency can count on the second preferences of anyone to the left of them, but will need to appeal to the Lib Dems and the Tories in order to pick up their second preferences. AV makes appealing to the Lib Dems even more important than under FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm very skeptical of that claim personally. The current system pulls parties hard to the centre as they fight over the votes of a handful of swing voters in marginal constituencies. I've yet to be convinced that AV would be worse than the current system in that regard.


 
It hasn't pulled them to the centre, it's pulled them to neo-liberal extremes. 

The mainstream parties will be attempting to appeal to those exact same voters in swing seats no matter what the system anyway.

And of course AV will, as the nature of voting against means you use your votes for the party best placed to beat your most hated one - and that is in 99.9999% of seats one of the main parties. It forces you to do that by intention and nature.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> May i also say in passing how pathetic, and no doubt humiliating, it is for a communist to put forward with a straight face the argument that AV is great because it means the three main parties will have to do what we, the electorate, really want.


Oo's ver Commie?
'Scuse my ignorance


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It already is! Plaid and the SNP will still get seats, but other than the Celtic nationalists, which other parties have ever had a look-in under the current system? The Greens – one seat in one election. Wow! Sorry, that argument holds little weight.


 
Of course it already does - how is that an argument against the idea that AV will too? AV will also intensify this by making people 'vote against' - and to that succesfully you don't vote for minor parties. You vote for the big ones.

I'm not sure what argument you think i've made against AV that holds little weight because FPTP hasn't elected a long list of radical candidates.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It hasn't pulled them to the centre, it's pulled them to neo-liberal extremes.
> 
> The mainstream parties will be attempting to appeal to those exact same voters in swing seats no matter what the system anyway.
> 
> And of course AV will, as the nature of voting against means you use your votes for the party best placed to beat your most hated one - and that is in 99.9999% of seats one of the main parties. It forces you to do that by intention and nature.



Ok, it's pulled them to neo-liberal extremes, agreed. But the point is that it's pulled them all to the same neo-liberal extreme. 

I don't in fact see a problem necessarily with the idea that any candidate must secure less than 50% of the 'most hated' vote, which is what AV ensures. There is quite a democratic deficit when over half an MP's electorate despise their MP.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Oo's ver Commie?
> 'Scuse my ignorance


 
a8


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

fuck me sideways. _Speechless_.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, it's pulled them to neo-liberal extremes, agreed. But the point is that it's pulled them all to the same neo-liberal extreme.
> 
> I don't in fact see a problem necessarily with the idea that any candidate must secure less than 50% of the 'most hated' vote, which is what AV ensures. There is quite a democratic deficit when over half an MP's electorate despise their MP.


 
So a candidate must receive 50% of the votes to win - do you think they're going to be of any party but those who you've already just correctly described as all being of the extreme centre? What parties are the only ones really placed to achieve this 50%


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> fuck me sideways. _Speechless_.



To be fair, he is probably just trying to accelerate the advancement of the capitalist project in order to make manifest its contradictions, thus bringing about the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner rather than later.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> May i also say in passing how pathetic, and no doubt humiliating, it is for a communist to put forward with a straight face the argument that AV is great because it means the three main parties will have to do what we, the electorate, really want.


 
It would create tension in the main parties - in Labour, between those that want to aim for Orange Book LD or even Tory 2nd preferences, and those who want shift left to appeal to SNP/Plaid/Green/Lefts.  

You totally ignore the way the _current system leaves the main parties to ignore the voters in their own safe seats (ie. working class communities most disposed to vote Labour) and pursue the swing vote in middle England marginals.  And people end up voting Labour tactically because anything else is a "waste".  You don't like my term disaggregation, but it would be a real factor in freeing up Labour voters to demonstrate that they are lending their support to the least worst neo-liberal party as an expedient not because they identify with its politics._


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, it's pulled them to neo-liberal extremes, agreed. But the point is that it's pulled them all to the same neo-liberal extreme.
> 
> I don't in fact see a problem necessarily with the idea that any candidate must secure less than 50% of the 'most hated' vote, which is what AV ensures. There is quite a democratic deficit when over half an MP's electorate despise their MP.


 
You can possibly wave goodbye to your Lucas and Galloways winning on 35% in this situation as well...


----------



## love detective (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's a familiar claim - and if there were *only* three parties - it might be true.  But the effect of UKIP means the Tories will be split between those who want to go for Euro-sceptic 2nd prefs and those who want to go for LD pro-EU ones.  Likewise Labour would have incentives to appeal to the left - Plaid, SNP, Greens, TUSC and to anti-war Hughesite LDs
> 
> So I don't think Wolf is right.
> 
> (sorry what is BTF?)



Whether he's right or not though (i think he is), it gives a glimpse into the thinking of those who are supporting AV because they:-  

a) believe that the non-centrist parties have too much influence/weight as it is, and 
b) have a conservative disposition

Not exactly the best advert/argument for AV as a progressive development



> (sorry what is BTF?)



Beating The Fascists - Freedom told us RP had been in touch about a review - give us a shout if you wanted to do an interview with author(s)


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

Santino said:


> To be fair, he is probably just trying to accelerate the advancement of the capitalist project in order to make manifest its contradictions, thus bringing about the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner rather than later.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It would create tension in the main parties - in Labour, between those that want to aim for Orange Book LD or even Tory 2nd preferences, and those who want shift left to appeal to SNP/Plaid/Green/Lefts.
> 
> You totally ignore the way the _current system leaves the main parties to ignore the voters in their own safe seats (ie. working class communities most disposed to vote Labour) and pursue the swing vote in middle England marginals.  And people end up voting Labour tactically because anything else is a "waste".  You don't like my term disaggregation, but it would be a real factor in freeing up Labour voters to demonstrate that they are lending their support to the least worst neo-liberal party as an expedient not because they identify with its politics._


_

 They won't have to try and appeal to anyone they don't already - they know the vote to their left or right is already stitched up. This fantasy of the labour party being pulled to the hard left by the incessant demands of the electorate are of a piece with the fantasy of small left parties turning large right ones to the left in coalitions - the opposite happens, they're 
pulled rightwards. The large parties have these votes already.

And no i don't, you know damn well that i don't, that i've brought this up many many times on here. That this exists doesn't effect my argument that AV will do exactly the same and probably worse. You really need to stop inventing this mad shit, that AV will lead to a re-engagement by the mainstream parties with w/c needs and concerns - it's mental, naive and you don't believe it for one second. 

More to the point, if you do believe it, then which parties are going to hoovering up these votes? Oh yes, the three mainstream parties of the 'centre'  - exactly as i've been arguing will be the case and you that it won't. Simultaneously the large parties will be forced to react to w/c demands and parties other than the large ones will spring up and win seats from the large parties that aren't reacting to w/c needs. 

Is there nothing AV cannot do? _


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You can possibly wave goodbye to your Lucas and Galloways winning on 35% in this situation as well...


 
British election survey suggests Lucas would still have won under AV.  Lucas is supporting AV:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12576979


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

What does the BES suggest exactly?




			
				lucas said:
			
		

> Moving to AV would mean people did not "have to agonise over tactical voting," she added.



She's right there, it's taken as read that tactical voting is what you'll be forced to do. No agonising at all.


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> freeing up Labour voters to demonstrate that they are lending their support to the least worst neo-liberal party as an expedient not because they identify with its politics.


 This is the utter be-all and end-all of the socialist angle to your argument for AV. 

I can't see it as anything much. Why should this kind of 'demonstration' from some voters cause any problems for the neo-liberal Labour Party? Or any change in that party? It'll still be Labour MPs who get elected by these 'demonstrating' left wingers.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The large parties have these votes already.


Yes, but the ultimatum "vote Labour rather than Green/Left/independent or you'll help the Tories" currently helps to squeeze those smaller parties of the support they do actually enjoy.   AV would reveal this and free up voters to demonstrate their real preference. 



> You really need to stop inventing this mad shit, that AV will lead to a re-engagement by the mainstream parties with w/c needs and concerns - it's mental, naive and you don't believe it for one second.


It won't lead directly to that, but it will start to break down that logic that there is no support to be had from appealing from a left position.  And more importantly it will keep up momentum for PR in the 2nd chamber which will break it down a lot further and faster.

 That Greens or single issue independents are better placed to do this than the organised far left is a challenge that they have been too slow to face in any case.  


> Simultaneously the large parties will be forced to react to w/c demands and parties other than the large ones will spring up and win seats from the large parties that aren't reacting to w/c needs.


 
Nothing is certain - but I think it's worth pursuing anything that could help to break the logjam.   AV alone won't realise this - but it keeps up the pressure for further change.  Slapping down Clegg is all very well, but it will be used as weapon by other conservative forces.


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Nothing is certain - but I think it's worth pursuing anything that could help to break the logjam


 Lots of things are worth pursuing, if you're well paid by Lib Dem grandees to do so.


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> And more importantly it will keep up momentum for PR in the 2nd chamber which will break it down a lot further and faster.


 Hope lies in the Lords.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes, but the ultimatum "vote Labour rather than Green/Left/independent or you'll help the Tories" currently helps to squeeze those smaller parties of the support they do actually enjoy.   AV would reveal this and free up voters to demonstrate their real preference.



By really voting labour. How is that not a squeeze towards the centre? Towards the big parties?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

Random said:


> This is the utter be-all and end-all of the socialist angle to your argument for AV.
> 
> I can't see it as anything much. Why should this kind of 'demonstration' from some voters cause any problems for the neo-liberal Labour Party? Or any change in that party? It'll still be Labour MPs who get elected by these 'demonstrating' left wingers.


 
It will make it more worthwhile for activists to go out to campaign for and build smaller left parties because everyone gets to show their support without - as at present- surrendering their ability to influence the outcome and stop an even worse neo-liberal party from winning the seat.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

i.e without not being able to vote labour or lib-dem as their real vote. How does this not funnel votes and outcomes to the centre/large parties?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties?  How does that work?


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It will make it more worthwhile for activists to go out to campaign for and build smaller left parties because everyone gets to show their support without - as at present- surrendering their ability to influence the outcome and stop an even worse neo-liberal party from winning the seat.



These left activists. If they have no hope of getting anyone actually elected under AV, what difference will the 'demonstration' that there's lots of left voters in an area actually do? It's already well known that in most safe labour seats in working class areas the voters are far far far to the left of the Labour Party leadership.


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties?  How does that work?


 
How about "There's barely a credit card's widthof space between them so we might as well vote for the one that'll give the Lib Demos a kick in the teeth"? Or might as well not bother. Unless, like you, we're paid to care.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties?  How does that work?


 
So you accept that AV funnels votes to the centre? Let's get this clear.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Random said:


> How about "There's barely a credit card's widthof space between them so we might as well vote for the one that'll give the Lib Demos a kick in the teeth"? Or might as well not bother. Unless, like you, we're paid to care.


 Or vote for President Clegg, the kingmaker forever more - no matter what you vote for.


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or vote for President Clegg, the kingmaker forever more - no matter what you vote for.


 
Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.


 
Whoever the ERS want to head the labour/lib-dem coaltion (this time) then the lib-dem/tory coalition (next time). Oh what sweet changes, what sweet juicy freedom!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 25, 2011)

Random said:


> Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.



If the Libdems win the referendum (and that's the main thing this is a referendum on them, on their aspirations) then they will have a life line, it will reinforce their position and cement Clegg as both leader of the party and kingmaker who can hold the country hostage to the whims of a handful of  rich neoliberal elites without any tie to a genuine base (something even the Tories have).

A no vote will at the very least facilitate the destruction of the Libdems in four years time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Post #148




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts....Clegg's failure to get AV... will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down.






			
				a8 said:
			
		

> Agree with all this too EXCEPT the likely more likely outcome of the LDs getting smashed out of existence is a big TORY majority and the cuts getting worse still.



Whats changed then, why won't his failure to get AV fuck him, his party and the coalition up?

edit: more:

Post#189



> A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron. It might be the start of - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.



Today you argue a Yes vote would weaken Clegg and a NO vote would strengthen him. That it could never 100% ever lead to  the coalition unravelling. Why have you turned your own argument over 100% in  a few months?

Are there any arguments that you've not u-turned on? How about principled ones? Tried them?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are there any arguments that you've not u-turned on? How about principled ones? Tried them?


now come on, you're just being daft there....He's a "communist" member of the LP!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Post #148
> 
> Today you argue a Yes vote would weaken Clegg and a NO vote would strengthen him. That it could never 100% ever lead to  the coalition unravelling. Why have you turned your own argument over 100% in  a few months?


 
Clegg will be weaker irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.  i don't claim the chief reason to vote Yes is to weaken Clegg.  But a Yes vote isnt enough to prop them up either.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A no vote will at the very least facilitate the destruction of the Libdems in four years time.


 
Maybe, but with the Tories as chief beneficiary.  AV would see the LDs crushed in Scotland and Wales, even if it worked in their favour in a few seats.  AV would *not* result in permanent coalition, so the kingmaker argument is totally bogus as far as AV goes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Why will the tories be chief beneficiary? 

The lib-dems are getting crushed in those areas no matter what  - FPTP or AV - it will not be happening _because_ of AV.

You keep saying this but i see no reason to believe it. And yes, it's been one of your contradictory arguments from the start - that the resulting lab/lib-dem coalition from an AV vote would mean there'd never be a tory majority ever again. It's been your long term thinking for decades - you explicitly said this not a few days ago. Can you really not keep track of your own arguments anymore?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Clegg will be weaker irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.  i don't claim the chief reason to vote Yes is to weaken Clegg.  But a Yes vote isnt enough to prop them up either.


 
Or, he'll be stronger by winning the thing he and his party sold themselves out for.


Also, that wasn't your argument then - it was that a NO vote would "fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down." Why is that not true any longer?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> it's been one of your contradictory arguments from the start - that the resulting lab/lib-dem coalition from an AV vote would mean there'd never be a tory majority ever again. It's been your long term thinking for decades - you explicitly said this not a few days ago. Can you really not keep track of your own arguments anymore?


 
No, my argument does not rest on there being any kind of coalition - A tory majority is unlikely because people who voted LD in 2010 are much less likely to support the Tories than Labour (it doesn't matter that people who vote LD now might prefer the Tories, as they are not the key determinant and a % will in any case follow the leadership back to equidistance).  This needn't mean a formal coalition.

If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?


----------



## Random (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?


 Tribalism


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No, my argument does not rest on there being any kind of coalition - A tory majority is unlikely because people who voted LD in 2010 are much less likely to support the Tories than Labour (it doesn't matter that people who vote LD now might prefer the Tories, as they are not the key determinant and a % will in any case follow the leadership back to equidistance).  This needn't mean a formal coalition.
> 
> If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?



Yes it does, you said so explicitly the other night - why can you not keep hold of your arguments anymore? An anti-tory majority forever on the basis of alb/lib-dem coalition. Are you losing it ot something?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it does, you said so explicitly the other night - why can you not keep hold of your arguments anymore? An anti-tory majority forever on the basis of alb/lib-dem coalition. Are you losing it ot something?


 
where did i say this?  Not talking about formal coalition but about a shared political rejection of Tory interest from majoirty of Lab and LD voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Post's #55 and #56 here. 

And of course, you're not talking about a formal coalition -you wouldn't have the gall today. It's exactly what it says sand means though.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

No - post #56 says you were right to say that the dominant political strain of support for electoral reform has argued for closer Lib/Lab relations.  But I situate my case from the perspective of socialists who argue from a different perspective.  Keir Hardie supported PR but as a consequence of his *break* from Lib-Labbery.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

So in fact, yes, i'm correct, you've said so very recently but have a such a problem keeping hold of the many contradictory arguments you're flinging around right now you plum forgot. And also, you were right to both forget and also to say something then that disagrees with what you say now. Because everyone else is a tory.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

err..no.  You failed to understand my first post and then compound the error by alleging I have changed my mind from a position I didn't take.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Or yes, when i said that the long term plan is a lab/lib-dem coalition and you agree (but by saying i want it to be really radical).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2011)

It might be someone's long-term plan but not mine.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

You're just here to help implement it. Not my fault guv.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2011)

articul8 said:


> where did i say this?  Not talking about formal coalition but about a shared political rejection of Tory interest from majoirty of Lab and LD voters.


You don't have the guts or intellectual honesty to argue it explicitly but it is clear implicit in your (nonsense) claim that AV would stop the Tories getting a majority.

A claim made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because all the evidence shows that it is completely untrue - the Liberals in Australia have had majorities plenty of times.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> You don't have the guts or intellectual honesty to argue it explicitly but it is clear implicit in your (nonsense) claim that AV would stop the Tories getting a majority.
> 
> A claim made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because all the evidence shows that it is completely untrue - the Liberals in Australia have had majorities plenty of times.


 
Speculating about the outcomes of any voting system is like staring into the crystal ball. The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Speculating about the outcomes of any voting system is like staring into the crystal ball. The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.


 
And then speculating on the answer. What a twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

And who says that should be the question? it's not one your party or its coalition partners have decided to ask it it? So why try and sell this 'miserable little compromise' as if it is? Because you're a twat?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And then speculating on the answer. What a twat.



Good evening butchersapron, speculation of the ‘wills’ outcome is different from whether the ‘will’ has been represented.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And who says that should be the question? it's not one your party or its coalition partners have decided to ask it it? So why try and sell this 'miserable little compromise' as if it is? Because you're a twat?


 
Who said it was a 'miserable little comrpromise'?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Good evening butchersapron, speculation of the ‘wills’ outcome is different from whether the ‘will’ has been represented.


 
What's that go to do with anything i said? In fact you decided to ignore my asking you why the question you place as central (The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.) is not being asked at all. Because you lot did that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Who said it was a 'miserable little comrpromise'?


 
Nick Clegg.

Are you kidding? Are you really so unaware of the facts on this? You don't even know what your glorious leader called AV before the election? Before he turned to embrace it as the best democratic thing ever?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg.
> 
> Are you kidding?


 
So why should something Nick Clegg says be taken as a self-evident truth?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So why should something Nick Clegg says be taken as a self-evident truth?


 
Are you calling Nick Clegg a liar?

You really didn't know did you?  Oh poor little moonie.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you calling Nick Clegg a liar?
> 
> You really didn't know did you?  Oh poor little moonie.



I'm pointing out that Clegg's word is not divine gospel. So what if he said AV was a miserable little compromise when engaged in gesture politics to barter for voter reform. Who the fuck cares? This is now about what the voter wants.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm pointing out that Clegg's word is not divine gospel. So what if he said AV was a miserable little compromise when engaged in gesture politics to barter for voter reform. Who the fuck cares? This is now about what the voter wants.


 
Well was he right or not?

Maybe the voter doesn't want 'gesture politics' (thank you for this neat summation of the lib-dems though - and so cynical).

I find it a little odd that you can dismiss the public lies of the leader of your party as ''gesture politics' that he could junk as he wished - as lies.  That means this vote is 'gesture politics' - meaningless stuff just designed to make them look better? Is that right?

Is it ok to just lie now? Is that the official lib-dem line?  Or is that just 'gesture politics'?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well was he right or not?
> 
> Maybe the voter doesn't want 'gesture politics' (thank you for this neat summation of the lib-dems though - and so cynical).
> 
> ...


 
It's as simple as a child complaining they don't want an apple when they think they can hold out for an ice cream. Clegg was just trying to barter to win some voting reform against two political parties that have been stuck in their self-interested ways for many many years.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

Was he right or was he not? Is AV 'a miserable compromise'?  Clegg was not trying to win anything, this had nothing whatsoever to with the bargaining after the election. It's what AV is to someone who wants a proportional system.

Not interested in your little farmyard homilies btw.







So, OK to just lie then? As long as you call it 'gesture politics'? Answer that one.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm pointing out that Clegg's word is not divine gospel. So what if he said AV was a miserable little compromise when engaged in gesture politics to barter for voter reform. Who the fuck cares? This is now about what the voter wants.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 26, 2011)

So, to sum up: the scales are falling from Moon's eyes, even if he doesn't know it yet & it's leaking out in his language. Clegg is a lickspittle turncoat and someone who lies like a child to get what they want. Lovely.


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2011)

It is already 'bizarre' to insist that Lib Dems keep their promises. Should we add 'telling the truth' to that, moon23?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> You don't have the guts or intellectual honesty to argue it explicitly but it is clear implicit in your (nonsense) claim that AV would stop the Tories getting a majority.  A claim made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because all the evidence shows that it is completely untrue - the Liberals in Australia have had majorities plenty of times.


 
I've _never_ claimed that AV would make it impossible for the Tories to win a majority - but that it would be less likely than under FPTP, because they have a toxic brand to voters from other parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

It's amazing that all the arguments that you've put forward over a 1000 or so posts _you never actually put forward_. And when you didn't you were right not to, expect when you did- when you were right to.  And then 5 posts later you return to making the same argument that you simultaneously didn't make earlier and were right to/not to make when you didn't. 

You are all over the bloody shop.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

Notice you don't point to any of these alleged inconsistencies - I have argued that AV would make a Tory majority *at the next election* less likely.  I have not argued that it would prevent them from getting a majority in pereptuity, although it would make it harder for them on balance.  Which is why none of their MPs support anything other than a No vote.

This is all very clear.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

I have pointed them out on thread after thread after thread. You really cannot seem to remember anything that you or other contributors have posted from one minute to the next.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

When asked to substantiate claims like the above, you just respond "I've already done it".  Well, point to it then?  I've argued that Clegg is damaged goods irrespective of whether there's a YES or a NO.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> When asked to substantiate claims like the above, you just respond "I've already done it".  Well, point to it then?  I've argued that Clegg is damaged goods irrespective of whether there's a YES or a NO.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?


 
Every single time you've backtracked, changed you arguments, misrepresented what you've earlier said or denied the logic of your arguments  i've pointed it out. Countless times across three threads. Why else have I had to ask why you seem unable to recall your own posts so often? I don't think anyone whose read any of these three long threads will deny this.

Why have you just chucked in another argument that's got nothing to do with the post that you're replying to? Have you forgot what you said again?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

You have systematically misintepreted what I've said, imposed some arbitrary interpretation that has little if anything to do with the argument I've made, attributed positions to me that I haven't taken (and wouldn't), and accused me of inconsistency without ever point to an example of it when challenged.

My position is very clear - AV would disadvantage the Tories and allow the real first preference of left voters to be properly registered not squeezed out of existence at present.  I've argued this from day one and continue to make the same case.  Now you can object to these things if you like.  But don't tell me that the logic of what I'm arguing is something totally different.


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You have systematically misintepreted what I've said, imposed some arbitrary interpretation that has little if anything to do with the argument I've made, attributed positions to me that I haven't taken (and wouldn't), and accused me of inconsistency without ever point to an example of it when challenged.
> 
> My position is very clear - AV would disadvantage the Tories and allow the real first preference of left voters to be properly registered not squeezed out of existence at present.  I've argued this from day one and continue to make the same case.  Now you can object to these things if you like.  But don't tell me that the logic of what I'm arguing is something totally different.


 
So your argument is not based on the merits of AV per se at all? It's just based on (what you imagine) it will do to the Tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

Or, you've attempted to weasel out of the logic of you position. i.e you admit that the long term aim of the AV supporters is to make a tory majority impossible by firming up support for the lib-dems and labour (leaving aside whether it will do this or not) and pretend that this doesn't mean lab/lib-dem coalitions. sheer dishonesty. Plenty of other examples too.

And really, after your performance across these three threads (_you're tory, you love tories, you love david cameron_) i'm pretty sure i'll not be taking any lessons from you. You've been an absolute shambles.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

Santino said:


> So your argument is not based on the merits of AV per se at all? It's just based on (what you imagine) it will do to the Tories?


 
It will disadvantage the Tories *because* it is a more democratic system that better reflects the majority of people's attitudes towards them


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

Santino said:


> So your argument is not based on the merits of AV per se at all? It's just based on (what you imagine) it will do to the Tories?


 
It might be for now, wait a few hours and it'll change back to something else.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or, you've attempted to weasel out of the logic of you position. i.e you admit that the long term aim of the AV supporters is to *make a tory majority impossible* by firming up support for the lib-dems and labour (leaving aside whether it will do this or not) and pretend that this doesn't mean lab/lib-dem coalitions. sheer dishonesty. Plenty of other examples too.



Here - another example.  I've already said that AV would *not* mean that a Tory majority was impossible.  Nor would AV necessarily produce more coalitions. 
My argument that AV would be more likely to work against Tory interest is based on the belief that Labour is better able to reach out to a majority of the voters.  This doesn't just mean winning over LDs voters (the kind for eg. who opposed the war and fees) but also Greens, SNP, Plaid, independents, smaller left forces etc.  

But it does *not* require formal, or even informal, Lib-Lab coalitions (although some supporters of AV may wish to see this).  But you want to insist this is my agenda - despite the fact it is not what I'm arguing.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

Can you fucking read? I didn't say that you said AV would make a tory majority impossible. I said that "you admit that the long term aim of the AV supporters is to make a tory majority impossible ". (You denied admitting this as well actually until i dug out the exact quote where you admitted it. This was yesterday and i was forced to ask you even then why you couldn't seem to remember large chunks of your posts/arguments from only a few days previous - now i have to do it again, and on the same topic. Absolute shambles).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2011)

Jesus wept!!!  

Making a Tory majority impossible *politically* is a good thing, yes.  This needn't necessarily be through formal coalition, and AV isn't necessarily going to lead to that - although some of our supporters, perhaps a majority, would like to see it as beginning a process that would.  But even then there are different forms of coalition possible, even different forms of Lib/Lab politics.  

Where have I deviated from this position?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm pointing out that Clegg's word is not divine gospel. So what if he said AV was a miserable little compromise when engaged in gesture politics to barter for voter reform.


It matters cos he's now selling it to us - hard - as a "meaningful reform",having shown before he doesn't think it is


----------



## love detective (Feb 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You can possibly wave goodbye to your Lucas and Galloways winning on 35% in this situation as well...


 
Indeed - in Nigel Copsey's new book on the BNP he makes a similar point:-

_Moreover, the potential introduction of an alternative vote (AV) elecotral system will make it even harder for the BNP to capture a parliamentary seat, simply because it will require the BNP to poll at least 50 per cent of the vote in any constituency. The AV system also does away with the possibility of winning a seat on a minority vote share (25-33 per cent) in either a four-way or three-way contest. That the BNP might have gained its first ever Member of Parliament on the basis of a one-quarter or one-third vote share was a possibility that did occasion some concerns in the run up to the 2010 general election._


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

Ah but the BNP are Nazi scum, so that's a good thing.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

We need to ban voting to preserve democracy.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> British election survey suggests Lucas would still have won under AV. [/URL]


 
As has been pointed out already if you look at the report they do not conclude that Lucas would have won as a result of electoral simulations but as a piece of conjecture.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

Oh well, as long as it stops the BNPaedos eh?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2011)

Combustible said:


> As has been pointed out already if you look at the report they do not conclude that Lucas would have won as a result of electoral simulations but as a piece of conjecture.


 
It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences.  Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland).  But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences.  Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland).  But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).


 
Models give you probabilities, therefore conclusions *are* conjecture. The conclusions may be informed with large amounts of pertinent data, but the findings are still only speculative.

BTW, put not your faith in models. Even the best are so simplistic that they only give tentative indications. If authoritative  models were easy to construct, every bookie in the world would have gone out of business at the advent of the computer age.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences.  Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland).  But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).


 
Except if you read the relevant portion of the report (pg 13) that is not what the prediction that they would hold onto the seat is based on.  The simulation shows no such thing (as posted earlier).



> Note that Table 8 reports the
> Greens as retaining their single seat of Brighton Pavilion, in spite of the
> indecisive result indicated by our simulations. This reflects our judge-
> ment (rather than any hard evidence) that the pattern of second prefer-
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It will disadvantage the Tories *because* it is a more democratic system that better reflects the majority of people's attitudes towards them


 
It isn't a more democratic system, stop spreading nonsense, it is a differently democratic system. 

In fact many, including me, would argue that it is a less democratic system because people voting for the losing candidates get a second bite of the cherry when their second preferences are taken into account while people who voted for the front runners, DO NOT get their second preferences counted. In that way it is UNFAIR compared to first past the post.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2011)

the cherry hasn't been bitten at all when preferences have been given to candidates that are eliminated, so they rightly transfer so that the (single) vote can be counted (once).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> the cherry hasn't been at all when preferences have been given to candidates that are eliminated, so they rightly transfer so that the (single) vote can be counted (once).


 
A clearer concise explanation of AV i've yet to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

What about when they 'wrongly transfer'? What does this mean?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2011)

excuse the grammar - problems of post-pub posting.  Meant in the sense that they - quite rightly - are transferred.

No vote is counted more than once (as WW is claiming).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

What about when they 'wrongly transfer'? What does this mean?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2011)

see above


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Nope, that wasn't grammar.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No vote is counted more than once (as WW is claiming).


 
Yes it is, patently. 

First they get their vote for the losing candidate counted. 

Then they get their first preference counted. 

That is two counts of their preferences, something other voters do not get!

I would have thought that was clear, even to you!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Multiple voting happens. Its inescapable.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2011)

A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote.  A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, that wasn't grammar.


 
syntax then


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote.  A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.


 Call it what you will multi-voting  is the reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> syntax then


 
What is "right transfers"?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2011)

It was clumsy syntax - I meant that it is entirely appropriate that preferences transfer when they are cast for candidates who are eliminated before the vote has a chance to count.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It was clumsy syntax - I meant that it is entirely appropriate that preferences transfer when they are cast for candidates who are eliminated before the vote has a chance to count.


 
No, it is not appropriate. 

You voted for a losing candidate, you should not get another try to get your next opinion heard. No one else gets this privilidge. If everyone's second preference was counted then perhaps it would not be so unfair but that is not the plan. 

AV as it is gives losing voters the chance to have a second vote and this second vote may overturn the preferences of first time voters, making someone else the winner. Totally unfair!


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2011)

Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race?  It would be absurd.  There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race?  It would be absurd.  There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once


 
2nd prefs are worthless - vote a for a system that favours 2nd prefs, 2nd prefs will help us.


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote.  A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.



Sophistry.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2011)

No it's not - the argument that people vote more than once is based on a fundamental category error.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

No it's not.


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)




----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race?  It would be absurd.  There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once


 
One man one vote - is fair to all parties

AV is one man one vote - and for some - a second vote which can change the overall outcome..

Why should the people who vote for a losing candidate get a second chance and a chance to deny the majority expressed in the first vote their democratic selection?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it's not - the argument that people vote more than once is based on a fundamental category error.


 
Don't talk bollocks, some people get to have their preferences counted twice, while others do not!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> One man one vote - is fair to all parties
> 
> AV is one man one vote - and for some - a second vote which can change the overall outcome..
> 
> Why should the people who vote for a losing candidate get a second chance and a chance to deny the majority expressed in the first vote their democratic selection?


 Because they might be lib dems


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Don't talk bollocks, some people get to have their preferences counted twice, while others do not!


especially people who vote for the BNP,Natural Law party, WESPECK, UKIP...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because they might be lib dems



Well it is clear why the Libems want AV, because they think they will be a lot of people's second preferences. 



Streathamite said:


> especially people who vote for the BNP,Natural Law party, WESPECK, UKIP...


 
Indeed ... Why should they get a second bite of the cherry?


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> especially people who vote for the BNP,Natural Law party, WESPECK, UKIP...


That's because they didn't vote the _right_ way the first time.

"When _will_ these fuckers vote the way we want them to?"


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

past caring said:


> That's because they didn't vote the _right_ way the first time.
> 
> "When _will_ these fuckers vote the way we want them to?"


yes,so it channels votes to the "big3"


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)

Really?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

of course.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yes,so it channels votes to the "big3"



And who will benefit the most I wonder?

*scratches head*


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> of course.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well it is clear why the Libems want AV, because they think they will be a lot of people's second preferences.


 
Yep.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2011)

The most relevant thing about it, though, is whether Labour or the Tories are better placed to reach 50% of the vote in more seats.  If the Tories didn't think they would lose out why are they so opposed?

As the eg. of the Greens in Ireland shows going from being transfer friendly (LDs pre coalition) can easily tip to going transfer repellent.  LDs better watch out - AV could wipe them out in Scotland and Wales as Labour/Nats/ and others could all share preferences are boot them out altogether.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

past caring said:


> Care to elaborate?


Sure.people who vote for a "Non-Big3" party generally have contempt for mainstream parties.They also, most often, have a clear idea which "mainstream" party they hate the most,and the least.
so:I'll vote SP,but my second pref.goes to Labour to keep the Tories out.A UKIPer will give 2nd Pref to the tories to keep Labour out,likewise many BNP voters,and so on.
So,unless their first choice has a HUGE increase in 1st prefs,they get knocked out early - and "big 3" candidates clean up


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The most relevant thing about it, though, is whether Labour or the Tories are better placed to reach 50% of the vote in more seats.  If the Tories didn't think they would lose out why are they so opposed?
> 
> As the eg. of the Greens in Ireland shows going from being transfer friendly (LDs pre coalition) can easily tip to going transfer repellent.  LDs better watch out - AV could wipe them out in Scotland and Wales as Labour/Nats/ and others could all share preferences are boot them out altogether.



Yeah, but Ireland has PR/STV, not AV bollocks.

Unless you're trying to tell us that AV is PR by another name. In which case, you'd be lying.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 2, 2011)

Not only does it channel votes to the centre, but it will be used as a bloc against a pro-working class party/alliance if it ever becomes a threat, just as the Aussies have used it to form a bloc against the far right. Which is the point of it.

Every vote will count so long as you vote capitalist.

All these liberal cunts cheerleading AV as a democratic reform which will further the cause of a proportional voting system, as if we are on a constant line of progression to a lovely wooly utopian future must have been asleep for the past few decades.

And as for the weapons who think they can reduce the debate to constitutional 'reforms' and that the contemporary political situation is irrelevant can fuck right off. The liberals want this - need this - so that they can say they've got something from the coalition. And so that a party with collapsing support can continue to play a role in government. Go democracy.

Who is asking for it and why are they asking for it. It is what it always comes down to.

And A8 is a two-bit hack for hire. Compass cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Sure.people who vote for a "Non-Big3" party generally have contempt for mainstream parties.They also, mostoften, have a clear idea which "mainstream" party they hatet the most,and the least.
> so:I'll vote SP,but my second pref.goes to Labour to keep the Tories out.A UKIPer will give 2nd Pref to the tories to keep Labour out,likewise many BNP voters,and so on.
> So,unless their first choice has a HUGE increase in 1st prefs,they get knocked out early - and "big 3" candidates clean up


 
In theory the Lib Dems could get a seat based on 2nd prefs despite nobody voting for them a first pref.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> In theory the Lib Dems could get a seat based on 2nd prefs despite nobody voting for them a first pref.


 
So what? You say this as if it were an affront to democracy.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

You really don't see how a group of people voting for a preferred party(s) and then gritting their teeth and voting lib-dem as the "least worst" option nand then have the lib-dems get back in is bad?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not only does it channel votes to the centre, but it will be used as a bloc against a pro-working class party/alliance if it ever becomes a threat, just as the Aussies have used it to form a bloc against the far right. Which is the point of it.
> 
> Every vote will count so long as you vote capitalist.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## past caring (Mar 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Sure.people who vote for a "Non-Big3" party generally have contempt for mainstream parties.They also, mostoften, have a clear idea which "mainstream" party they hatet the most,and the least.
> so:I'll vote SP,but my second pref.goes to Labour to keep the Tories out.A UKIPer will give 2nd Pref to the tories to keep Labour out,likewise many BNP voters,and so on.
> So,unless their first choice has a HUGE increase in 1st prefs,they get knocked out early - and "big 3" candidates clean up



"On my way now".


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

oh,you git - tbf,I joined the thread some time after you


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what? You say this as if it were an affront to democracy.


It is:it is _negative_ democracy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You really don't see how a group of people voting for a preferred party(s) and then gritting their teeth and voting lib-dem as the "least worst" option nand then have the lib-dems get back in is bad?


 
What's the alternative? I don't disagree with you that AV is shit. But I fail to see how the current system is better.

The only way a vote for a preferred candidate can carry proper weight is in a multi-MP constituency. I don't see why people are so opposed to that idea. (not say you are) It gives you a choice of MPs to go to with your grievances.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

What's this preferred candidate bollocks?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

It's the crap system of democracy that we have. In most elections, none of the candidates is standing on a platform that is anywhere near what I think.

In such a situation, I'm every bit as interested in who I hate most as in who I like most.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the alternative? I don't disagree with you that AV is shit. But I fail to see how the current system is better.


It isn't.But it isn't worse enough to vote 'yes'


> The only way a vote for a preferred candidate can carry proper weight is in a multi-MP constituency. I don't see why people are so opposed to that idea. (not say you are) It gives you a choice of MPs to go to with your grievances.


Agreed-but that's not on offer


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's the crap system of democracy that we have. In most elections, none of the candidates is standing on a platform that is anywhere near what I think.
> 
> In such a situation, I'm every bit as interested in who I hate most as in who I like most.


 
I thought that you were an anarchist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

What has being an anarchist got to do with anything? 

We're talking about what is here and now and what is better or worse. I'm not talking high principles, I'm talking practical reality, as you yourself have stressed many times. 

Anyway, it depends what day it is. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist. Sometimes a communist. Sometimes a socialist. Depends who I'm talking to and what particular thing I'm trying to stress.

I don't believe I've ever called myself anything on here. I might have done, but I don't remember doing it.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyway, it depends what day it is. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist. Sometimes a communist. Sometimes a socialist. Depends who I'm talking to and what particular thing I'm trying to stress.


Eh?
<baffled>


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What has being an anarchist got to do with anything?
> 
> We're talking about what is here and now and what is better or worse. I'm not talking high principles, I'm talking practical reality, as you yourself have stressed many times.
> 
> ...


 
You did. If you don't then fine - all this pathetic defensive flannel can be burnt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Eh?
> <baffled>


 
Yep. I'm pretty consistent in what I say, but as to where I would like to go_ from here_, that can be described in different ways. It doesn't matter what you call it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You did. If you don't then fine - all this pathetic defensive flannel can be burnt.


 
What does that matter, though? I think you've called yourself a communist on here. So what? It's your ideas that matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What does that matter, though? I think you've called yourself a communist on here. So what? It's your ideas that matter.


 
I am a proud communist.There are only 6 of us on here. In what way is what you call yourself not part of your ideas?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am a proud communist.There are only 6 of us on here. In what way is what you call yourself not part of your ideas?


 
OK, in that sense, I'm not a proud anything, and I don't say that as a good thing because it isn't. It is better to be clear and proud about exactly where you stand. 

And I'm not a communist in the same way that you are, so I probably shouldn't use that as a label for myself as it is to claim to be something that I'm not. That doesn't mean I can't agree with you about a lot of things, or stand with you when push comes to shove. 

But what you call yourself is only a small part of your ideas, because they are _your_ ideas. You're not a communist because someone told you to be one. You're a communist because  your thinking has led you to think that this is what is right. 

Lots of people on here call themselves lots of things. It doesn't count for much to me. What you say and do counts for a lot more.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am a proud communist.There are only 6 of us on here. In what way is what you call yourself not part of your ideas?


err..yes, exactly.
You subscribe to a particular ideology.
Or you _don't_.
What am I missing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> err..yes, exactly.
> You subscribe to a particular ideology.
> Or you _don't_.
> What am I missing?



Actually, I try to work out my own ideology. 

And in terms of on here, I am only what I post. I know you irl, St, but I've never met Butchers or lots of other people who I talk a lot to on here. Best just to judge by the ideas in the posts.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

Are you a marxist lbj?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you a marxist lbj?


 
Good question. Mostly. Yes. Or no. Depending on what you think being a marxist is. 

I have only read bits of Marx, but I suspect that there are parts of Marx's theory of capital that I disagree with. They are 'technical' points, specifically to do with the way that money is introduced into an economy and the consequences of that. I don't completely subscribe to, or at least I haven't completely been convinced by, the marxist theory of value. I suspect that he misunderstands the importance of the fact that money is borne of debt and that this is how money gets into the system, and that money never fully achieves the status of representing real commodities. 

That's why it depends who I'm talking to. To disagree with some of Marx's analysis is not to disagree with many of his basic points. Is he right about the nature of exploitation and ownership? Basically, absolutely yes.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good question. Mostly. Yes. Or no. Depending on what you think being a marxist is.
> 
> I have only read bits of Marx, but I suspect that there are parts of Marx's theory of capital that I disagree with. They are 'technical' points, specifically to do with the way that money is introduced into an economy and the consequences of that. I don't completely subscribe to, or at least I haven't completely been convinced by, the marxist theory of value. I suspect that he misunderstands the importance of the fact that money is borne of debt and that this is how money gets into the system, and that money never fully achieves the status of representing real commodities.
> 
> That's why it depends who I'm talking to. To disagree with some of Marx's analysis is not to disagree with many of his basic points. Is he right about the nature of exploitation and ownership? Basically, absolutely yes.


 
I'd say you were a marxist tbh, certainly in terms of seeing historical development as the result of class struggle. Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a framework innit, so it fits the bill.

Personally I always define myself as a socialist, although I don't object to being labelled a communist. I'd be a bit put out to be called an anarchist though!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm happy to be called a marxist in general terms. The marxist way of looking at history is a very powerful one. Non-marxist historians tend to talk a load of guff and look in all the wrong places for the causes of change.

Butchers doesn't like being complimented much, but he is a Marxist historian, and a very good one. He talks a lot of sense most of the time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2011)

Get a room


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, but Ireland has PR/STV, not AV bollocks.
> 
> Unless you're trying to tell us that AV is PR by another name. In which case, you'd be lying.


 
STV is just AV in multi-member seats.   The general principle in the same.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Sure.people who vote for a "Non-Big3" party generally have contempt for mainstream parties.They also, most often, have a clear idea which "mainstream" party they hate the most,and the least.
> so:I'll vote SP,but my second pref.goes to Labour to keep the Tories out.A UKIPer will give 2nd Pref to the tories to keep Labour out,likewise many BNP voters,and so on.
> So,unless their first choice has a HUGE increase in 1st prefs,they get knocked out early - and "big 3" candidates clean up


 
But by voting to keep the current system, you are keeping a system where people find themselves voting for 1 of the big 3 to keep out the other 2 *without their first preference even being registered*.

So people who might otherwise vote Green or anti-cuts will vote Labour to stop the Tories.  At least with AV you see that they are doing this out of necessity rather than choice.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The liberals want this - need this - so that they can say they've got something from the coalition. And so that a party with collapsing support can continue to play a role in government. Go democracy.


 
You really think that the liberals will be unable to "continue to play a role in government" if there is a NO vote? In any case, if their support is collapsing no electoral system - AV included - will save them from their fate.  In fact they could be wiped out even faster in Scotland and Wales if it does come in and their fortunes don't change.

Actually, anti-cuts single issue candidates could do very well indeed under AV.  The Kidderminster hospital guy wouldn't have lost his seat to the Tories if there was AV in place last time.  If you really want to open up the system why vote to keep it locked down?  

But of course you don't really want to change fuck all.  You want to whine on the sidelines like every other two-bit sectarian cunt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> STV is just AV in multi-member seats.   The general principle in the same.



Is it fuck. You've got a pretty warped idea of PR, if you think I'm going to buy that nonsense.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> STV is just AV in multi-member seats.   The general principle in the same.


 
STV is proportional dependent on the number of members per seat; i.e. multi-member seats are a  principle of STV as a PR system. Your employer recognises this difference of principle


There are many systems of PR. STV is just one of them. Most PR systems are designed to give each party representation that reflects how many votes have been cast for that party. (ERS 2011)​

AV is not, however, a proportional system. In some elections it could even produce more distorted results than our present first-past-the-post system. AV would not guarantee a more representative parliament or one better able to hold the government to account. (ERS Feb 2010)​
Stop lying.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

How close can you get to saying AV really is PR without lying? Bars been set pretty low.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 3, 2011)

"if I post it often enough people might believe it" coupled with "I get paid to post this and they'll give up refuting before I give up posting".


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

I haven't said that AV is a proportional system.  I said that it is based on the same fundamental principle as AV - in the specific sense that parties that are unpopular choices with voters of other parties suffer.  

In any case there is no direct relationship between how proportional a voting system is and how effective it is - I wouldn't recommend the most proportional system (A single national list - as used in Israel), so there is always a degree of trade off between proportionality and other advantages.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> "if I post it often enough people might believe it" coupled with "I get paid to post this and they'll give up refuting before I give up posting".


 
I don't get paid by the post!  Otherwise I might reach apronesque post counts.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You really think that the liberals will be unable to "continue to play a role in government" if there is a NO vote? In any case, if their support is collapsing no electoral system - AV included - will save them from their fate.  In fact they could be wiped out even faster in Scotland and Wales if it does come in and their fortunes don't change.



Nonsense. Your whig overlords know full well that their only hope of votes is second preferences from the other centrist parties.



> Actually, anti-cuts single issue candidates could do very well indeed under AV.  The Kidderminster hospital guy wouldn't have lost his seat to the Tories if there was AV in place last time.  If you really want to open up the system why vote to keep it locked down?



Whilst the far left isn't a particular threat, then you may be correct that in certain cases AV could help (and in other cases wouldn't btw). But that couns for shit if, the moment the far left is a threat, the capitalists gang up and form a bloc. You shortsighted dick. Mug.



> But of course you don't really want to change fuck all.  You want to whine on the sidelines like every other two-bit sectarian cunt.



Vote Labour! Like you can fucking lecture anybody you sad liberal left meaningless hack wanker.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I haven't said that AV is a proportional system.  I said that it is based on the same fundamental principle as AV - in the specific sense that parties that are unpopular choices with voters of other parties suffer.
> 
> In any case there is no direct relationship between how proportional a voting system is and how effective it is - I wouldn't recommend the most proportional system (A single national list - as used in Israel), so there is always a degree of trade off between proportionality and other advantages.



You tried to say that they were the same in principle, but could only do so by removing the principle of STV (i.e. proportionality). You are a liar. I very quickly was able to find a couple of quotes from your employer to show that you are a liar.

Stop lying.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> STV is just AV in multi-member seats.   The general principle in the same.


 
The general principle of STV if PR. The general principle of AV is majoritarian.

Stop lying.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *I don't get paid by the post!*  Otherwise I might reach apronesque post counts.


 
By the fib?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I haven't said that AV is a proportional system.  I said that it is based on the same fundamental principle as AV - in the specific sense that parties that are unpopular choices with voters of other parties suffer.
> 
> In any case there is no direct relationship between how proportional a voting system is and how effective it is - I wouldn't recommend the most proportional system (A single national list - as used in Israel), so there is always a degree of trade off between proportionality and other advantages.



So, let me get this straight, you don't favour a proportional system but are willing to accept AV? Why? I don't think you've put forward a coherent argument as to why AV will lead to PR or that it is in any way superior to FPTP. Why bother with a system that won't deliver real PR? What is in it for you and your colleagues? 

One thing that you have failed to get to grips with is the Tory's desire to redraw the boundaries to make it easier for them to win more seats.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

No, I DO favour a proportional one, but not a purely proportional one.  Very few PR advocates Do.  A no vote would embolden the hand of Tories to reverse their commitment to PR for the 2nd chamber.  It would also be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the political system (including but not only FPTP).

I am perfectly well aware of the Tory boundary proposals and their effects, and - if I were an MP (god forbid) I would have voted against the bill as a whole as a result.  But a NO vote would not reverse the effect of the boundaries.  In fact, their impact will be felt more severely under FPTP than under AV.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Whilst the far left isn't a particular threat, then you may be correct that in certain cases AV could help (and in other cases wouldn't btw). But that couns for shit if, the moment the far left is a threat, the capitalists gang up and form a bloc. You shortsighted dick. Mug.


 
Yes, because we're just waiting for that moment when the far left surge onto the scene under FPTP and start making gains left, right, and centre.  It'll happen any day now.  Mug.  The whole point is breaking the logjam.  Yes, I accept there could conceivably come a certain point in time when AV will not favour the development of a left alternative.  But it will be an obstacle on a different scale becuase by this stage left parties would have demonstrably greater support - and there would be nothing to prevent a further reform of the system.  

We can keep trading invective and abusive epithets.  But like it or not I am a socialist, and believe that breaking the logjam of FPTP would be advantageous for the longer-term development of a left alternative.  

You're adolescent (or should that be infantile - as in Lenin's phrase) vitriol towards Labour and Labour voters just confirms the sad irrelevance of your position on the political sidelines.  You will probably end up a dyspeptic geriatric UKIP member.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes, because we're just waiting for that moment when the far left surge onto the scene under FPTP and start making gains left, right, and centre.  It'll happen any day now.  Mug.  The whole point is breaking the logjam.  Yes, I accept there could conceivably come a certain point in time when AV will not favour the development of a left alternative.  But it will be an obstacle on a different scale becuase by this stage left parties would have demonstrably greater support - and there would be nothing to prevent a further reform of the system.



What a load of waffle. FPTP does not allow capitalist parties to form loose blocs. If they want to form an electoral bloc then they will have to come out and explicitly say so.



articul8 said:


> We can keep trading invective and abusive epithets... You're adolescent (or should that be infantile - as in Lenin's phrase) vitriol towards Labour and Labour voters just confirms the sad irrelevance of your position on the political sidelines.  You will probably end up a dyspeptic geriatric UKIP member.



Lol.



articul8 said:


> But like it or not I am a socialist


 
You're either not, or a very dim one.

Now fuck off back to your pluralistic Labour Party you reformist shit journo.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No, I DO favour a proportional one, but not a purely proportional one.  Very few PR advocates Do.  A no vote would embolden the hand of Tories to reverse their commitment to PR for the 2nd chamber.  It would also be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the political system (including but not only FPTP).
> 
> I am perfectly well aware of the Tory boundary proposals and their effects, and - if I were an MP (god forbid) I would have voted against the bill as a whole as a result.  But a NO vote would not reverse the effect of the boundaries.  In fact, their impact will be felt more severely under FPTP than under AV.



I have to say that your first paragraph smacks of emotional blackmail. It's also a pretty nasty smear; "You don't vote for AV and you're just like the Tories" is the subtext to all of this.. That's simply dishonest. Your thesis that a vote against AV will "be a vote of confidence in the political system" is simply a matter of ideological interpretation and nothing more.

I've this before and I'll say it again: AV is not proportional nor will it lead to PR. The argument that AV will eliminate tactical voting, gerrymandering and other political ills is not borne out by the evidence. Conversely a YES vote will not reverse the "effect of boundaries" as you put it. In fact, a vote for AV is a vote of political naiveté.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> What a load of waffle. FPTP does not allow capitalist parties to form loose blocs. If they want to form an electoral bloc then they will have to come out and explicitly say so.



Each of the big capitalist parties is already a loose bloc - held together, in part, by the fact that the left vote is squeezed in order to keep out the Tories.  The FPTP certainly didn't help the British CP to emerge as a mass party.  In defending FPTP you are endorsing the political status quo.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

The British CP didn't help the British CP to become a mass party. You've got no arguments you fucking hack.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Each of the big capitalist parties is already a loose bloc - held together, in part, by the fact that the left vote is squeezed in order to keep out the Tories.  *The FPTP certainly didn't help the British CP to emerge as a mass party*.  In defending FPTP you are endorsing the political status quo.


 
The existence of a mass Labour party, with affiliated trade unions, which the CP was initially barred from joining and latterly became proscribed, might have had rather more to do with it, or the cold war, or the machinations of the Soviet party...but you keep grasping at straws in your own thoroughly disingenuous way.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I have to say that your first paragraph smacks of emotional blackmail. It's also a pretty nasty smear; "You don't vote for AV and you're just like the Tories" is the subtext to all of this..



That might also be true(!) but it wasn't the point I'm making.  *If* you believe that having PR would be a good thing, then the very least you need to be aware of is the likelihood that Tories will use a NO vote in the referendum to justify abadoning plans for PR in the Lords.  Voting NO to AV becomes a vote against PR by default.

AV will abolish the dilemma between voting for your 1st pref, and voting for someone who might win - it abolishes tactical voting to that extent.  It won't reverse the effect of the boundary changes but it will *mitigate* them.  FPTP will  do nothing whatsoever on this score.  The changes are now in train.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The existence of a mass Labour party, with affiliated trade unions, which the CP was initially barred from joining and latterly became proscribed, might have had rather more to do with it, or the cold war, or the machinations of the Soviet party...but you keep grasping at straws in your own thoroughly disingenuous way.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Did I say FPTP "was solely or chiefly responsible" for the failure of the CP to build a mass base in the UK?  No.  I said it didn't help.   Which is no reason why the CP has historically been committed to scrapping FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The British CP didn't help the British CP to become a mass party. You've got no arguments you fucking hack.


 
The fact you can come out with nothing coherent beyond ill-informed abuse is becoming fairly evident.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You're adolescent (or should that be infantile - as in Lenin's phrase) vitriol towards Labour and Labour voters just confirms the sad irrelevance of your position on the political sidelines.


Oh,REALLY? That'll be the same Labour Party that had a truly disastrous GE 6 months ago? Whose membership fell from 405,000 to 176,000 during the Blair/brown years?
Might that not indicate a very large amount of people sharing PT's feelings about what Labour have become?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Did I say FPTP "was solely or chiefly responsible" for the failure of the CP to build a mass base in the UK?  No.  I said it didn't help.   Which is no reason why the CP has historically been committed to scrapping FPTP.


 
No, but you didn't cite any of the much more telling reasons for the failure of the CPGB to become a mass party like some of it's European counterparts; being partial with the truth is just a disingenuous as your early bare faced lies.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm not saying that people can or should have forgotten about the many undoubted failings of the last or previous Labour governments.  But that isn't the same as spewing vitriol and bile towards Labour party members and voters as a whole.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That might also be true(!) but it wasn't the point I'm making.  *If* you believe that having PR would be a good thing, then the very least you need to be aware of is the likelihood that Tories will use a NO vote in the referendum to justify abadoning plans for PR in the Lords.  *Voting NO to AV becomes a vote against PR by default.*
> 
> AV will abolish the dilemma between voting for your 1st pref, and voting for someone who might win - it abolishes tactical voting to that extent.  It won't reverse the effect of the boundary changes but it will *mitigate* them.  FPTP will  do nothing whatsoever on this score.  The changes are now in train.



For crying out loud, can't you put finger to keyboard without spinning a yarn. A vote against AV can be portrayed as a vote in favour of the current system, a vote in favour of PR, a vote against AV; the only time you'll be able to judge the electoral support for PR is when it's put on a ballot paper. Every outright lie, every half truth, every misrepresentation makes you and your case look more and more shoddy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No, but you didn't cite any of the much more telling reasons for the failure of the CPGB to become a mass party like some of it's European counterparts; being partial with the truth is just a disingenuous as your early bare faced lies.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
I have not lied once on this or any other thread.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> For crying out loud, can't you put finger to keyboard without spinning a yarn. A vote against AV can be portrayed as a vote in favour of the current system, a vote in favour of PR, a vote against AV; the only time you'll be able to judge the electoral support for PR is when it's put on a ballot paper. Every outright lie, every half truth, every misrepresentation makes you and your case look more and more shoddy.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber.  This is just a matter of political reality.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

Fuck Labour


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have not lied once on this or any other thread.


 
AV is majoritarian. STV is proportional.

You lied; at least have some guts after the event.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. or do you want to say you made a mistake and they are not the same in principle as the ERS has pointed out?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber.  This is just a matter of political reality.



Belief stated as fact doesn't make it fact...just spin.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have not lied once on this or any other thread.


 
So, *more than* once, then?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have not lied once on this or any other thread.


You have been -to put it mildly - incredibly misleading.
Spinning at its' most desperate


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber.  This is just a matter of political reality.


No it ISN'T:There are so many other variable factors which need to be considered,that NO-ONE can say what the net effect will be


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Will a vote to keep FPTP for the Commons make it more or less likely to see it retained for the 2nd chamber?  It's not rocket science.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> AV is majoritarian. STV is proportional.
> 
> You lied; at least have some guts after the event.
> 
> p.s. or do you want to say you made a mistake and they are not the same in principle as the ERS has pointed out?


 
No lie, No mistake.  Where did I suggest that AV was proportional?  Precisely nowhere (although it is arguably not necessarily more disproportionate than FPTP on average).  What I did say is suggest is that - since both AV and STV are based on around the ability of voters to transfer preferences - they work along the same lines.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, *more than* once, then?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Will a vote to keep FPTP for the Commons make it more or less likely to see it retained for the 2nd chamber?  It's not rocket science.


You can't tell. You simply _can't_.
You're presenting it as a foregone conclusion,and it isn't.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> You can't tell. You simply _can't_.
> You're presenting it as a foregone conclusion,and it isn't.


 
He has a memo


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm not saying that PR will automatically be lost for the Lords if there is a No to AV.  But there is a danger that it will empower Tories to use it as "evidence" that - when asked - the public will have no truck with other ways of voting.  You don't need a crystal ball to see this coming.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying that PR will automatically be lost for the Lords if there is a No to AV.  But there is a danger that it will empower Tories to use it as "evidence" that - when asked - the public will have no truck with other ways of voting.  You don't need a crystal ball to see this coming.


Right, but that is NOT what you originally said. "A Danger" is a very different kettle of fish.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2011)

So, what do you think articul8 to the poll on the other thread?

Urban75 may not be representative of the wider public, but it is representative of something. 

And despite your best efforts, the vote was decisively against AV.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying that people can or should have forgotten about the many undoubted failings of the last or previous Labour governments.  But that isn't the same as spewing vitriol and bile towards Labour party members and voters as a whole.


You really don't realise how massively let-down by Labour people feel,do you?
13 years and fuck all except for 2 wars?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> You really don't realise how massively let-down by Labour people feel,do you?
> 13 years and fuck all except for 2 wars?


 
Yes but it also more complex than that - It's a long discussion probably best done in another thread.  More than happy to engage there.  Labour will reap the benefits from public opposition to the coalitions' unpopularity to a very large extent.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

weltweit said:


> despite your best efforts, the vote was decisively against AV.


 
The same as it would be if I spent time trying to put the case to a bunch of Tories.  Basically it shows that people on here find it difficult to see past the turning it into a referendum on the Lib Dems.  Which I understand, but think it's a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating position for the left to take.  But then some of the people voting NO are people who rejecti involvement in elections and representative democracy per se.

I don't think U75 is demographically representative (if it was the Tories wouldn't be the largest party) - there's also an element of faux-macho ultra-left posturing which sees rejection of anything associated with "parliamentary" or "reform" as somehow inherently like class traitordom.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No lie, No mistake.  Where did I suggest that AV was proportional?  Precisely nowhere (although it is arguably not necessarily more disproportionate than FPTP on average).  What I did say is suggest is that - since both AV and STV are based on around the ability of voters to transfer preferences - they work along the same lines.


 
You said they were the same in principle; not they work along the same lines. The electoral principle of STV is PR; the electoral principle of AV is majoritarian. Your principles are either on holiday, bought off or non-existant.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2011)

I said the same basic principle of preferences transferring existed, not that AV was a proportional system.  You ought to check your facts before casting aspersions.  It's a lie to say I claimed AV was PR.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 3, 2011)

Politicians answer - it was quite clear what you were trying to imply. Just it's clear what your "it'll stop the Tories" getting a majority nonsense implies. 

The fact that you're pretending that it isn't just shows how you've been bought and paid for.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

articul8: STV is just AV in multi-member seats. The general principle in the same. 

ERS on STV:     There are many systems of PR. STV is just one of them. Most PR systems are designed to give each party representation that reflects how many votes have been cast for that party. (ERS 2011)

ERS on AV:     AV is not, however, a proportional system. In some elections it could even produce more distorted results than our present first-past-the-post system. AV would not guarantee a more representative parliament or one better able to hold the government to account. (ERS Feb 2010)

The reason the ERS, along with undergraduate politics, government and policy text books, deal with STV and AV separately, is because they are different in principle. 

The reason you try to unsuccessfully and dishonestly to shoehorn them together is because you're desperate; it's not a pretty sight (nor a very useful one on your own terms).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Mar 4, 2011)

*Nothing* in the above detracts from my point that they are both systems based on the transferring of preferences - which was the point I was making.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *Nothing* in the above detracts from my point that they are both systems based on the transferring of preferences - which was the point I was making.


 
Liar.


----------



## moochedit (Mar 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?


 
http://www.conservativeyes.org.uk/



> 4/03/2011  Launch of Conservative Yes
> 
> A group of senior conservative activists have today formally launched Conservative Yes, a campaign designed to encourage Conservative party members to Vote Yes in May.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2011)

Yes, and they have one AM and one councillor.  Doesn't that say something?

This is how important they think it is:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/03/baroness-warsi-tells-tory-activists-that-defeating-av-is-their-most-important-task-on-may-5th.html


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

Warsi is basically regarded as a bit of a loon within the party tho no? at least thats the impression i got.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

"Denying the deficit" though! 

Fantastic.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Warsi is basically regarded as a bit of a loon within the party tho no? at least thats the impression i got.


 
She is Co-Chairman - she is putting forward the priority of the national party and trying to get activists fired up to get the vote out for a No.  You might think you're punishing Clegg by voting no, but you'll be delighting 99% of Tories in the country.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

I dunno, her stuff criticising islamophobia (and by extension punishing cameron for saying it) didn't go down too well among the tory activists did it? not saying that she's anything other than a tory wankstain tho.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> She is Co-Chairman - she is putting forward the priority of the national party and trying to get activists fired up to get the vote out for a No.  You might think you're punishing Clegg by voting no, but you'll be delighting 99% of Tories in the country.


 
Is that to distinguish themselves from the Lib Dems tho because of personal differences/backstabbing etc or out of genuine conviction?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2011)

I think it's coming from the (majority) faction who want the Tories to govern with a majority and not compromise on their anti-European agenda, hang em flog em stuff etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes but it also more complex than that - It's a long discussion probably best done in another thread.  More than happy to engage there.  Labour will reap the benefits from public opposition to the coalitions' unpopularity to a very large extent.


 
Like these tories benefited from labour's unpopularity.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I think it's coming from the (majority) faction who want the Tories to govern with a majority and not compromise on their anti-European agenda, hang em flog em stuff etc.


 
Fair enough, but is Warsi representative of this lot - the hard(er)-right lot?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You might think you're punishing Clegg by voting no, but you'll be delighting 99% of Tories in the country.



You win some you lose some.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2011)

me on another thread said:
			
		

> All the "yes" voters' arguments seem to consist of "look this famous person supports AV and the nasty old tories don't support it".



.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2011)

The Tories don't support it *for good reason* - it will reduce the chances of them ever forming a majority government ever again (remember the miners, the poll tax etc.?)  

The LDs will get - and deserve to get - a hammering in the locals just as they got a hammering in Barnsley.  But giving Clegg a slap is not worth strengthening the Tories and Cameron.  Particularly when AV would free supporters of Greens, lefts and anti-cuts candidates to show their real 1st preferences rather than back Labour as the least worst option.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The Tories don't support it *for good reason* - it will reduce the chances of them ever forming a majority government ever again (remember the miners, the poll tax etc.?)


You fucking liar - I've repeatedly presented evidence that this isn't true and yet you keep claiming this crap. Even produce some evidence or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> She is Co-Chairman - she is putting forward the priority of the national party and trying to get activists fired up to get the vote out for a No.  You might think you're punishing Clegg by voting no, but you'll be delighting 99% of Tories in the country.


so what?


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 6, 2011)

Av is like getting a kick in the  bollocks and given a sweet to ease the pain.Pr it is not ,Clegg as been well and truely short changed


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> You fucking liar - I've repeatedly presented evidence that this isn't true and yet you keep claiming this crap. Even produce some evidence or shut the fuck up.


 
you've done nothing of the sort - you've said it would still be possible for the Tories to get a majority.  I agree but the chances will be significantly reduced.

Tories certainly worries about this:


> But right now the biggest worry on every Tory MPs lips is the alternative vote referendum in May.... a change in the voting system, a change that one senior Tory MP told me would be like a dagger to the heart of the Conservative party. "It would never hold power outright again," he said.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/backbench-dissent-threatens-camerons-coalition


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so what?


 
Since when has helping to deliver Tory objectives been a good idea?


----------



## moochedit (Mar 6, 2011)

> Conference did not support a motion calling for a yes vote in the referendum on introducing the alternative vote system for elections in Britain.
> There will now be further discussion in the party about what position to take in the referendum.



http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23564

are the swappies split on this ?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

moochedit said:


> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23564
> 
> are the swappies split on this ?


 
Lol. Dicks.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

What party are you a member of PT, and what do you do for a living?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What party are you a member of PT, and what do you do for a living?


 
SP, and why the fuck do you want to know? I am not paid by any party/union/campaign/political organisation though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What party are you a member of PT, and what do you do for a living?


 
Drunk mis-judged sunday night counter attack.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

Innit


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

There was enough dissent in the SP to make for some debate at their conference I hear - even if the wrong call was made.

And why is my profession relevant where your's isn't.  Come to that, Butchers - how do you earn a crust?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

Have a think about why.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Why what?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 6, 2011)

Still banging that "you're a tory" drum then?

srsly?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Err - no I don't think either PR or Butchers are Tories.  They are just making a ham-fisted tactical call that plays into the hands of the Tories.  Which is why Warsi said defeating AV was their number one priority in May.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There was enough dissent in the SP to make for some debate at their conference I hear - even if the wrong call was made.



Dissent lol. It was a conference, it is kind of the point of it to have debate. Support for AV was roundly rejected.



articul8 said:


> And why is my profession relevant where your's isn't.  Come to that, Butchers - how do you earn a crust?


 
Because you make a living from holding certain political positions you fucking socdec hack.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why what?


 
Why what you're paid to do matters more than anyone else. It's that declaration of an interest problem again. Have you really no standards?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

If everyone agrees from the off then you move onto the next issue - there was clearly enough resistance to the EC line to mean there was need for a debate

I held those positions to begin with so taking a salary to campaign for them is in no way any kind of sell out.  Now, why the reticence to declare your own source(s) of income?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why what you're paid to do matters more than anyone else. It's that declaration of an interest problem again. Have you really no standards?


 
I've not made any secret of my position.  Why the reticence about yours?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've not made any secret of my position.  Why the reticence about yours?


 
Position/ employment? More of this tonight.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Position/ employment? More of this tonight.


 
What about yourself?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If everyone agrees from the off then you move onto the next issue - there was clearly enough resistance to the EC line to mean there was need for a debate
> 
> I held those positions to begin with so taking a salary to campaign for them is in no way any kind of sell out.  Now, why the reticence to declare your own source(s) of income?


 
We also had a motion to change the name back to Militant. Oh noes, dissent!

It was a conference you bellend. We had loads of motions. It would have been a short conference if everybody just said 'yeah, we agree'. Like it or not, the whole point of democratic centralism is you debate it first.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Would be (mildly - not excessively) interesting to know how many EC positions got voted down.  Democratic Centralism Gaddafi style.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What about yourself?


 
I'm not employed to argue the no case. I'm not plugged into a network of wanky lib-dem cunts and oxbridge  interns, i'm not a fucking empty case but on a job for life. No. You?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Would be (mildly - not excessively) interesting to know how many EC positions got voted down.  Democratic Centralism Gaddafi style.


 
Lol at the man from the Labour Party


----------



## Belushi (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol at the man from the Labour Party


 
He's bringing them down from the inside iirc.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> i'm not a fucking empty case but on a job for life. No. You?


 
Been on the pop, eh?  This does not make sense.  How about we have a full declaration of your own interests before you start laying into other people?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

Made sense to me, hack


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol at the man from the Labour Party


 
hmm...the Labour party that is supported by hundreds of thousands of working class people...unlike....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm...the Labour party that is supported by hundreds of thousands of working class people...unlike....


 
Lol. Like the Liberals were when the LP was formed?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If everyone agrees from the off then you move onto the next issue - there was clearly enough resistance to the EC line to mean there was need for a debate
> 
> I held those positions to begin with so taking a salary to campaign for them is in no way any kind of sell out.  Now, why the reticence to declare your own source(s) of income?



Not necessarily. the leadership could have said "we are not supporting AV, and that's that" given the fact that very few people there actually supported it and a lot of people had extremely strong feelings against supporting it . i wouldn't have supported it whatever, and i don't think i'd be the only one. 

btw i think that given the sp had the same debate it is tbh, probably a bit unfair to criticise the swappies for not being able to come to the same conclusion as rapidly tbf. 

the thing is articul8, with the income, it's not relevant because they've not got a vested interest, it's just thier opinion. nobody on this thread is being paid to argue for a political position except you and so it is natural that people will question what you're saying a bit more - unfair perhaps, but it is natural.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm...the Labour party that is supported by hundreds of thousands of working class people...unlike....


 
This is what you're left with? Join the tory party - lots of w/c members.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. Like the Liberals were when the LP was formed?


 
So you want to remake the Labour party and play out the same scenario for a 2nd time?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> btw i think that given the sp had the same debate it is tbh, probably a bit unfair to criticise the swappies for not being able to come to the same conclusion as rapidly tbf.


 
Nah!


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is what you're left with? Join the tory party.


 
The Tory party was not founded by working class organisations or has ever claimed to represent w/c interests.  Not the same at all.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> So you want to remake the Labour party and play out the same scenario for a 2nd time?


 
What a strange conclusion to come to from my post. The answer is no, btw.

People pay you for this shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> So you want to remake the Labour party and play out the same scenario for a 2nd time?


 Quite right, join the labour party smash it from within and make an extra-parliamentary pie with the lib-dems. There's no other way. You clown.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> the thing is articul8, with the income, it's not relevant because they've not got a vested interest, it's just thier opinion. nobody on this thread is being paid to argue for a political position except you and so it is natural that people will question what you're saying a bit more - unfair perhaps, but it is natural.


 
I've made no effort to hide or disguise the fact I campaing on this issue profesionally.  But if others have nothing to hide, why don't their declare what they do for a living themselves so we're all in the same position?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

((Pluralism))


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Quite right, join the labour party smash it from within and make an extra-parliamentary pie with the lib-dems. There's no other way. You clown.


 
Who said anything about alliances with lib dems?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've made no effort to hide or disguise the fact I campaing on this issue profesionally.  But if others have nothing to hide, why don't their declare what they do for a living themselves so we're all in the same position?


 
I'm paid in a professional capacity to call you a cunt.

Cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The Tory party was not founded by working class organisations or has ever claimed to represent w/c interests.  Not the same at all.



Yes it was and yes it does. 

Are you really going to be this crude? The labour party says that it  represents w/c interests therefore it does. Do you see where you are now?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The answer is no, btw.


How will it be different.  First time as tragedy, second as farce?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Who said anything about alliances with lib dems?


 
History, reality, you, your networked mates.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've made no effort to hide or disguise the fact I campaing on this issue profesionally.  But if others have nothing to hide, why don't their declare what they do for a living themselves so we're all in the same position?


 
Maybe they too campaign professionally on this issue? But they don't. So fuck off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How will it be different.  First time as tragedy, second as farce?


 
It will be different because it won't be co-opted by liberal wetwipe cunts like you.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it was and yes it does.


How so?  Let's have the bottom up history of the Tory party



> Are you really going to be this crude? The labour party says that it  represents w/c interests therefore it does. Do you see where you are now?


 I certainly never said it *does* represent w/c interests.  I said that it was founded on that claim.  That makes it a qualitatively different sort of organisation than out-and-out capitalist parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've made no effort to hide or disguise the fact I campaing on this issue profesionally.  But if others have nothing to hide, why don't their declare what they do for a living themselves so we're all in the same position?



Yes you fucking did as well - you hid it and other horrors for years until you were exposed.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

The Lib Dems also say they represent the interests of "alarm clock britain" and the like.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've made no effort to hide or disguise the fact I campaing on this issue profesionally.  But if others have nothing to hide, why don't their declare what they do for a living themselves so we're all in the same position?


 
Because youre the only one being paid to push a position by an organisation very keen to make a profit from said position.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How so?  Let's have the bottom up history of the Tory party
> 
> 
> I certainly never said it *does* represent w/c interests.  I said that it was founded on that claim.  That makes it a qualitatively different sort of organisation than out-and-out capitalist parties.



The tories claimed to represent the w/c too - your pathetic embarrassing argument is gone.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> It will be different because it won't be co-opted by liberal wetwipe cunts like you.


 
More abuse.  Fine.  But you won't even get into the position where any fucker takes any notice, certainly under the present electoral system.  At one time Militants would have called you "sectarians on the fringes of the labour movement".  They'd have been just about right.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

Drunk lib-dem making things worse - i'm sure i've got an alarm for this.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The tories claimed to represent the w/c too - your pathetic embarrassing argument is gone.


 
Not as a class they didn't (and don't).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> More abuse.  Fine.  But you won't even get into the position where any fucker takes any notice, certainly under the present electoral system.  At one time Militants would have called you "sectarians on the fringes of the labour movement".  They'd have been just about right.


 
Is that you moonie?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not as a class they didn't (and don't).



Neither did labour - so that's your point gone.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you fucking did as well - you hid it and other horrors for years until you were exposed.


 
wtf?  you seem to be going snooker loopy this evening


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not as a class they didn't (and don't).


 
Er...yes they did and do. You're not very au faut with conservative ideology are you?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Neither did labour - so that's your point gone.


 
Erm, they did in part.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> wtf?  you seem to be going snooker loopy this evening


 
You lied about about being in labour and who you worked for for years. As the song has it, you're one of those that think _not telling is not lying._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Erm, they did in part.


 
So labour claimed to represent the w/c and the tories did too.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Er...yes they did and do. You're not very au faut with conservative ideology are you?


 
No they may claim to represent the *whole* nation (ie. inc. the w/c )


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> More abuse.  Fine.  But you won't even get into the position where any fucker takes any notice, certainly under the present electoral system.  At one time Militants would have called you "sectarians on the fringes of the labour movement".  They'd have been just about right.


 
Lol. You should join a trot party, sounds like you could do with a bit of political education. CLP's can be a bit, errr, dull, can't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No they may claim to represent the *whole* nation (ie. inc. the w/c )


 
Yes, as per my claim. Did i miss the labour party doing someting different?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

What's that Victorian Poster by the tories saying "Stop the Whigs and justice for the poor" or something along those lines? 

Btw, the tories under robert peel were the first to introduce state-funded police forces etc, among other stuff.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol. You should join a trot party, sounds like you could do with a bit of political education. CLP's can be a bit, errr, dull, can't they?


 
Been there, done that.  No intention of repeating the experience.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, as per my claim. Did i miss the labour party doing someting different?


 
The clue might be in the name?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, as per my claim. Did i miss the labour party doing someting different?


 
And here we have the difference between the LP and the thinking behind a new workers party A8...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Been there, done that.  No intention of repeating the experience.


 
Sparts?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The clue might be in the name?


 
yeah, that's what counts mr scientist.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

Hey, a8 want to join the good party? It does good things.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Sparts?


 
you really wouldn't like the answer.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hey, a8 want to join the good party? It does good things.


 
for whom does it do good things?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you really wouldn't like the answer.


 
NAMBLA


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> you really wouldn't like the answer.


You're not even any good at this when you're drunk!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> for whom does it do good things?


 
Clue's in the name.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> NAMBLA


 
fuck off - your lot as it goes


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> fuck off - your lot as it goes


 
IMT


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Clue's in the name.


 
You are really claiming that there is no fundamental class difference between the origins of the Tory party and the foundation of Labour


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

Weren't the tories founded by cattle stealers?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You are really claiming that there is no fundamental class difference between the origins of the Tory party and the foundation of Labour


 
It used to be that you couldn't follow your own arguments from day to day - you can't seen to follow them minute to any more.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Weren't the tories founded by cattle stealers?


 
No, but they were named after them.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

you ARE really saying that?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 6, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> IMT


 
No - they are Trots pickled in Labourism.  Your lot are Trots still-born without the formaldehyde.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No - they are Trots pickled in Labourism.


 
Just your cup of tea.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

No  recognising the debilitating effect of Labourism on the British left does not mean you can just bypass it or pretend it's not there - you need to change the institutions that keep it in business.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2011)

So vote yes to smash labour. An interesting perspective for a labour member selling his wares on the basis of av delivering a labour govt. You will literally say anything. People can spot that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No  recognising the debilitating effect of Labourism on the British left does not mean you can just bypass it or pretend it's not there - you need to change the institutions that keep it in business.


 
Sorry but this is quite brilliant lol


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2011)

We have truly entered the other realm right now.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've not made any secret of my position.  Why the reticence about yours?


Neither Butchers' job nor mine are in any way relevant to this thread.
Yours _is._


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So vote yes to smash labour. An interesting perspective for a labour member selling his wares on the basis of av delivering a labour govt. You will literally say anything. People can spot that.


 
Becuase there is only one sort of Labour party and only one sort of Labour government - and this is from a historical materialist?!?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

Back on topic - panic breaks out in Conservative HQ about losing the AV vote:
http://bit.ly/dLEBhY

Follows Warsi telling Tory delegates that defeating AV was the number one priority:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/03/baroness-warsi-tells-tory-activists-that-defeating-av-is-their-most-important-task-on-may-5th.html

Trots and anarchists unite to fight for the outcome most favourable to the Tories.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Neither Butchers' job nor mine are in any way relevant to this thread.
> Yours _is._


 
Well why don't you both tell us and we can be the judge.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2011)

Are you paid for the quantity or quality of your posts?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well why don't you both tell us and we can be the judge.


 
Academic: social policy, health and social care, mental health.

Does that make me more or less reliable than a paid political spin artist?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well why don't you both tell us and we can be the judge.


OH?The royal 'we', is it now?Who else do you imagine you speak for here?
FTR:I'm an IT recruiter.ZERO conflict of interest
You-_massive_ conflict of interest


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No  recognising the debilitating effect of Labourism on the British left does not mean you can just bypass it or pretend it's not there - you need to change the institutions that keep it in business.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

hmm...I take the issue so seriously i'm prepared to campaign  for it full time - and then my opinions doesn't count due to "conflict of interest"?  How the fuck does that work?

As to the assorted dumb-fucks (see above) - what is your recipe for undermining Labourism?  And why would it work now when it hasn't despite attempt after attempt?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 7, 2011)

There has never been a better time to undermine Labourism.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2011)

Has there been a more important time?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> hmm...I take the issue so seriously i'm prepared to campaign  for it full time


 
And get paid for it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2011)

"underming Labourism" is completely irrlevent, I don't care that you're a Labour member personally but you cannot undermine it from inside that's ludicrous. 

Anyway what matters is building a broad progessive, militant and self organised working class movement and AV is not going to do that, given the way it funnels votes to the big 3 parties, while stopping AV is going to fuck the Libdems up especially at the same time as they get wiped out in the locals.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Anyway what matters is building a broad progessive, militant and self organised working class movement and AV is not going to do that, given the way it funnels votes to the big 3 parties, while stopping AV is going to fuck the Libdems up especially at the same time as they get wiped out in the locals.


 
Exactly. Why the fuck A8 can't see this is beyond me. Perhaps the cheques help.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well why don't you both tell us and we can be the judge.


 
I teach girls to play football.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I teach girls to play football.


 
I can vouch for this - as a girl I now understand the offside rule. All thanks to butchers


----------



## kabbes (Mar 8, 2011)

As a girl, I can also vouch that butchers taught me so much more than football.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 8, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Exactly. Why the fuck A8 can't see this is beyond me. Perhaps the cheques help.


he can-it's the argument he finds hardest to defeat.
hence his shite spinning


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 8, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I can vouch for this - as a girl I now understand the offside rule. All thanks to butchers


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> AV is going to fuck the Libdems up



You think they aren't already fucked up?  Bigger picture is the next General - which is why the Tories are shitting it about a Yes vote 
http://www.portland-communications.com/sites/default/files/Political%20Notebook%202011-03-07.pdf

Why the panic if AV changes nothing?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I teach girls to play football.


 
You teach grannies to suck eggs.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think they aren't already fucked up?


Yes,but this may tip them over the edge


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think they aren't already fucked up?  Bigger picture is the next General - which is why the Tories are shitting it about a Yes vote
> http://www.portland-communications.com/sites/default/files/Political%20Notebook%202011-03-07.pdf
> 
> Why the panic if AV changes nothing?


 From your own shitty link (which provides no evidence or reasoning for any of it's claims) 


> Mr Clegg’s LibDems would become powerful kingmakers


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

Yes there's no basis for saying that. 

Point remains that Tory strategy is to use LDs as human shields - and walk away unscathed taking credit for anything that has gone right and offloading all the fuck ups.  
A No vote would cut across that and directly damage Cameron and the Tories.  They are running scared it seems.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

YG have NO with a 17 point lead - when the question is posed with a brief explanation. Going to take a whole lot of '_the tories are running scared_' _*are you a tory*_ to turn that over.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes there's no basis for saying that.
> 
> Point remains that Tory strategy is to use LDs as human shields - and walk away unscathed taking credit for anything that has gone right and offloading all the fuck ups.
> A No vote would cut across that and directly damage Cameron and the Tories.  They are running scared it seems.


Right so let me get this straight - you think that AV will ensure the Tories won't have a majority and yet at the same time won't give the LibDems the power to decide the next government (ignoring the fact that your own link claims the opposite)? 

You're living in a fantasy land


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes there's no basis for saying that.
> 
> Point remains that Tory strategy is to use LDs as human shields - and walk away unscathed taking credit for anything that has gone right and offloading all the fuck ups.
> *A No vote would cut across that and directly damage Cameron and the Tories. * They are running scared it seems.



What does this mean?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

"cut across" is a phrase he picked up in the SP - they always use it . 

Politically, in the above it seems to mean don't attack the lib-dems - it's essentially support for the coalition. It's step _beyond_ auto-labourism and a horrible vision of what AV would look like in practice.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

It's a shocking position to have argued yourself into - _i don't like the tories, the tories are using the lib-dems, therefore help the lib-dems._.  Shocking.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2011)

It's a good phrase 

Bollocks here though


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 9, 2011)

a8 was in the SP? Blimey!


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A No vote would cut across that and directly damage Cameron and the Tories.


But...but...isn't that a _good_ reason to vote 'NO'?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> YG have NO with a 17 point lead - when the question is posed with a brief explanation. Going to take a whole lot of '_the tories are running scared_' _*are you a tory*_ to turn that over.


 
Notice you don't cite the poll taken at the same time when they ask the referendum question - which shows us 3 points up.  Actually, it casts doubt on the methodology of YG - which is being paid by News International btw.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's a shocking position to have argued yourself into - _i don't like the tories, the tories are using the lib-dems, therefore help the lib-dems._.  Shocking.


 
That isn't my position.  Even a Yes vote in the referendum will be too late to save the LDs - but a NO would embolden Tory.

Cheers
Michael


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

I didn't need to. If you think you're having a referendum on the formal question you're even more out of touch than i'd previously suspected.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That isn't my position.  Even a Yes vote in the referendum will be too late to save the LDs - but a NO would embolden Tory.
> 
> Cheers
> Michael



It's most ceratinly the logic of the quote from you that Louis used - and that you haven't really addressed.

Cheers
Keiron


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> But...but...isn't that a _good_ reason to vote 'NO'?


 
d'oh I meant a yes and you know it


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

not at all - it's not as if I'm arguing that the LDs should be exonerated.  They won't and shouldn't be.  But they shouldn't take the *whole* blame - and let Cameron walk out from the ruins smelling of roses.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2011)

How will a no vote be exonerating cameron though?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2011)

And let's say for the sake of arguement that you're right A8 and that the tories are deserpate for this no vote. Won't the idea of people voting against it just fuck up the coalition and drive a wedge between the lib-dems and the tories? If the lib-dems walk out of the coalition then that won't help the tories at all will it? Just make them look weak and hopeless.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's most ceratinly the logic of the quote from you that Louis used - and that you haven't really addressed.
> 
> Cheers
> Keiron


 
Are you really called Keiron?


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2011)

Cheers!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Are you really called Keiron?


 
Yep


----------



## kabbes (Mar 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep


 
I shall call you butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I shall call you butchers.


 
It is the better name.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 9, 2011)

Actually, I shall call you Peter.  Now come with me and you will be a fisher of men.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 9, 2011)

Not that I am saying that I am Jesus.  That's for others to say.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And let's say for the sake of arguement that you're right A8 and that the tories are deserpate for this no vote. Won't the idea of people voting against it just fuck up the coalition and drive a wedge between the lib-dems and the tories? If the lib-dems walk out of the coalition then that won't help the tories at all will it? Just make them look weak and hopeless.



http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/03/a-no-vote-in-the-av-referendum-will-be-greeted-as-a-triumph-for-david-cameron.html?cid=6a00d83451b31c69e20147e3128ff6970b
Tories would think Cameron had triumphed - the LDs won't jump out of the coalition they will limp on out of sheer fright at the idea of an election.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> d'oh I meant a yes and you know it


actually,your arguments have become so incoherent that I didn't


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> a8 was in the SP? Blimey!


 
Ssshhhhh.

Millies anyway I think.

Didn't Moon attend an SP meeting once? Fuck.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 9, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ssshhhhh.
> 
> Millies anyway I think.
> 
> Didn't Moon attend an SP meeting once? Fuck.



I'd heard about moon...wtf?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> I'd heard about moon...wtf?


 
You can lead a moon to water...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2011)

I'm happy to drown him.


----------



## Santino (Mar 9, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> You can lead a moon to water...


 
But you can't make him think.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm happy to drown him.


 
lol


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Not that I am saying that I am Jesus.


<remembers kabbes is 33>
<constructs cross>


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I shall call you butchers.


 
Butchy to his mates.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Actually, I shall call you Peter.  Now come with me and you will be a fisher of men.


 
Walk slowly then it can be hard going for him in his wheelchair


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Right so let me get this straight - you think that AV will ensure the Tories won't have a majority and yet at the same time won't give the LibDems the power to decide the next government (ignoring the fact that your own link claims the opposite)?


You going to answer this a8?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 10, 2011)

Why are you excluding possibiity of a majority Labour government - entirely possible under AV


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why are you excluding possibiity of a majority Labour government - entirely possible under AV


I'm not, I don't think AV will alter anything really, IMO we'll see swings between Tory and Labour governments jsut as we do under the current system.

I'm just trying to work out on what basis you think AV will stop the Tories getting a majority but will give a majority to Labour. 
Also Labour *can* already achieve a majority under FPTP so AV obviously doesn't have any to offer from that point.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 10, 2011)

Why do you thing the Tories are making that judgement?  Obviously because they fear that they will suffer from the net effect of votes transferring (don't forget Tories are disproportionately likely not to use any more than 1 preference).  And that will offset the damage from the boundry redraw - meaning the hurdle Labour has to jump in order to govern outright is lower than it otherwise would be with FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2011)

Are you now a member of Compass?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why do you thing the Tories are making that judgement?  Obviously because they fear that they will suffer from the net effect of votes transferring  .


but that fear may not be grounded in reality


> (don't forget Tories are disproportionately likely not to use any more than 1 preference).


Evidence?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 11, 2011)

Not to hand - but stands to reason - more are elderly, will resist the change and continue to vote with an X


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not to hand - but stands to reason - more are elderly, will resist the change and continue to vote with an X


it's STILL just a guess on your part


----------



## articul8 (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you now a member of Compass?



I have my own criticisms of Compass - but not for the reasons that have left some to leave recently.  The problem is not with their pluralism and opening out per se, it is with the soft socical democratic politics on which it appealing to people outside Labour.  I do find Compass more interesting than any other group in the Labour party at present, but most certainly not without its flaws.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not to hand - but stands to reason - more are elderly, will resist the change and continue to vote with an X


 
You're mental


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have my own criticisms of Compass - but not for the reasons that have left some to leave recently.  The problem is not with their pluralism and opening out per se, it is with the soft socical democratic politics on which it appealing to people outside Labour.  I do find Compass more interesting than any other group in the Labour party at present, but most certainly not without its flaws.


 
So is that a yes or a no?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 11, 2011)

Who are you - McCarthy?


----------



## Random (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Who are you - McCarthy?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

Well is it a yes or a no?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 11, 2011)

What do you want me to say: "I am not, nor have i ever been..."?


----------



## Random (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What do you want me to say: "I am not, nor have i ever been..."?


 "First they came for the Compass members, and I did not speak out"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What do you want me to say: "I am not, nor have i ever been..."?


 
I want you to say if you're a member of compass.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 11, 2011)

Random said:


> "First they came for the Compass members, and I did not speak out"


 
"Because they were all cunts anyway"


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Who are you - McCarthy?


 
You wish.


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

Your Honour, please direct the witness to answer the question.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I want you to say if you're a member of compass.


 
You know he is!


----------



## Karac (Mar 11, 2011)

Im voting yes
It might be a shite version of whatever-but its probably a step forward from the crap system we have now


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2011)

Karac said:


> Im voting yes
> It might be a shite version of whatever-but its probably *a step forward* from the crap system we have now



In what way is it a step forward?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I want you to say if you're a member of compass.



I don't count myself as a Compass member, but am in its general orbit as it least there's some attempt to rethink the role of the Labour party and its relation to the wider left.


----------



## Santino (Mar 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't count myself as a Compass member


 
Does Compass count you as a member?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't count myself as a Compass member, but am in its general orbit as it least there's some attempt to rethink the role of the Labour party and its relation to the wider left.



There, that wasn't too hard was it? No need for the histrionics. Especially as you were more than likely aware that i asked for a very good reason. A few months ago (IIRC) you made great show of attending the LRC conference rather than the Compass one and made noises about the LRC being the best bet and the left internal grouping representing genuine left-wing elements etc rather than the right-wing compass. Then the LRC came out against AV and you immediately started denouncing them as tribalists, clique-ists, living in the past etc. 

Now the week or so after Compass continued their rightward movement  by voting to allow lib-dems to join (sparking the walkout of a large number of central members - all followed with very similar cries of tribalists, clique-ists and oddly enough 'party loyalists') you pop up writing on their website - under your brief article it clearly says that it's compass members that write the articles. Hence my question as to whether you are now a member - i wondered if your own rightward drift into working for a lib-dem/labour coalition (no matter how reluctant today you are to say this publicly - you weren't always so shy were you?) was taking place as part of Compass, who are pretty clear about their support for this outcome and see AV as a way to achieve it.

And also, Santino's question.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm not sure I've ever seen a rightward drift move so quickly


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 12, 2011)

Compass


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There, that wasn't too hard was it? No need for the histrionics. Especially as you were more than likely aware that i asked for a very good reason. A few months ago (IIRC) you made great show of attending the LRC conference rather than the Compass one and made noises about the LRC being the best bet and the left internal grouping representing genuine left-wing elements etc rather than the right-wing compass.


 
Your memory does fail - I went to the LRC conference in preference to a Fabian one not Compass.  I have a lot more time for McDonnell than for the culture of the circle around him - which is pickled in the worst kind of old labour culture.  Actually, LRC had a vote on similar lines to Compass on opening out their membership to members of parties other than Labour - which was narrowly defeated (unfortunately).  Some of those most keen to lobby for that were Labour members.

As it happens when I rejoined Labour I joined Compass and the LRC in order as the main left groupings in order to gauge the lie of the land.  My membership dues to both are long since lapsed - so I'm not sure is the honest answer to Santino's question.




> i wondered if your own rightward drift into working for a lib-dem/labour coalition (no matter how reluctant today you are to say this publicly - you weren't always so shy were you?) was taking place as part of Compass, who are pretty clear about their support for this outcome and see AV as a way to achieve it.


I am not "working for a LD/Labour coalition" - although that outcome would be less damaging than an outright Tory majority (you disagree?).


I don't see Compass's move as a shift to the right necessarily, although that outcome is not ruled out either.But in terms of longer-term goals I'm not after some cosy rapprochement between leaderships of labour and the LDs.  But I think there are quite a few people (esp young ones) who voted LD in 2010 seeing them (wrongly of course) as some kind of left alternative.  Most of these now don't - although a minority of those actively drawn in will be looking - in vain? - to groups like the social liberal forum or Hughes to lead some kind of internal struggle.  And the larger number that have left have not come straight over to Labour.  so it's worth engaging them.  I'd like to see more of a open dialogue in groups like Compass and LRC with Greens, disillusioned LDs, Nats, and all manner of anti-cuts activists outside Labour.  

But I'm happy to write for them and speak to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

_You_ were one of those people actively encouraging people to vote lib-dem in 2010 and long before weren't you though - the evidence is all over the web. And that's always been the long term goals of the circles you move in - you damn well know that it is and that's a move to the right no matter how you try and colour it. And you do try and colour it by pretending a lib-dem/lab coalition would not be about the leaders but the members - please, don't try and fob us off with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

NO



> In my round up of AV polling earlier this week I said that while different companies were showing different topline figures, all the companies that had polled in the last month or so were united in showing the tide moving in the direction of the NO camp.
> 
> ComRes’s monthly poll for the Independent on Sunday is out now, and follows the same trend. The YES campaign are on 34% (down 6 since February), the NO campaign are on 37% (up 7 since February). Don’t know is at 28%. Notably while YouGov’s polls that preface their question with an explanation of FPTP and AV have been showing a NO lead for a long time, this is the first poll asking the bare referendum question to have shown NO in the lead.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why are you excluding possibiity of a majority Labour government - entirely possible under AV


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2011)

> Your memory does fail - I went to the LRC conference in preference to a Fabian one not Compass. I have a lot more time for McDonnell than for the culture of the circle around him - which is pickled in the worst kind of old labour culture.



Old Labour is:  1. a pejorative that was trotted out by the Tory press and 2.a binary construction that was initiated by Blair to make some distinction between his evidently right-wing policies and the party under Michael Foot. It was a false position because it ignored Labour right-wingers. Oddly enough, some of those Labour right-wingers (like Hattersley) were critical of Blair's Nu Labour project.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _You_ were one of those people actively encouraging people to vote lib-dem in 2010 and long before weren't you though - the evidence is all over the web.


 
This is hugely misleading.  My position was to vote Labour wherever and whenever Labour stood a realistic chance of winning the seat (except Brighton Pavillion).  I did say that voting for the LD was the best thing to do in seats that would otherwise have gone Tory.
But I also argued in public against those (like Anthony Barnett and Laurie Penny) who were saying that the LDs were the great white hopes for delivering a new settlement.  Which I never believed then, and which looks plain daft in retrospect.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Laurie penny said the exact same as you - vote lib-dem if they can win, vote labour if they can't. Where's the misleading?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 14, 2011)

That is NOT what I said.  In LD/Lab marginals I advocated a LABOUR vote.  I said vote Labour where the candidate could win.  I did not give cart blanche support for LDs - I did so only reluctantly where as a consequence of the stupid voting system you would happily keep in place, that was the only viable option for keeping out a Tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

You said exactly the same as Laurie Penny - the gist being that labour needed a lib-dem left wing. And you both said it because you both piss in the same pot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


>


 
See, you think that's Ed Miliband spilling a cuppa into his lap, but I happen to know that what he was actually doing was following the ancient Kabbalistic practice of Galgal, a form of divination through tea leaves. Ed is merely emptying the liquid from his cup to get access to the leaves.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

I knew he was one of them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You said exactly the same as Laurie Penny - the gist being that labour needed a lib-dem left wing. And you both said it because you both piss in the same pot.


 
twoliberalsonecup?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I knew he was one of them


 
It helps immensely in politics to be "one of them".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

This is what AV is:

Miliband and Clegg dispute causes cancellation of alternative vote event



> As a result of the spat, the planned event has been cancelled, but discussions are apparently continuing about the possibility of a joint platform before the 5 May referendum.



These people and their party leaders deciding.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It helps immensely in politics to be "one of them".


 
Shh.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It helps immensely in politics to be "one of them".


 
Never did Jeremy Thorpe any good.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

He was never one of the them. RIP Rinka. We will never forget.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 14, 2011)

Binka?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Odd piece on the Pro AV site saying just why the Yes campaign is fucked.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd piece on the Pro AV site saying just why the Yes campaign is fucked.


 


> The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they are asked, cold, which side they are on, and to favour First Past The Post when they are warmed up with questions or information about the proposed change.



The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they don't really know what it is but naturally assume it must be fairer than the current shit system, and to favour First Past The Post when they are actually told what the proposed change means.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Which is why the Yes campaign is to present it as just general progress - and keep zipped about the reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

Anymore articula8 or just browsing your history - lot of ground to cover eh?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they don't really know what it is but naturally assume it must be fairer than the current shit system, and to favour First Past The Post when they are actually told what the proposed change means.


 
On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?

Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls.  He's keen to justify their methodology.  But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.

Key polls are those which are weighted by likelihood to turn out.  

And can you point to one - just one - instance where I have argued for positive support for the Lib Dems (except to say that their victory in LD/Con marginals is the least worst outcome?).


----------



## Santino (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?


 
It can produce less proportional governments than FPTP. What definition of "fairer" does that meet?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm not sure I care which system is "fairer", on the grounds that:

* "Fair" is ill-defined.  There are many ways of interpreting it and as many possible voting system that maximise each.  There is even a branch of mathematics devoted to this.

* Either way, the system is still set up to entrench power and wealth.  To quote froggy on another thread, "choose whether to be stabbed or shot".  

* Neither system even begins to address the true problems that are at the heart of our democracy.

Given that, my focus has to be on political tactics and strategy.  Here and now, which vote will result in the best chance of ceasing as quickly as possible the extraordinary attack on the welfare state that is happening _right now_?  That's got nothing to do with voting "fairness" and everything to do with social equality.


----------



## Random (Mar 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Given that, my focus has to be on political tactics and strategy.  Here and now, which vote will result in the best chance of ceasing as quickly as possible the extraordinary attack on the welfare state that is happening _right now_?  That's got nothing to do with voting "fairness" and everything to do with social equality.


 Good points, well put. Of course articul8 will now accuse you of wanting to tongue tories.


----------



## Santino (Mar 15, 2011)

Random said:


> Good points, well put. Of course articul8 will now accuse you of wanting to tongue tories.


 
Well, he does want to tongue Tories, but that is beside the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?
> 
> Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls.  He's keen to justify their methodology.  But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.
> 
> ...



Guess who used to argue that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I give yoi seven gpes at it.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I give yoi seven gpes at it.


 
It's totally unfair to give yoi seven gpes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

That's one.


----------



## Santino (Mar 15, 2011)

The Lib Dems signed a pledge to give yoi eight gpes.


----------



## Random (Mar 15, 2011)

look at moi gpes, just look at them


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

Comrades, the enemy is over there ---> 



> liberals on a settee - legs crossed


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls.  He's keen to justify their methodology.  But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.


Totally unfair- YouGov's explanations were 100% reasonable


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

I note that when YG were reporting a lead for YEs A8 wasn't having such problems. I can smell the desperation from here.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2011)

Smells like... victory.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Guess who used to argue that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I give yoi seven gpes at it.


 
Talking Bristolian again?

It can make the outcome even more unfair is not the same as saying that on balance elections under AV will *generally* lead to less fair outcomes.  So the fact that AV isn't PR is no basis for saying it is less fair than FPTP - because proportionality is not the only index of fairness.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2011)

Fuck me, now you're arguing that AV might be better than PR itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

So you agree then that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I like how this actually means in your mental world that "will not make the result of an election even more unfair." You literally cannot keep your lies straight can you? So many audiences, so many faces. Not surprised you get sometimes get the wrong ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Fuck me, now you're arguing that AV might be better than PR itself.


 
All depends on who he's talking to. To the lib-dems it's sure fire winner, to leftists it's a chance to kick the tories, to pro-PR people it's a step forward...and so on. To himself? A rope dangling from the rafters.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> proportionality is not the only index of fairness.


HUH? Clarify,please


----------



## Random (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To himself? A rope dangling from the rafters.


 If you want to know the future, imagine a fat cheque paying into a bank account, forever.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> HUH? Clarify,please


 
Well, for example, a national party list system (like the Israeli) one is more proportional than STV.  But does it thereby follow that it's fairer?  Not necessarily - depends what you mean by fairness.

Any pro-PR person whose criterion was only proportionality would also have to condemn STV, AMS, AV+. etc.etc.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So you agree then that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I like how this actually means in your mental world that "will not make the result of an election even more unfair." .


 
Again, I never said that.  I said that an individual election may turn up less fair results under AV.  But that doesn't make AV *generally* less fair than FPTP.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well, for example, a national party list system (like the Israeli) one is more proportional than STV.  But does it thereby follow that it's fairer?  Not necessarily - depends what you mean by fairness.
> 
> Any pro-PR person whose criterion was only proportionality would also have to condemn STV, AMS, AV+. etc.etc.


 
You're a pro PR person aren't you; I only ask because it's difficult to tell from the above?

Loui MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Again, I never said that.  I said that an individual election may turn up less fair results under AV.  But that doesn't make AV *generally* less fair than FPTP.


 
Yes you did - there's a reason why i used quotes.

I like how individual results don't count as well, despite it being your argument that AV will make individual results impossible.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You're a pro PR person aren't you; I only ask because it's difficult to tell from the above?
> 
> Loui MacNeice


 
Yes I think proportionality is one important aspect in an electoral system. But it isn't the only one - and very few PR supporters would ever say that.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you did - there's a reason why i used quotes.



*might* (ie conditional - it also might not) make the result of *an election* (ie. singular not elections in general) even more unfair.  
What I said in no way means it couldn't be an improvement on FPTP in the round



> I like how individual results don't count as well, despite it being your argument that AV will make individual results impossible.


come again?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2011)

'Yes to AV' messages fail to resonate with public



> Campaigners for electoral reform have been advised to rethink their comms tactics following in-depth research showing that their arguments are falling flat.
> 
> With the Alternative Vote referendum drawing closer, PRWeek turned to BritainThinks – the research firm set up by Gordon Brown’s former pollster Deborah Mattinson – to test the messages on either side of the debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 'Yes to AV' messages fail to resonate with public


 
The differences in response to message all fall within margin of error.  Another non-story from Cameron's PR (the other kind) mates.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2011)

That's right - ignore the 13 point starting gap and concentrate on the real meat.  An in-depth destruction of the results - thank you.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2011)

Just like you ignored Tory Peter Bone saying that a Yes vote could lead to the end of the coalition:
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/av-referendum-could-it-break-the-coalition/14717


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 17, 2011)

> Pro-AV argument 3 ‘The Alternative Vote system will help to tackle the ‘safe seats’ and ‘jobs for life’ culture amongst MPs. Too many MPs have seats for life. The Alternative Vote system would force complacent politician to sit up and listen and reach out to the communities they seek to represent.’


What absolute cock


----------



## Santino (Mar 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just like you ignored Tory Peter Bone saying that a Yes vote could lead to the end of the coalition:
> http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/av-referendum-could-it-break-the-coalition/14717


 
He posted on a thread about that non-story, you lying cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> What absolute cock


 
I can't wait until they start getting MPs from temping agencies.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> you lying cunt.


 
Nothing like comradely debate   He didn't address the substantive point - namely, that there is reason to believe a Yes vote is as much if not more destabilising of the coalition than a No vote.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

> Pro-AV argument 3 ‘The Alternative Vote system will help to tackle the ‘safe seats’ and ‘jobs for life’ culture amongst MPs. Too many MPs have seats for life. The Alternative Vote system would force complacent politician to sit up and listen and reach out to the communities they seek to represent.’



Under AV there is likely to be significantly more "marginals" and hence fewer safe seats = althought it is true that it does little for very safe seats.

But it would also mean that two thirds of MPs elected with less than 50% would have to reach out to win broader community support not just rely on the core vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Under AV there is likely to be significantly more "marginals" and hence fewer safe seats = althought it is true that it does little for very safe seats.
> 
> But it would also mean that two thirds of MPs elected with less than 50% would have to reach out to win broader community support not just rely on the core vote.



Reach out and appeal to who? _To the voters of the other mainstream parties_ - precisely why AV is about as effective a tool for funneling votes into the centre/mainstream as the state could wish to find. A great big legitimation exercise for the system that actually fundamentally strengthens it by filtering out anything but the most tepid mainstream shite. The handful of MPs to the left facing a situation where they have to appeal to voters to their right to be elected. Fan-fucking-tastic.


----------



## Santino (Mar 18, 2011)

'Let's get all the politicians working together'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Nothing like comradely debate   He didn't address the substantive point - namely, that there is reason to believe a Yes vote is as much if not more destabilising of the coalition than a No vote.


 
Not sure there was a substantive point - i suppose you could say that there is a secondary substantive point, namely that you and the YES campaign are feeling the heat so bad that you've been forced back to relying on an extreme-right tory MP playing the oldest electoral trick in the book (scare your voters into turning out - i was taught by my election agent to say to the party workers in the days before the election that i'd never seen an approaching wipeout of our vote like it so they'd work their bollocks off whilst transmitting that same message to out voters who may have been thinking of staying at home).


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Reach out and appeal to who? _To the voters of the other mainstream parties_ - precisely why AV is about as effective a tool for funneling votes into the centre/mainstream as the state could wish to find. A great big legitimation exercise for the system that actually fundamentally strengthens it by filtering out anything but the most tepid mainstream shite. The handful of MPs to the left facing a situation where they have to appeal to voters to their right to be elected. Fan-fucking-tastic.


 
Not necessarily at all - it might just as easily mean Labour candidates tacking left to pick up 2nd prefs from Greens/Plaid/SNP etc.   The system is ALREADY totally geared around swing voters in middle England marginals.  Insofar as the effects of AV are not predictable, at least a leap in the dark is preferable to what we know stinks surely? 

Anyway, more to the point: why is it you think that the only way of building broad community support for an electoral platform is to go as bland and centrist as possible?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure there was a substantive point - i suppose you could say that there is a secondary substantive point, namely that you and the YES campaign are feeling the heat so bad that you've been forced back to relying on an extreme-right tory MP playing the oldest electoral trick in the book (scare your voters into turning out - i was taught by my election agent to say to the party workers in the days before the election that i'd never seen an approaching wipeout of our vote like it so they'd work their bollocks off whilst transmitting that same message to out voters who may have been thinking of staying at home).


 
These Tories are gunning for Cameron and a Yes vote will destabilise his authority and perhaps the Tory right's willingness to be bound into the coalition - much more problematic for the coalition than the lib dems getting a slapping.

As Ken Livingstone said the other day "why be mean to the monkey when you can punish the organ grinder"?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

Don't be so faux naive - you know damn well that it will mean, for reasons of simple political effectiveness, appealing to voters of the other large parties in 99% of seats. You're effectively arguing to extend a situation that you think you're attacking.  The ERS has made a great hue and cry for many years against the situation where parties are forced to the centre by having to appeal across the political board to voters in a few seats - now you're arguing for an extension of that situation across the whole country.

The answer to your question is in the above - for simple reasons of political effectiveness, simplicity and other instrumental reasons. I laugh at a communist arguing that MPs motivations are primarily about building 'broad community support' - and i laugh doubly at the idea that they'd do so without seeking almost wholly to attract voters from the three big parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> These Tories are gunning for Cameron and a Yes vote will destabilise his authority and perhaps the Tory right's willingness to be bound into the coalition - much more problematic for the coalition than the lib dems getting a slapping.
> 
> As Ken Livingstone said the other day "why be mean to the monkey when you can punish the organ grinder"?



These tories are not 'gunning for Cameron' in the sense of bringing him or the coalition down - they're merely using a temporary PR opportunity to try and increase their own influence over him and within the coalition. 

This is fantasy stuff from you - and i think it demonstrates once again that you don't know how real politics works.


----------



## Santino (Mar 18, 2011)

Why would a Labour candidate tack left to pick up preferences that s/he can already count on?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *Not necessarily at all - it might just as easily mean Labour candidates tacking left to pick up 2nd prefs from Greens/Plaid/SNP etc*.   The system is ALREADY totally geared around swing voters in middle England marginals.  Insofar as the effects of AV are not predictable, at least a leap in the dark is preferable to what we know stinks surely?
> 
> Anyway, more to the point: why is it you think that the only way of building broad community support for an electoral platform is to go as bland and centrist as possible?



Why would they need to go after these votes; where else are they going to go? It is the votes in the centre that have all the value just like under FPTP; given that they are both majoritarian and not proportional systems this is hardly surprising. But as a supporter of PR you knew that didn't you?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

I see the lib-dems YES campiagn kicks off today - Nick Clegg has been told to stay away (or handily away on business). Replaced by..._Floella Benjamin._


----------



## kabbes (Mar 18, 2011)

To be fair, Floella Benjamin was a big hero to me when I was 5 years old.  So there's that.


----------



## Santino (Mar 18, 2011)

I met her once. Had her autograph. Probably lost it some years ago.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 18, 2011)

Let's see what happens when we vote... through the _square_ window...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Under AV there is likely to be significantly more "marginals" and hence fewer safe seats = althought it is true that it does little for very safe seats.
> 
> But it would also mean that two thirds of MPs elected with less than 50% would have to reach out to win broader community support not just rely on the core vote.


you mean,they'd have to fish for the second preferences of BNP voters,UKIP voters,Natural Law Party voters, ProLife Alliance...no ta!


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just like you ignored Tory Peter Bone saying that a Yes vote could lead to the end of the coalition:
> http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/av-referendum-could-it-break-the-coalition/14717


_hoooold_ on.
Peter Bone is a)an oddball, b)a backbench nonentity,and c) a serial rebel.
Him threatening a revolt really doesn't mean much,frankly


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

Well the far right vote has grown in part because Labour knew it could routinely ignore the voters in so many of constituencies with safe seats.  I don't think that it's a bad thing if they have to knock on more doors and listen to the concerns of more voters - but if they go down the road of trying to woo them with racist crap then they will lose 2nd pref fro the majority of Greens, LDs etc.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well the far right vote has grown in part because Labour knew it could routinely ignore the voters in so many of constituencies with safe seats.  I don't think that it's a bad thing if they have to knock on more doors and listen to the concerns of more voters - but if they go down the road of trying to woo them with racist crap then they will lose 2nd pref fro the majority of Greens, LDs etc.


so...erm,you get politicians doing even more of an "all-things-to-all-men" number....
and they'll get Greens second preferences,and probably LDs,anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But it would also mean that *two thirds of MPs elected with less than 50%* would have to reach out to win broader community support not just rely on the core vote.


 
I suppose that you have the evidence to show that this is the case? It certainly wasn't the case at the previous election. (And when you include people on the 45-49% range it's the overwhelming majority).


----------



## articul8 (Mar 18, 2011)

66% now and similar at the previous one.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

Do you have the evidence for your repeated figure or not? 

50% of MPS had 50% of the vote at the election before last - when 45%+ is counted it's the overwhelming majority of seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

**


----------



## articul8 (Mar 19, 2011)

http://www.secret-britain.co.uk/election2010/mps_with_more_than_50_percent.htm

See above - 66% elected in 2010 on less than 50%

For 2005 you are simply wrong -  see p 10
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/gefinal2005.pdf

Again 66% elected on a minority mandate (ie less than 50%)


----------



## articul8 (Mar 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> i laugh doubly at the idea that they'd do so without seeking almost wholly to attract voters from the three big parties.


 
Well you don't need to speculate - there is already evidence of the effect of preferential voting in London - where Livingstone attracted more 2nd prefs than Boris by making a pitch to the left (Greens, left LDs, Left List etc.).  The fact he didn't win this time was due to other factors meaning he lost on 1st prefs.  But the incentives for Livingstone aren't to speak from the centre but to clearly distinguish himself from the Tory position.  

Unlike the situation MPs face where the policy is determined purely to target floating voters in middle England.  Given that the current situation is already 100% about governing from the centre - the fact that AV allows small parties to get significant 1st preference votes and stake out a clear position  can only be beneficial.  Yes, it's not the ideal system.  But that's not the question here.  

On what grounds is it better to keep FPTP that has locked out the left since day one?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 1, 2011)

Apologies if posted already - Radio 5 live did a mock election using both FPTP and AV, and got the same result each time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ztf0h

These were the results:







The clearest indication yet of how AV is likely to work. Note how the flow of votes goes from the fringe parties to the big three practically guaranteeing that the winner will be one of the Tories, Labour or Lib Dems.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2011)

The Greens picked up a surprising number of 3rd and 4th place votes though.  Although not enough to overtake the leader, obviously.

BNP votes didn't have second choices for anybody at all other than UKIP!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The Greens picked up a surprising number of 3rd and 4th place votes though.  Although not enough to overtake the leader, obviously.
> 
> BNP votes didn't have second choices for anybody at all other than UKIP!


 
Like calls unto like.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't understand that graph - or rather, i don't understand how you can read the preference votes from it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

Well it does suggest that only 0.1% of voters transferred to UKIP.

Actually they've fucked up all the percentages after the 1st round - % should be calculated without "no preference" being included.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't understand that graph - or rather, i don't understand how you can read the preference votes from it.


 
You can only work out what they were by implication.  They aren't expressed explicitly.  We know the first choices -- that's AV1.  But you have to infer second choices, third choices and so on based on the movements from round to round.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

Note how the winner gets under 50% - which is impossible apparently.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You can only work out what they were by implication.  They aren't expressed explicitly.  We know the first choices -- that's AV1.  But you have to infer second choices, third choices and so on based on the movements from round to round.


 
Oh god, you mean do the distribution of the losing candidates % by guess for each round, fuck that.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

The % are calculated wrong (see above)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

Why should no preferences not be included? Is it because if people don't use all of their preference vote it throws the argument that all MPs will have 50%+ of the vote right out of the window - and that academic work has suggested in the event of not everyone using all their preference votes (which _will_ be the case and why compulsory preference voting for _all_ candidates was introduced in Australia) then the amount of MPs elected with under 50% is expected to be about 60% - not much better than the current 66% - and that with it yet another leg of the YES vote campaign is kicked away?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2011)

I have a more fundamental question about that table, actually.  The electorate is 200 people, it says.  Which means that for the first round at least, all percentages should be either whole- or half-numbers.  21.9% of 200 people is 43.8 people.

So that implies that of their 200, there were a number that registered no vote at all.  But we aren't told how many this number is, which renders the whole thing a bit dubious.  For all I know, the sample size (which is already dangerously low) has dropped to a level that renders the whole thing utterly pointless.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why should no preferences not be included? Is it because if people don't use all of their preference vote it throws the argument that all MPs will have 50%+ of the vote right out of the window - and that academic work has suggested in the event of not everyone using all their preference votes (which _will_ be the case and why compulsory preference voting for _all_ candidates was introduced in Australia) then the amount of MPs elected with under 50% is expected to be about 60% - not much better than the current 66% - and that with it yet another leg of the YES vote campaign is kicked away?



50% refers to votes left in the ballot, not 50% of all electors.  The current figure for people elected with over 50% of electors is not 66% but 33%.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> 50% refers to votes left in the ballot, not 50% of all electors.  The current figure for people elected with over 50% of electors is not 66% but 33%.



That's what i said. And as i said, there's academic work that suggest that unless all preference votes are used by all voters the figure of elected candidates with over 50%+ of votes under AV will be around 40%. A whopping great improvement.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

The point is not that all voters will want to use preferences - but that everyone has the opportunity to do so.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

I'd relish the opportunity to express a preference between UKIP and the BNP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The point is not that all voters will want to use preferences - but that everyone has the opportunity to do so.


 That's it is it? Months of arguing AV will ensure 50%+ support for elected candidates and now it appears that it won't - and that's your reply?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

It's an obsure point of pedantry.  The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot.  If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative.  Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'd relish the opportunity to express a preference between UKIP and the BNP.


 
you don't have to.  Vote for one party if you want.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's an obsure point of pedantry.  The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot.  If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative.  Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.


So, the point is to let people note their choice, rather than to, I dunno, improve electoral legitimacy, say?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's an obsure point of pedantry.  The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot.  If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative.  Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.


 
Obscure point of pendatry? It's been one of, if not the, central theme of your argument since the referendum was announced - that the need to win 50%+ means that (in your mad world) MPs would be forced to move leftwards or something to reach that 50%+. Now it's an obsure piece of pedantry? 

Not having a good day are you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't.  The incentives are there.  The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't.  The incentives are there.  The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.



You say reaching out beyond his or her party's core, I say pandering to right-wing cunts.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

a) big parties already try to appeal to right wing cunts through triangulation (encouraged by FPTP)
b) where right wing cunts are the minority then getting to close to them is electorally self-defeating.
c) why not reach out to the left - not enough votes there?  Well we should worry about that, not the effects of a fairer voting system.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't.  The incentives are there.  The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.


 
Yes it does, it destroys months of arguments by you, and shows that at core it was only ever simply that the candidate who got most votes would win - not that they would be forced to appeal to left-wing votes or to appeal to w/c candidates by pro-w/c measures. Months of your argument disappear in a puff of smoke.

And wow, the candidate best placed to win a majority of votes is most likely to win under AV - guess what, they are under FPTP too.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And wow, the candidate best placed to win a majority of votes is most likely to win under AV - guess what, they are under FPTP too.


 
But under FPTP they can achieve this by appealing to their core vote.  Given that candidates who gain more 2nd preferences are advantaged under AV the incentives are greater to broaden your appeal.  

This is self evident and no amount of statistical nit-picking alters it.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

The logic of, say, a Labour candidate having to tack left is undone by the logic that left-wing voters will vote Labour anyway to keep out a Tory or Lib Dem. The WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF AV IS THAT YOU RATE THE CANDIDATES, therefore there is NO NEED AT ALL for parties to appeal to anywhere but the centre.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But under FPTP they can achieve this by appealing to their core vote.  Given that candidates who gain more 2nd preferences are advantaged under AV the incentives are greater to broaden your appeal.
> 
> This is self evident and no amount of statistical nit-picking alters it.



Under AV they can also achieve this by appealing to their core vote - your argument that their appeal would need to be broadened (no mention of the political content of that broadening of course) because they need to reach 50%+ of the votes is not true - they don't - not in any way especially or significantly different than under FPTP anyway. No way out of this. Your whole argument is collapsing around you and you're just pretending it's not happening.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

Parties that have a broader appeal will by definition be favoured by preferential voting - of course in individual instances no party might have succeed in building a broad appeal and in those circumstances the effects won't differ significantly.  But the greater incentives for reaching out are there nevertheless.  

Nothing you have said has in any way undermined this basic fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

There's nothing _to_ undermine in the banality that more popular parties get more votes and have a broader appeal than less popular ones. The argument of yours that was so central and has now quietly gone by the wayside is that the requirement to win 50%+ of all votes meant parties had to try and broaden their appeal - there's no such requirement, so there's no such imperative. What motivation there is and the positives (as you see them) apply just as well under FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

Under AV parties will try and get more of the vote!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Under AV parties will try and get more of the vote!


 
And that turns AV into Yay V!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> And that turns AV into Yay V!


 
Get onto the Yes campaign twitter thing - it's genuinely full of that sort of crap.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Under AV parties will try and get more of the vote!


 
But also from voters of other parties dummy


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But also from voters of other parties dummy


 
How is this a good thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But also from voters of other parties dummy


 
Like they do under FPTP (leaving aside the apolitical nature of this supposed positive - and it's effect of funneling votes into the centre, leaving the left even more isolated).


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

No - parties can appeal for people who are fixed in their preference for another party.  So for instance whereas Green votes currently help the Tories by taking votes off Labour, with AV Labour could reach out to win the 2nd prefs of these Green - and be pulled to the left and towards prioritising environmental politics at the same time.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

They'll get those votes anyway - what they'll actually do is appeal to the swing voters of the other two main parties - exactly as they try to do already. Funneling the votes and policies into the centre. You have as much as admitted this but dismissed criticisms by saying that this funneling already takes place - which it does in swing seats. AV will extend this. Fantasy stuff.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

How would they?  Labour lost a seat like Hendon to the Tories in May 2010 by 100 votes when the Greens got 500.  It happens under FPTP to an amazing extent.  I don't see how AV would increase the centrist pull -it would introduce new dynamics where voters for smaller parties and independent campaigns can have more of an influence on the debate, even if not in the first instance to get representation.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would they?  Labour lost a seat like Hendon to the Tories in May 2010 by 100 votes when the Greens got 500.  It happens under FPTP to an amazing extent.  I don't see how AV would increase the centrist pull -it would introduce new dynamics where voters for smaller parties and independent campaigns can have more of an influence on the debate, even if not in the first instance to get representation.


 
How would they? By shifting their appeal to encompass these other party voters - exactly as they do today and exactly as you bemoan. Why on earth would such a simple process that you've gone to great lengths elsewhere to point out exists not reappear under AV? There's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't - as the Jenkins Report found, AV if adopted alone as is suggested here, has a strong tendency to force parties and politics onto the centre ground. That you have to deny such an an obvious outcome highlights just how desperate the pro-AV case really is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2011)

Intertesting that articul8 talks about the Labour vote being split under FPTP. Isn't the right wing vote even more split? With the Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP and Tories all taking votes from this end of the spectrum, whereas Labour only really have the Greens doing this, and not all that much - I'd guess the seat articul8 mentions is the only example he can find. Imagine if UKIP, the Lib Dems and the BNP could give second preferences to the Tories - I'd expect to see them winning more marginals than ever. As Buthersapron says, Labour can rely on the Greens without tacking left - there's nowhere else for Greens to go really. So instead they'd tack right to pick up preferences from, I would guess, the Lib Dems.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Get onto the Yes campaign twitter thing - it's genuinely full of that sort of crap.


 
Butchy on twitter???? Now I've seen it all!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2011)

I am _of_ the modern world. 

They've just done an Celebrating Our Supporters thing about their regional backbones - what an absolute shock to discover todays hero is the head of the lib-dems students at Southampton University. Lib-dem student. In April 2011.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 1, 2011)

Come in moon23.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 1, 2011)

OK I haven't read the last 60 pages or so. What's the synopsis? The lefties say no and the liberals say yes?

Personally I might just vote for it. Just because changing political systems will make the same old shit mildly more interesting for a while.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

Idaho said:


> OK I haven't read the last 60 pages or so. What's the synopsis? The lefties say no and the liberals say yes?
> 
> Personally I might just vote for it. Just because changing political systems will make the same old shit mildly more interesting for a while.


 
No, it's a shitty little reform that, at best, will make no discernible difference to the distribution of MPs but will give Clegg and his cuntish cronies the political capital to ensure the Lib Dems stay wedded to the coalition for the remainder of this parliament and probably the next one too.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

How will a yes vote counter-balance 500+ council seats lost?  it won't.  Clegg is damaged goods anyway.

A No vote achieves NOTHING apart from boosting Cameron and the Tories.


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A No vote achieves NOTHING apart from boosting Cameron and the Tories.


 
It achieves not bringing in a feeble reform that people will claim leads to real change but in fact entrenches existing power interests.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 1, 2011)

How can politics be more dominated by the big 3 and the centre ground than it is already?  At worst AV won't change anything but will give Cameron a bloody nose. 
At best it might be the kick-start to more radical change of the system.

Given that Clegg will already have taken a hammering at the locals, what extra is gained from a No vote?


----------



## Santino (Apr 1, 2011)

AV supporters claim that there will be fewer safe seats under it, but the evidence from Australia is that safer seats are in fact more common. That's how the main parties can dominate more, but being even more sure of a good percentage of their seats.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'd relish the opportunity to express a preference between UKIP and the BNP.


 
Remind me of a guy at uni - "I'm voting Ukip to keep out the BNP"


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am _of_ the modern world.
> 
> They've just done an Celebrating Our Supporters thing about their regional backbones - what an absolute shock to discover todays hero is the head of the lib-dems students at Southampton University. Lib-dem student. In April 2011.


 
Yes to fairer votes!


----------



## Idaho (Apr 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> No, it's a shitty little reform that, at best, will make no discernible difference to the distribution of MPs but will give Clegg and his cuntish cronies the political capital to ensure the Lib Dems stay wedded to the coalition for the remainder of this parliament and probably the next one too.


 
You say that as if any of them weren't cuntish cronies of one sort or another. As I said. It will make no real difference, but it might be entertaining for a bit.


----------



## Bear (Apr 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How can politics be more dominated by the big 3 and the centre ground than it is already?  At worst AV won't change anything but will give Cameron a bloody nose.
> At best it might be the kick-start to more radical change of the system.
> 
> *Given that Clegg will already have taken a hammering at the locals, what extra is gained from a No vote?*



You don't get it do you?  They hate Clegg so much that him having a 'bloody nose' after having "taken a hammering at the locals" isn't enough. The only thing they will be happy with is the complete destruction of the Liberal Democrat party.  Nothing else can happen to the Lib Dems that will satisfy them. _Now_ do you understand?

And do you know what?  I can't really blame them either.  Forget all this shit about 'the Lib Dem manifesto was only binding if we got an absolute majority etc..., etc...'  All the Lib Dems including Clegg made personal promises to their constituents that they would vote against any rise in tuition fees, that's not merely a manifesto pledge it's a personal commitment by an MP to their constituents; and they went back on it.  If they really couldn't have voted against (I understand that sometimes unforeseen circumstances make it impossible to keep a promise) they should have done the only honourable thing and resigned their seats and stood for re-election, or just simply resigned.

I'll probably vote yes on AV because I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face, but I'll never vote Lib Dem again, and I used to be a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

The Liberal Democrat party needs to be wiped off the map.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

A8 agrees, that why he argues for a YES vote.

That's how on the ball he is.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 2, 2011)

I'm now not only voting No in order to spite the Lib Dems and because I like to go to bed on election night knowing who has won, but also because A8 is such a bell end.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

Which is your first preference though?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 2, 2011)

I've only just started thinking about the AV referendum so haven't read this thread

Does anybody want to summarise 2000 posts for me


----------



## Belushi (Apr 2, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Does anybody want to summarise 2000 posts for me


 
Vote Yes to keep A8 in a job.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

I thought you lefties were agaisnt all cuts etc


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A8 agrees, that why he argues for a YES vote.
> 
> That's how on the ball he is.


 
You think a small change in the voting system is enought to save Clegg and the LDs?  That's how on the ball you are


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

Fantastic line from a8's OP:



> I don't think even the most obsessed electoral reformer would say this is as big an issue as the cuts etc


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

The point is that that voting system is indelibly associated with Clegg and the Lib Dems and is also one of the things they and the Tories are using to pretend to diferentiate themselves from each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think a small change in the voting system is enought to save Clegg and the LDs?  That's how on the ball you are


 
Who said it it would save them? It'll give them some glue that they _wouldn't have _otherwise - and it'll be the leadership, the most pro-cuts group who are using it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

Do  re-read the start of this thread - very interesting.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2011)

i.e this post for starters



articul8 said:


> to be honest, a referendum isn't really needed on AV - it's best explained as a modification of how FPTP works ie. it doesn't need any fundamental shake-up in terms of boundary changes (the Tories are adding that in to gerrymander the system for their own benefit).
> 
> That's no doubt why Clegg called it a "miserable little reform" when Brown suggested it


----------



## Bear (Apr 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The Liberal Democrat party needs to be wiped off the map.


 
I haven't been here for years but a quick glance through to posts and the fact that you guys think that is bloody obvious.  I've tried to explain that to articulat8 in the previous post above - don't know what it is but him and moon23 seem to miss the bloody obvious...

One question though, do you _really_ think the Lib Dems are worse than Labour?  Seriously?  Labour were the party that 1 year or so ago were outsourcing torture, trying to force us to carry ID cards, purposely letting the super rich not pay tax (the non-dom status wasn't a loophole, they did it one purpose).  Labour first introduced tuition fees because they wanted to 'create a market' in education and the last Tory government didn't have the balls to do it themselves, Labour followed George Bush into Iraq...  The list goes on and on.  OK, I'll never vote Lib Dem again, but what's seeing the slimy little fuckers wiped of the electoral map ever gonna do for you?  Because they're the same aren't they?  Not any worse?


----------



## Bear (Apr 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think a small change in the voting system is enought to save Clegg and the LDs?  That's how on the ball you are


 I think you don't really believe that and are therefore lying to people... But I might be wrong though, and you have my sincere apologies if I am wrong.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

I don't believe that the labour party are any better, no.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2011)

I doubt many people here would argue that Labour are any different, they might have cut a bit slower but that's it. In an ideal world we'd see all three mainstream parties wiped off the map. But it's not going to happen to Labour or the Tories. It's possible, if not inevitable, that the Lib Dems will be and so we can at least get rid of one of them. In fact, the only one on this thread who I can recall arguing Labour were any different is the one arguing FOR a yes vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

No of course Labour aren't any worse but they weren't pretending to be better, were they. The Lib dems staked most of their electoral support on trying to be a party to the left of Labour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2011)

I agree, sorry, that was a reply to Bear, not you. I should have quoted him/her really.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

No worries


----------



## Bear (Apr 2, 2011)

In fact I'm not even sure that Clegg is as bad as Labour, I can't see Clegg out sourcing torture or keeping his mouth shut whilst an American president was busy authorising the CIA to do it.

When you actually look at the evil the Labour Party have inflicted, cutting a bit slower is pretty minor as a saving grace.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2011)

Bear said:


> In fact I'm not even sure that Clegg is as bad as Labour, I can't see Clegg out sourcing torture or keeping his mouth shut whilst an American president was busy authorising the CIA to do it.
> 
> When you actually look at the evil the Labour Party have inflicted, cutting a bit slower is pretty minor as a saving grace.


 
I think you're being very naive there.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2011)

Bear said:


> In fact I'm not even sure that Clegg is as bad as Labour, I can't see Clegg out sourcing torture or keeping his mouth shut whilst an American president was busy authorising the CIA to do it.


 
Then you obviously don't have a very good imagination.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't understand that graph - or rather, i don't understand how you can read the preference votes from it.


 
The red bar at the bottom of each round is the losing party. You then see how their second preference votes were allocated by looking at which parties gained % in the next round


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Wolveryeti said:


> The red bar at the bottom of each round is the losing party. You then see how their second preference votes were allocated by looking at which parties gained % in the next round


 
Do you? Did you?


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

Labour let the workers get screwed, but the Lib Dems are holding them down to be screwed while videoing it on their phone.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Bear said:


> I haven't been here for years but a quick glance through to posts and the fact that you guys think that is bloody obvious.  I've tried to explain that to articulat8 in the previous post above - don't know what it is but him and moon23 seem to miss the bloody obvious...
> 
> One question though, do you _really_ think the Lib Dems are worse than Labour?  Seriously?  Labour were the party that 1 year or so ago were outsourcing torture, trying to force us to carry ID cards, purposely letting the super rich not pay tax (the non-dom status wasn't a loophole, they did it one purpose).  Labour first introduced tuition fees because they wanted to 'create a market' in education and the last Tory government didn't have the balls to do it themselves, Labour followed George Bush into Iraq...  The list goes on and on.  OK, I'll never vote Lib Dem again, but what's seeing the slimy little fuckers wiped of the electoral map ever gonna do for you?  Because they're the same aren't they?  Not any worse?


 
Do you have a point?


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

Classy:



> The "Yes" campaign, which is supported by Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, was severely embarrassed after it emerged that it had removed the poet Benjamin Zephaniah from leaflets destined for the home counties, while leaving him in leaflets distributed in London.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8423640/Yes-to-AV-says-No-to-black-poet.html


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2011)

Santino said:


> Classy:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8423640/Yes-to-AV-says-No-to-black-poet.html



Did they really think nobody would notice? What a fucking rabble.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2011)

Bear said:


> In fact I'm not even sure that Clegg is as bad as Labour, I can't see Clegg out sourcing torture or keeping his mouth shut whilst an American president was busy authorising the CIA to do it.


 
Can you not? Wow.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 3, 2011)

did they change Honor Blackman's name as well?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> did they change Honor Blackman's name as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Do you know whose decision this was articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

No I don't - but I think it is clumsy rather than pernicious - a judgement than Zephaniah would be a more familiar name to communities in London than elsewhere, rather than a conscious decision to drop him for other areas.  eg. Ken Livingstone is going on the Labour Yes leaflets in London but not elsewhere.

Given that out of 5 speakers at yesterday's national launch there was one black man and two asian women makes the idea we want to run an all white campaign more than a little silly.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Aah, nice Tony Robinson - a more damning thing you'd have to search long and hard for. 

Stephen Fry, Eddie Izzard, Colin Firth, Tony Robinson, Laurie Penny - why not go the whole hog and have Brian Cox, Louis Theroux and Adam Curtis and hire a big fucking boat and have a nice liberal pluralist sensible party?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fantastic line from a8's OP:


 


> I don't think even the most obsessed electoral reformer would say this is as big an issue as the cuts etc



Yes - that is still my position.  But a No vote won't stop the cuts if fact it will make it more likely that the coalition is followed by a Tory majority government that can entrech them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

I've not much time for this celeb driven campaigning - not sure why Tony Robinson is the epitome of evil though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Entrench them? Presumably after your support for a position that allows and help them to grab the land to start digging? That's the logic of your (well, one of your many) positions - don't fight now, the real battle is at the next election, not now, prop up the lib-dems until then. But look busy, look like you're fighting.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

What...?  Look, I'm all in favour of action to stop the cuts, but a NO vote on AV doesn't achieve that but would be a massive shot in the arm for the Tories which could easily help them at the next election.   The LDs are - rightly - going to get a kicking at the locals.  Why not hit the organ grinder rather than the monkey?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What...?  Look, I'm all in favour of action to stop the cuts, but a NO vote on AV doesn't achieve that but would be a massive shot in the arm for the Tories which could easily help them at the next election.   The LDs are - rightly - going to get a kicking at the locals.  Why not hit the organ grinder rather than the monkey?


 
Why not come up with a new line? A NO vote has the clear potential to help block cuts by applying pressure to currently hidden conflicts - a YES vote doesn't. Simple. 

That articul8, is what we call _politics_.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Block cuts?  A No would do no such thing. It would put the LDs entirely at the mercy of the Tories since an early GE would see them absolutely hammered.  

If the cuts are to be checked it will follow from battles won outside the purely electoral field - this is about what kind of government follows after the next election, not about short term tactical judgements.  

This, Butchersapron, is what we call _political strategy_.


----------



## Bear (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do you have a point?


 
I suppose the point would be voting for any of the big three parties won't change anything. Sure, in opposition they are different, but in power they're all essentially the same as they all answer to the same group of people who are really in charge (bankers, New International etc, etc) once they get into government.  

If I had to say at this point in time that any one was worse than any of the others I'd say Labour were the worst; but that's probably only because the current lot haven't been in for long enough to top what Blair and Brown did in the last decade.

Voting Labour to punish the Lib Dems won't make the next government any better.  Vote for who you actually believe in, rather than wasting your vote on a big three c*** just to punish another big three c***. Or if there is nobody standing you like why give any of them legitimacy by voting at all?

Ditto for AV. If you _really_ think it's worse than FPTP vote against it, if you don't then don't.  But why cut of your nose to spite your face; all you'll do is piss off one c*** (Clegg) and make another bunch of equally c***ish people (the Tories) very happy and possibly deny yourself a small improvement in the electoral system - if you actually believe it is.  I was gonna vote no just to spite Clegg too.  But when I leave those emotions out I have to conclude that AV is a little better, apparently it leads to more hung parliaments, that's gotta be an improvement.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Block cuts?  A No would do no such thing. It would put the LDs entirely at the mercy of the Tories since an early GE would see them absolutely hammered.
> 
> If the cuts are to be checked it will follow from battles won outside the purely electoral field - this is about what kind of government follows after the next election, not about short term tactical judgements.
> 
> This, Butchersapron, is what we call _political strategy_.



At the mercy? They're driving the cuts? They're behind the cuts. Helping them to stabilise their position within the coalition by giving them a victory is pro-cuts position.

There are *no* possible anti-cuts outcomes of a YES/lib-dem victory. None whatsoever. A NO vote has the potential to work on, to deepen and to exacerbate hidden contradictions and conflicts between the lib-dems membership and leadership, MPs and centre and the lib-dem component of the coalition and the tories to the benefit of the anti-cuts movement.

What you call a _strategy_ is the boy in the bubble imagining he's seeing the world.


----------



## Bear (Apr 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Then you obviously don't have a very good imagination.


 
Perhaps, but he hasn't done it yet.  So on that basis alone he's slightly less bad than Labour...  For now...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

This is AV - Stephen Fry having a laugh with Nick Clegg at a £10 grand a pop private Paul McCartney show stamping on your face forever:


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> At the mercy? They're driving the cuts? They're behind the cuts. Helping them to stabilise their position within the coalition by giving them a victory is pro-cuts position.



Let me get this right, you're arguing that a Tory majority would be to the left of the coalition? Really?



> There are *no* possible anti-cuts outcomes of a YES/lib-dem victory. None whatsoever. A NO vote has the potential to work on, to deepen and to exacerbate hidden contradictions and conflicts between the lib-dems membership and leadership, MPs and centre and the lib-dem component of the coalition and the tories to the benefit of the anti-cuts movement.



You think that in the event of a Yes vote all the LD's will unite in saying "hurrah for the coalition", even as 500 of their councillors are turfed out on the arses, and that no tensions will rise to the surface?   Now it's you arguing that electoral reform has a significance beyond everything else!

What is your desired outcome, or least unfavoured outcome after the next GE?

You remind me of people who said "at least you new where you stood with Maggie".


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Let me get this right, you're arguing that a Tory majority would be to the left of the coalition? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who mentioned a tory majority? That's your fantasy that you're attempting to beat others over the head with - wit little success.

I don't think they will no, i think they'll be unhappy but that this un happiness would be made much worse by a lib-dem defeat in the referendum. Pretty simple.

Same as last time - no one able to form a govt, legislative gridlock, ongoing lack of legitimacy. You're not going to able to force everyone into supporting labour - this is just the flipside of your if you vote NO you're a tory schtick. Again, noticeably unsuccessful so far.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

What do you all the people who are so politically inept that the human shields known as the lib-dems use them as human shields?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who mentioned a tory majority? That's your fantasy that you're attempting to beat others over the head with - wit little success.
> 
> I don't think they will no, i think they'll be unhappy but that this un happiness would be made much worse by a lib-dem defeat in the referendum. Pretty simple.
> 
> Same as last time - no one able to form a govt, legislative gridlock, ongoing lack of legitimacy. You're not going to able to force everyone into supporting labour - this is just the flipside of your if you vote NO you're a tory schtick. Again, noticeably unsuccessful so far.



Hopelessly muddled - you want another hung parliament?! but you want to see the LDs wiped out (thus making majority government - and Tory majority in particular) much more likely.  How does that work?

You think Labour isn't set to make major council gains? (wrong again..)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

I want to see the cuts stopped - priority #1. A potential way forward is to bring down the coalition by hitting it's weakest part - the lib-dems. You want to prop up the lib-dems and postpone the fight, or reduce it down to the party of which you're a member winning the next election. It's utterly irrelevant what my subjective wishes are - the electoral beneficiaries of a coalition collapse would be labour. The party of which you're _supposed_ to be a member.

What on earth is that last line supposed to be about?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

We're agreed on priority 1.  

But the weakening of the LDs in no way makes a collapse in the coalition more likely - in fact the opposite - they will hang onto the coat tails of the Tories all the harder just to avoid a GE at which they'd be wiped out.   It doesn't automatically follow that Labour would automatically benefit from a coalition collapse - particularly in circumstances where the Tories have succesfully fought a battle to keep their favoured voting system and can displace most of the blame onto the LDs.  *Strengthening the Tories is seems a spectularly bad way of going about stopping the cuts.*

The last line is about the fact that - contrary to your claims - people *are* switching to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties - which will be shown in May's election results.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> We're agreed on priority 1.
> 
> But the weakening of the LDs in no way makes a collapse in the coalition more likely - in fact the opposite - they will hang onto the coat tails of the Tories all the harder just to avoid a GE at which they'd be wiped out.   It doesn't automatically follow that Labour would automatically benefit from a coalition collapse - particularly in circumstances where the Tories have succesfully fought a battle to keep their favoured voting system and can displace most of the blame onto the LDs.  *Strengthening the Tories is seems a spectularly bad way of going about stopping the cuts.*
> 
> The last line is about the fact that - contrary to your claims - people *are* switching to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties - which will be shown in May's election results.



How many times? I don't say a NO vote will automatically bring down the coalition but weaken it, and weaken it by making the lib-dems wary of supporting the cuts - setting in motion a _process_ that potentially _could_ bring the coalition down. I've explained this line of reasoning to you many times now. You've replied to pots where i've outlined it - so why this nonsense time after time.

As for strengthening the tories, it seems to me the best way to do that is to help reinforce the coalition  by giving the lib-dems exactly what they want, ensuring the cuts actually do go through. I really don't see how attempting to pull the rug out from under them at a time when the labour party has a healthy poll lead and govt approval ratings are around -30% is strengthening them.

I have no idea what your last line means again (beyond noticing that it largely contradicts the argument above it anyway).

Get out of the bubble boy.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

But it will weaken the coalition only to the extent that it strenghtens the Tories at the expense of the liberal component.  This process of weaking it by splitting the LDs ignores the stronger electoral logic that will unite all the LD MPs - in favour of not going for an election any earlier than is absolutely necessary.   Where is this "process" of blocking the cuts?  Why would the Tories put up with any shit?  They'd go straight for a GE.

The last line doesn't contradict anything.  Labour will make gains largely at the expense of the LDs, the Tories will also make gains at LD expense.  This is the main battle.  The left gets diminishing returns from grinding the LDs into the dust *if doing so bolsters the position of the Tories* come the next election.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But it will weaken the coalition only to the extent that it strenghtens the Tories at the expense of the liberal component.  This process of weaking it by splitting the LDs ignores the stronger electoral logic that will unite all the LD MPs - in favour of not going for an election any earlier than is absolutely necessary.   Where is this "process" of blocking the cuts?  Why would the Tories put up with any shit?  They'd go straight for a GE.
> 
> The last line doesn't contradict anything.  Labour will make gains largely at the expense of the LDs, the Tories will also make gains at LD expense.  This is the main battle.  The left gets diminishing returns from grinding the LDs into the dust *if doing so bolsters the position of the Tories* come the next election.



That's right, damaging the coalition to the extent that it might fall thereby putting the kybosh on the cuts program actually strengthens the tories - it's what they really want. What they really want is a labour govt elected on some form of anti-cuts basis (shifting the ground  of mainstream political debate to the left). That's the long term plan.

Wow, you really do not get what's going on do you? The tories are not going to call a GE to ditch the lib-dems - they want, like you, to prop up the lib-dems until the next election at least. They need them there to a) push through the cuts b) take the blame - what sort of sophisticated political strategist believes that a party will jettison one of their strongest weapons? Bubble politics. Everyone knows this but the sophisticated.

Right, when you say the tories will gain you actually meant labour. And btw, the figure of 500 lost lib-dem councilors comes from an academic who suggest 1000 lost tories councilors at the same time. This, presumably, is them gaining from the lib-dems as you suggest.

I'm still struggling to understand why you've twice suggested that i don't think labour are going to make electoral gains in may - any idea?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

> You're not going to able to force everyone into supporting labour - this is just the flipside of your if you vote NO you're a tory schtick. Again, noticeably unsuccessful so far.


Unless you meant by this that I expected to literally force "everyone" out to vote Labour myself, then the increasing support for Labour undermines your case above, no?

You've nowhere substantiated this fantasy of a No vote somehow triggering a process capable of "kyobsh"-ing the cuts - this is fantasy stuff.  A NO it will give the Tories what they want.  FPTP and a decent shot at a majority next time up without effective LD opposition.  In fact a YES would give Cameron a headache from his own backbench hardliners who never wanted the coalition and want to ramp up the Euroscepticism.

Re the locals - The Tories will make some gains at the expense of LDs as a consequence of collapse in the LD vote - but still make a net loss because of seats lost to Labour.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

And it's not about propping up the LDs - there's no way of doing that.  It's a question of whether you can let them die slowly on the vine or whether their party's roots are so deep they need pulling up, even if that means Tory weeds can just grow like wildfire on that ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Unless you meant by this that I expected to literally force "everyone" out to vote Labour myself, then the increasing support for Labour undermines your case above, no?
> 
> You've nowhere substantiated this fantasy of a No vote somehow triggering a process capable of "kyobsh"-ing the cuts - this is fantasy stuff.  A NO it will give the Tories what they want.  FPTP and a decent shot at a majority next time up without effective LD opposition.  In fact a YES would give Cameron a headache from his own backbench hardliners who never wanted the coalition and want to ramp up the Euroscepticism.
> 
> Re the locals - The Tories will make some gains at the expense of LDs as a consequence of collapse in the LD vote - but still make a net loss because of seats lost to Labour.



Now i have no idea what your first line explaining your previous last lines means. What _are_ you on about? 

What do you mean substantiate? If you mean outline how i think it will work then yes i have, repeatedly - often in direct replies to you.

Both a YES and a NO vote gives the tories what they want - they win either way. The difference is that a YES vote strengthens the coalition ensuring that the cuts program passes, whilst a NO vote puts one elements of the coalition under severe pressue, potentially starting a process that leads to the heightening of internal conflicts (across members/parties/centre/MPS) around the cuts program.

So the when you say that the beneficiaries of a coalition collapse right now would be the tories you mean that the beneficiaries of a coalition collapse right now would be the labour. Clear as ever.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> And it's not about propping up the LDs - there's no way of doing that.  It's a question of whether you can let them die slowly on the vine or whether their party's roots are so deep they need pulling up, even if that means Tory weeds can just grow like wildfire on that ground.


 
Yes, let them die slowly, leave it to the professionals, leave it to labour, wait four years. Or, don't upset my bubble mates  long cherished dreams of a _progressive_ pluralist stephen fry labour/lib-dem  coalition.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> stephen fry labour/lib-dem  coalition.



pass me a sickbag.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now i have no idea what your first line explaining your previous last lines means. What _are_ you on about?



By what measure has my argument that peeople will turn to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties "proved unsuccessful" if they are poised to make major electoral gains?!!!

Your continued assertion that a NO produces splits whereas a YEs doesn't has no justification (Cameron would be weakened in the eyes of public and party alike), and also neither would necessarily give rise to a momentum which would see the cuts blocked.

 The only way of campaigning directly with any effectiveness in terms of blocking cuts is co-ordinated industrial action combined with mass protest, direct action etc - not through who is up and who is down in Westminster! So I have argued publically precisely that we *shouldn't* just wait for Labour to be elected.  But that doesn't mean the next GE has no signifance. When it comes to the next election - the nature of the battlefield (the electoral system) could have a decisive impact on what follows the coalition.

PS I hate Stephen Fry - and the smug and condescending video he's just made for the YES campaign!!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

What the fuck are you on about with that opening paragraph? Have you taken a wrong turning earlier on in the thread or something?

My continued assertion is that a NO vote has the _potential_ to produce splits or to bring to a head currently hidden conflicts, and that a YES has zero potential for doing so. In fact it actively works to deactivate these conflicts. 

Crack on then, the rest of are starting now though. By voting NO. Because we have some sense of the urgency of the situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've not much time for this celeb driven campaigning - not sure why Tony Robinson is the epitome of evil though.


 
You've obviously watched very little of his so-called "acting", then!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 3, 2011)

You guys still at it I see, articul8 still banging away hopefully. 

Some of the celeb contributions to the debate have been laughable.

If they persuade people then there really is no hope!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Block cuts?  A No would do no such thing. It would put the LDs entirely at the mercy of the Tories since an early GE would see them absolutely hammered.
> 
> If the cuts are to be checked it will follow from battles won outside the purely electoral field - this is about what kind of government follows after the next election, not about short term tactical judgements.
> 
> This, Butchersapron, is what we call _political strategy_.


 
Strategy is generally predicated on what is likely to happen, on future events that reside within the field of probability, on "the art of the possible", not on pie-in-the-sky assumptions about what political groupings would *like* to happen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What you call a _strategy_ is the boy in the bubble imagining he's seeing the world.


 
A poor analogy, _mon frere_.

The "boy in the bubble" at least sees and takes note of his immediate environment, and tailors his world-view to that environment. Mr. 8's whimsies don't appear to be doing even that.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 3, 2011)

The danger in this referendum is going to be getting the NO vote out. 

I can easily see a very low turnout, but the YES voters will come out because they want a change, the NO voters are much more likely to be apathetic and stay at home risking losing the vote to the wrong camp. 

So I hope the NO campaign will urge voters to vote so we can beat this nonsense into the long grass where it belongs.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A poor analogy, _mon frere_.
> 
> The "boy in the bubble" at least sees and takes note of his immediate environment, and tailors his world-view to that environment. Mr. 8's whimsies don't appear to be doing even that.



I was trying to come up with something that combined the think tank bubble with a snow globe effect - didn't quite get it right!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2011)

What seems obvious to me - not nearly as well-educated in politics as I would like, but learning fast & fucking angry - is that sitting it out & waiting for the LDs to be wiped out in 4 years' time is too late. Cos the cuts will have continued far past what even the Tories deem "necessary", and into the realm of fucking public services forever. We'll _never _prize any of it back from the private "providers" of health care, education, transport, workfare schemes, etc etc etc. A "no" vote at least is a stick in the spokes. Something. Cos we haven't got 4 years.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 3, 2011)

A No vote is no guarantee of getting rid of the LibDems. It will be a near guarantee for more (and more solid) Tory government for the future.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> A No vote is no guarantee of getting rid of the LibDems. It will be a near guarantee for more (and more solid) Tory government for the future.


 
So is a yes vote, but with the added bonus of the Nick Clegg getting to decide who is Prime Minister for us.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 3, 2011)

Apparently this booklet below is getting mailed to every address in the country to explain the systems. 
Not received mine yet, but it'll be interesting to watch the polls to see what effect it has on the "don't knows".

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/file/0005/109877/Eng-web.pdf


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Strategy is generally predicated on what is likely to happen, on future events that reside within the field of probability, on "the art of the possible", not on pie-in-the-sky assumptions about what political groupings would *like* to happen.


 
It's not me making pie-in-the-sky assumptions - its BA.  All I have said is that a NO would be a boost to Cameron and to what Tories perceive as their electoral interests (which is why they are campaigning for it!!)  Butchers is the one with the highly speculative stuff about "potential to kybosh the cuts" which seems hopelessly pie-in-the-sky to me. 

So any realistic assesment has to balance what you know a Yes vote will do (deny the Tories a boost) against some highly speculative and unrealistic fantasy scenario which sees a weakened and demoralised LDs somehow weakening the tempo of the cuts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not me making pie-in-the-sky assumptions - its BA.  All I have said is that a NO would be a boost to Cameron and to what Tories perceive as their electoral interests (which is why they are campaigning for it!!)  Butchers is the one with the highly speculative stuff about "potential to kybosh the cuts" which seems hopelessly pie-in-the-sky to me.
> .



Do you deny that the Libdems play a core role in the Coalition?

Do you deny that a NO vote could bring underlying tensions within the Libdems to the surface?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What seems obvious to me - not nearly as well-educated in politics as I would like, but learning fast & fucking angry - is that sitting it out & waiting for the LDs to be wiped out in 4 years' time is too late. Cos the cuts will have continued far past what even the Tories deem "necessary", and into the realm of fucking public services forever. We'll _never _prize any of it back from the private "providers" of health care, education, transport, workfare schemes, etc etc etc. A "no" vote at least is a stick in the spokes. Something. Cos we haven't got 4 years.


 
But it's not a stick in the spokes - it means getting rid of the one progressive aspect of the coalition agreement and giving the Tories a major boost.  The Tories will be delighted with a yes vote.  Would they take that position if they felt it would endanger their precious cuts?  Would they??!!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you deny that the Libdems play a core role in the Coalition?



They are useful for the Tories at the moment.  But they are lashed to the coalition mast now and will drown or float along with it.



> Do you deny that a NO vote could bring underlying tensions within the Libdems to the surface?


 
Tensions could arise irrespective of the referendum outcome.  A Yes vote might see those unhappy with the coalition saying "we've got what we came for now let's back out before we're wiped out"  But none of these tensions are likely to prevail and bring down the coalition early.  

So where are we?  I'm saying we need to build maximum extra-parliamentary pressure on the government in the short term, deny the Tories the boost they are seeking and maximise the anti-Tory vote at the next GE.


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A NO it will give the Tories what they want.  FPTP and a decent shot at a majority next time up without effective LD opposition.


 
In what sense do the Lib Dems offer opposition to the Tories? Is it none at all?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But it's not a stick in the spokes - it means getting rid of the one progressive aspect of the coalition agreement and giving the Tories a major boost.  The Tories will be delighted with a yes vote.  Would they take that position if they felt it would endanger their precious cuts?  Would they??!!


 
Is that the coalition agreement Clegg didn't want but was forced to have because he wasn't _really_ holding that may cards? I don't think the Tories give a shit how the vote goes. It was something to offer the LDs to make a coalition attractive but isn't really worth much. Keeping the Weetabix but giving Clegg & his band the free holographic Glee sticker. They don't think anything can stop their cuts - I doubt they take anything that could seriously.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

No you misundestand me.  I was referring to opposition in terms of competing for votes at the ballot box.  Aside from seats the LDs hold from the Tories, there are bucketloads of Tory seats where the LDs are the only real challengers.  If LDs get wiped out these become Tory walkover seats.  This is a problem because it frees them to concentrate all their campaign resources (cash, activists, advertising etc.) on Lab/Con marginals.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I don't think the Tories give a shit how the vote goes.



In that case why are they seconding central office staff to work on No2AV, why is not a single Tory MP backing a Yes (one says he's thinking about it - out of 300+), why are senior tory funders like Sir Rodney Leach stumping up cash for it....etc.

In fact Baroness Warsi their party chairman said it was the main priority "above all" in May.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No you misundestand me.  I was referring to opposition in terms of competing for votes at the ballot box.  Aside from seats the LDs hold from the Tories, there are bucketloads of Tory seats where the LDs are the only real challengers.  If LDs get wiped out these become Tory walkover seats.  This is a problem because it frees them to concentrate all their campaign resources (cash, activists, advertising etc.) on Lab/Con marginals.


 
Show me the figures.


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No you misundestand me.  I was referring to opposition in terms of competing for votes at the ballot box.  Aside from seats the LDs hold from the Tories, there are bucketloads of Tory seats where the LDs are the only real challengers.  If LDs get wiped out these become Tory walkover seats.  This is a problem because it frees them to concentrate all their campaign resources (cash, activists, advertising etc.) on Lab/Con marginals.



Yes, if the Lib Dems get wiped out, all their voters will simply stay at home during elections.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> In that case why are they seconding central office staff to work on No2AV, why is not a single Tory MP backing a Yes (one says he's thinking about it - out of 300+), why are senior tory funders like Sir Rodney Leach stumping up cash for it....etc.
> 
> In fact Baroness Warsi their party chairman said it was the main priority "above all" in May.



Because they don't give a shit. They know their vote does though.  Do you see the difference?

Who were those 12 prominent business leaders wrote the letter in support of AV btw? What have any of them donated to your campaign?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

All our donors have been published.  Unlike the NO campaign's.  Actually you're totally wrong on the Tory point - Tory voters are much more split on the question than Tory representatives who are solidly against.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Santino said:


> Yes, if the Lib Dems get wiped out, all their voters will simply stay at home during elections.


 
meaning the Tories can take those seats for granted and direct everything at attacking Labour in marginal seats.  Great!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> All our donors have been published.  Unlike the NO campaign's.  Actually you're totally wrong on the Tory point - Tory voters are much more split on the question than Tory representatives who are solidly against.


 
And are these 12 business leaders amongst them? 

They imagine the tory vote is anti - it overwhelmingly is. I should have restricted it to members and active supporters.


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> meaning the Tories can take those seats for granted and direct everything at attacking Labour in marginal seats.  Great!



You fucking idiot


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2011)

It's a game both of them are playing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> meaning the Tories can take those seats for granted and direct everything at attacking Labour in marginal seats.  Great!


You now what's going on* right now* right? Not in 4 years time?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Santino said:


> You fucking idiot


 
What - you don't mind if there's a Tory majority?  _You_ fucking idiot


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2011)

Coalitions are often more right wing anyway - because the parties in power can simply blame their partner/s.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You now what's going on* right now* right? Not in 4 years time?


 
yes, which is why I think there needs to be massive extra-parliamentary pressure and action against the cuts.  But pissing off Clegg (and thereby boosting not only Cameron's short-term ratings but longer term Tory interests) all to no effect is seriously stupid.  Parliamentary progress IS on hold for 4 years - that's why the pressure has to come from outside.


----------



## Santino (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What - you don't mind if there's a Tory majority?  _You_ fucking idiot


 
No, you fucking idiot for thinking that everyone who votes Lib Dem in LD-Con marginals is suddenly going to stop voting. For the love of fucking Christ.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What - you don't mind if there's a Tory majority?  _You_ fucking idiot



Hidden behind this idiocy is the idea of a lab/lib-dem coalition. It's writ into the logic of the argument. Otherwise you're arguing that AV _will_ return majority govts. Are you?  That needs an answer.

There's a whole heap of other questions you mange to keep missing above as well.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Coalitions are often more right wing anyway - because the parties in power can simply blame their partner/s.


 
Thatcher didn't need a coalition partner.  Sometimes coalitions can be more left wing - as in some respects was the Labour/LD coalition in Scotland when compared to New Labour policy from London.   

There's nothing inherently good/evil about majority government or coalition.  it's all about the content.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hidden behind this idiocy is the idea of a lab/lib-dem coalition. It's writ into the logic of the argument. Otherwise you're arguing that AV _will_ return majority govts. Are you?  That needs an answer.


 
AV can return majority governments - in fact it is no less likely than under FPTP.  And I'm not arguing that a Labour/LD coalition is automatically desirable.  Far from it, I can see a lot of circumstances when it would be anything but.  But nor is it axiomatically less preferable than a Labour majority - and it's likely to be a hell of sight better than a Tory one.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Santino said:


> No, you fucking idiot for thinking that everyone who votes Lib Dem in LD-Con marginals is suddenly going to stop voting. For the love of fucking Christ.


 
No - some will stay at home, so will vote Labour, some will vote Green, some will vote for the Natural Law party - none of which will be any fucking good in terms of keeping out the Tory in a previously LD/Con marginal.  Those seats will be safe Tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yes, which is why I think there needs to be massive extra-parliamentary pressure and action against the cuts.  But pissing off Clegg (and thereby boosting not only Cameron's short-term ratings but longer term Tory interests) all to no effect is seriously stupid.  Parliamentary progress IS on hold for 4 years - that's why the pressure has to come from outside.


 
It's nice that you think that, it's nice that you care enough to cover your left flank. It's nice that you think you still have to speak like that.

Pissing off Clegg to no effect? I've outlined the political argument for voting NO. I outline the potential benefits of a no vote. That's not no effect.

Parliamentary progress? Get out of that bubble, you're turning into a cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Thatcher didn't need a coalition partner.  Sometimes coalitions can be more left wing - as in some respects was the Labour/LD coalition in Scotland when compared to New Labour policy from London.
> 
> There's nothing inherently good/evil about majority government or coalition.  it's all about the content.


 

 How are the Lib Dems opposing the cuts? 

You do know that the lib-dems only want this AV shit because they believe that it will benefit them right?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV can return majority governments - in fact it is no less likely than under FPTP.  And I'm not arguing that a Labour/LD coalition is automatically desirable.  Far from it, I can see a lot of circumstances when it would be anything but.  But nor is it axiomatically less preferable than a Labour majority - and it's likely to be a hell of sight better than a Tory one.


 
So you want a tory majority govt?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV can return majority governments - in fact it is no less likely than under FPTP.  And I'm not arguing that a Labour/LD coalition is automatically desirable.  Far from it, I can see a lot of circumstances when it would be anything but.  But nor is it axiomatically less preferable than a Labour majority - and it's likely to be a hell of sight better than a Tory one.



When exactly did you become a weasel hack? Can you put a date on it?

Majority govt is bad. Except that AV is equally likely to deliver majority govt. Which is why it's good, because it will mean the tories never having a majority govt ever again. And this doesn't mean that you hope for the only possible method for this to happen - a lab/lib-dem coalition. It might just _happen_.

Do you not see how shit you are?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

You've asserted there are benefits to a NO vote based on a fantasy scenario of dejected LDs creating enough tensions to kick start a process that would "kybosh the cuts".  That's not the same as convincingly arguing that such an outcome is likely to follow, particularly given that you leave out of your argument the boost to Cameron and the Tories that would follow from a NO (let alone difficulties for introducing PR for the Lords etc).

I've never taken the position that if you believe that ultimately political progress is made outside of parliament that what goes on in elected institutions is irrelevant or that there aren't political opportunities and reasons for engaging at that level.   Does that make me a cunt?  That makes pretty much anyone who isn't an anarchist (or hardline fascist) a cunt.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

I want to see a non-Tory government elected - whether the result is a Labour majority or Labour in coalition concerns me less than what programme such an administration stands on.  Given the experience of Blair and three wopping great majorities leading to shit outcomes I don't make the mistake of equating Labour majority with socialism.  But obviously any non-Tory government is going to have Labour centrally involved, so its to Labour that people will look to get the best (or least worst) outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You've asserted there are benefits to a NO vote based on a fantasy scenario of dejected LDs creating enough tensions to kick start a process that would "kybosh the cuts".  That's not the same as convincingly arguing that such an outcome is likely to follow, particularly given that you leave out of your argument the boost to Cameron and the Tories that would follow from a NO (let alone difficulties for introducing PR for the Lords etc).
> 
> I've never taken the position that if you believe that ultimately political progress is made outside of parliament that what goes on in elected institutions is irrelevant or that there aren't political opportunities and reasons for engaging at that level.   Does that make me a cunt?  That makes pretty much anyone who isn't an anarchist (or hardline fascist) a cunt.



Yes, that's what i've asserted. Your addition of convincingly (whilst you've driven off YES voter after YES voter) meanings nothing.

I've not left the tories out - they don't need a boost, they're laughing either way. The only potential harm to them comes through the _coalition_ falling before 2015. You can support the coalition (vote YES) or you can attack he coalition(vote NO).

Yes, we've established that you already got line to defend anything at all. That's why i asked you if you remembered at what point you became a hack.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I want to see a non-Tory government elected - whether the result is a Labour majority or Labour in coalition concerns me less than what programme such an administration stands on.  Given the experience of Blair and three wopping great majorities leading to shit outcomes I don't make the mistake of equating Labour majority with socialism.  But obviously any non-Tory government is going to have Labour centrally involved, so its to Labour that people will look to get the best (or least worst) outcome.



Do you not understand that you'd get a better reception _if you were honest?_ You don't need to pretend to be a communist or any of that stuff any more. 



> I want to see a non-Tory government elected



It's just oozing out of you.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

That is just total bollocks.  The idea that the Tories will gain from an outcome that their MPs, staff and funders are working to prevent and that their Chairman said is their priority "above all" is only true in your crazy universe.   A NO vote will make the falling apart of the coalition LESS likely because the LD MPs will be scared shitless of an election.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

I think the tories being firmly entrenched for another 4 years can safely be counted as a gain for them.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2011)

ugh


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do you not understand that you'd get a better reception _if you were honest?_ You don't need to pretend to be a communist or any of that stuff any more.


 
"I want to see a non-Tory government elected" - what the hell is wrong with this statement?  I *should* want a Tory government elected?!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think the tories being firmly entrenched for another 4 years can safely be counted as a gain for them.


 
an outcome that would follow from a No vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "I want to see a non-Tory government elected" - what the hell is wrong with this statement?  I *should* want a Tory government elected?!


 
Could you not find a more weasel way of saying labour/lib-dem coalition?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Could you not find a more weasel way of saying labour/lib-dem coalition?


 
No it wouldn't. You're so not connected with reality any more. That's what bubbles do.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Read my post.  I didn't say I wanted a Labour/Lib Dem coalition.  With a leadership like they have now, it should be avoided like the plague.

I know you've got me painted as some latter-day Fabian but this is not my politics.  Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Read my post.  I didn't say I wanted a Labour/Lib Dem coalition.  With a leadership like they have now, it should be avoided like the plague.


 
You don't have to. You grease around it.

With a new leadership the inevitable electoral outcome of AV will suit you. A neo-liberal party gets to decide who'll be PM and who forms the govt, dragging all policies towards them and their neo-liberal program. This is power in your hands people. A lib-dem gets to bargain your vote away.

You're mental. Why are you even in the labour party?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

You're getting more incoherent now -

AV does not lead to more hung parliaments.  fact.  So all this talk of LDs "bargaining away" power is a fiction.

I don't subsribe to the Herbert Morrison view that socialism is what a majority Labour government delivers.  I'm not necessarily in favour of coalition (of any description - could be with the Nats, say) set against majority Labour government.  I'm in favour of using every means possible to pressurise Labour into adopting a programme that best represents the interests of the majority.   As I say, in Scotland the net effect of the coalition was less damaging for the LDs presence than if New Labour had run the adminstration alone (university fees for example).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

So, you look forward to majority tory govts?

You don't actually know whether you support majority govts or not do you?

I think it's a good bet under AV that the lib-dems will, benefiting from their tory mates 2nd prefs, be able to bargain power quite easily. It's what they've based their whole approach on.

Do you want the lib-dems to decide who the PM is, who th govt is, what your vote is worth - then vote YES to AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I know you've got me painted as some latter-day Fabian but this is not my politics.  Sorry to disappoint.



You're not a fabian, you're a useful idiot (or you're supposed to be, but you're just crap at it). The lib-dems of all people are using you. The people even Cameron is fucking, are using you.


----------



## Bear (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> meaning the Tories can take those seats for granted and direct everything at attacking Labour in marginal seats.  Great!


 
Hey that's no _so_ bad.  It wasn't the Tories that decided to introduce tuition fees to create a market in education.  It wasn't the Tories that outsourced torture.  It wasn't the Tories that decided we should all be carrying ID cards and on a million and 1 government databases.  It wasn't the Tories that would allow people to criminal record check us without the results coming to us first.  Labour de-regulated the city more than the Tories did.  Labour invaded Iraq.  If Labour were in power now they'd be filling up the jails as fast as the could and building more PFI ones as quickly as possible.

Labour aren't any better than the Conservatives.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

You see why we all ignored you earlier?


----------



## Bear (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> and it's likely to be a hell of sight better than a Tory one.



What Labour, better?  They're not. You seem to have a pretty short memory for how oppressive, right wing and nasty the last Labour government was.  We're talking about the government that restricted in public protest and free speech like no other in modern times whilst they shipped terrorist suspects off to the 3rd world to have their finger nails pulled out...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 3, 2011)

That pan was hot, it couldn't possibly be so sweaty over there in that cool refreshing looking fire. Lush.


----------



## Bear (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You see why we all ignored you earlier?



Do you really think Labour are better than the Tories?  Labour are the party that are relaxed about a small elite getting filthy rich and hiding the money in tax havens...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do you want the lib-dems to decide who the PM is, who th govt is, what your vote is worth - then vote YES to AV.


 
You're spinning the same lines as Tory propagandists.  Go on, give Cameron the result he wants, vote NO.

Plus you're contradicting yourself by both accepting it's not PR, but assuming it won't lead to majority government - when there is no reason to believe it will make it any harder for Labour to achieve a majority (it might make it harder for the Tories given their relative transfer-unfriendliness).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You're spinning the same lines as Tory propagandists.  Go on, give Cameron the result he wants, vote NO.
> 
> Plus you're contradicting yourself by both accepting it's not PR, but assuming it won't lead to majority government - when there is no reason to believe it will make it any harder for Labour to achieve a majority (it might make it harder for the Tories given their relative transfer-unfriendliness).



Am i? Oh dear. I guess all that academic work that shows the lib-dems being the beneficiary of AV - work you've cited - is just tory propaganda.

There's no contradiction in thinking that AV will lead, under current politics, to the lib-dems deciding who forms the govt and who becomes prime minister. It's entirely consistent with all my posts.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

what like just happened under FPTP?  The party least favoured by AV are the Tories.  Which is why they are practically all against it.  Why do you want to help them swerve a bullet?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Yeah, exactly like what happened under FPTP. It's amazing that you can flip between i_t's a massive change_ and _there's no change_ so glibly.

As explained above, the tories would prefer NO, very happy with YES. There is no bullet, that's a sort of made up thing to make people vote YES.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Does the ERS get any money off the govt btw?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Wouldn't take long on Con Home to read from lots of Tories who would be at Cameron's throat in the event of a Yes.

And no, I'm not aware of ERS taking govt funding.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does the ERS get any money off the govt btw?


 
ERS is majority shareholder in ERS Ltd, who run complex elections for businesses and civil society.

Before he jumps in, the FTSE 250 are shareholders in the current set up the houses of Parliament as well.

Boycott/Who Cares. A No vote won't damage the coalition any more than a Yes vote will. It delays nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Wouldn't take long on Con Home to read from lots of Tories who would be at Cameron's throat in the event of a Yes.
> 
> And no, I'm not aware of ERS taking govt funding.


 Not aware of, lot so things you're not aware of isn't there?

Yes, and they matter so much why? Cameron would be more than happy with his/your partners getting a YES and cementing the coalition for another 4 years.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Even *if* Cameron thought that his own backbenchers and most Lib dem voters in 2010 would have a very different view.  But given time and cash Tories are pouring into a NO, it looks like that is their favoured outcome.   Would they risk it if they though it could endanger the cuts package?  really?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Even *if* Cameron thought that his own backbenchers and most Lib dem voters in 2010 would have a very different view.  But given time and cash Tories are pouring into a NO, it looks like that is their favoured outcome.   Would they risk it if they though it could endanger the cuts package?  really?


 
What are they going to do? Bring down the coalition? Grow up.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

Ha - but the LDs will suddenly begin to "kybosh the cuts" - right, whatever.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

NO they won't, bit the logic of their position means that will have to oppose the cuts to save their own necks - the kybosh was the coalition falling. Not the NO vote. You haven't even read that right.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2011)

No you distinctly said that although a No vote won't break the coalition it will create a process that could lead in the cuts being kyboshed.  

And you think a majority Labour government would be enough to "kybosh" the cuts?  You'd more naive still...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2011)

Yes that's what i said. Where is your confusion?

No i don't think the party which you pay subs to are going to stop the cuts. Are you arguing that they won't? This is your calling card? Vote Yes, it'll help Clegg and vote labour to support the cuts. You don't have a single grain of sand to stand on, to ground you do you?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2011)

Do you think a lib dem/labour coalition would be enough to stop the cuts?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 4, 2011)

No I don't think that - but Butchers is the one talking about the coalition falling and the cuts being "kyboshed".  

I've been clear from the beginning that extra parliamentary pressure is the only way to fight the immediate implementation of the cuts.   Electing a Labour government may help to slow the pace and intensity, but even here industrial action and mass protest can restrict their scope.  

Voting Yes will not stop the cuts - but nor will voting No. In fact the latter option gives a boost to the Tories and could make a Tory majority more likely in 4 years time - so entrenching the cuts.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No I don't think that - but Butchers is the one talking about the coalition falling and the cuts being "kyboshed".
> 
> I've been clear from the beginning that extra parliamentary pressure is the only way to fight the immediate implementation of the cuts.   Electing a Labour government may help to slow the pace and intensity, but even here industrial action and mass protest can restrict their scope.
> 
> Voting Yes will not stop the cuts - but nor will voting No. In fact the latter option gives a boost to the Tories and could make a Tory majority more likely in 4 years time - so entrenching the cuts.


 
Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, but isn't Labour's main, maybe only, objection to the cuts that they're being undertaken over too short a period of time - 4 years, say? Cos doing _nothing_ for 4 years - well, it's too late after that. Everything's sold off to the highest bidder. Point is, the cuts are being done so fast so that when the Tories go at the next election, as they no doubt anticipate, it won't matter, their mission will be accomplished.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, but isn't Labour's main, maybe only, objection to the cuts that they're being undertaken over too short a period of time - 4 years, say? Cos doing _nothing_ for 4 years - well, it's too late after that. Everything's sold off to the highest bidder. Point is, the cuts are being done so fast so that when the Tories go at the next election, as they no doubt anticipate, it won't matter, their mission will be accomplished.


 
The former chancellor's plan was for a different taper, i.e. not jumping in the deep end of the cuts while the country's economy is still either stagnant or in recession, while not cutting quite so much and, as you say, over a slightly longer period.

The actual effects on services and thus on the public wouldn't be that different, though.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 4, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Point is, the cuts are being done so fast so that when the Tories go at the next election, as they no doubt anticipate, it won't matter, their mission will be accomplished.


 
I don't think they are figuring on being a one-term government.  Part of the reason the pain is front-loaded is to give them time to offer tax bribes before the next election.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2011)

Fight the cuts.

Latest Populus AV polling has NO ahead


> Populus have released new polling figures on the Alternative Vote. As in February they used a split sample, asking half the respondents how they would vote using the bare referendum question, but prompting the other half with explanations of the two systems. In February Populus found a 12 point lead for YES in the unprompted question, but a 14 point lead for NO when people were given an explanation of the two systems.
> 
> This month they have repeated the exercise and found significant convergence between the two questions. Now on the bare referendum question Populus found YES on 33% (down 8 ) and NO on 37% (up 8). On the prompted question there is much less movement – YES is unchanged on 29%, NO is up three on 46%. No still have a much bigger lead when the systems are explained, but the difference is considerably smaller.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 4, 2011)

Hahaha! Even under AV, AV wouldn't win!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2011)

Even under No and fuck off  they can't manage it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2011)

polls are all over the shop - latest You Gov/Sunday Times has YES leading by 4%:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/328441-Yes-or-No-AV-referendum-May-2011/page88


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2011)

What's that supposed to be a link to?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2011)

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/04/yougov-yes-lead-moves-up-to-4-percent/

sorry see above


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 6, 2011)

Accessible 1/2 hour debate involving John Prescott/Michael Howard vs. Charles Kennedy/Tessa Jowell on The Daily Politics Show.


If interested see iPlayer, it's on today's show 06/04/11, begins 15 mins in.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/04/yougov-yes-lead-moves-up-to-4-percent/
> 
> sorry see above


 God knows where they got from  - the YG/ST poll (pdf) has YES on 36% and No on 33% (or 40%/37% when weighted for intention tp vote)  Not 48/52. Looks they've just excluded don't knows - not very sensible.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2011)

a8, you currently have 558 posts in this thread.  How much are ERS paying per post?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 6, 2011)

Sadly I don't get paid by the U75 post - why were you thinking of applying?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm not good enough at doublethink to work for ERS.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 6, 2011)

articul8 said:


> polls are all over the shop


 
because some polls explain the system before they ask the question and some don't.....

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3261



> Most of this difference is down to question wording – in the last month YouGov and Populus have both done parallel surveys, one explaining the systems to respondents and one not. In two parallel surveys for the No2AV campaign YouGov found the YES campaign ahead by 3 points when people were asked just the raw question, but when they were given the explanations of the systems NO led by 11 points.
> In a similar exercise, Populus found a 12 point lead for YES when they asked just the raw referendum question, but found a 14 point lead for NO when they told people what the two systems were.
> It may be that these differences gradually vanish as we head towards the referendum itself and the public become more aware of what AV and FPTP actually are… or it may be that the referendum campaign produces more smoke than light, and the public don’t actually end up better informed at all!



However a leaflet is on it's way to everyone. So the polls to watch are the ones after the leaflet arrives on peoples doorsteps.....(obviously some people will chuck it in the bin without reading it)



> The Electoral Commission guide to the poll on whether to abolish the traditional first past the post system has been posted to every address in the country.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ash-after-349-word-vote-system-explainer.html

pdf of it here..

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/file/0005/109877/Eng-web.pdf


----------



## articul8 (Apr 6, 2011)

But the key polls are those which are filtered by likelihood to vote.  General cross-sections of the population might be interesting but they won't determine the result.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2011)

Like the populous one last week that found a 17% lead for NO when the question was prefaced with a brief explanation of what AV is and a 4% lead without the explanation?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2011)

Just did a yougov survey on av, some of the questions were well biased  Articul8 could have wrote it


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 7, 2011)

*Togeather we are strong.*

Yes Yes YES.
I dont do main politics a lot but this one I get a strong vibe about.....


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 7, 2011)

yeah man, cosmic


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> yeah man, cosmic


All the bits of the jigsaw coming togeather of the peoples search for the cosmic flow depends on a basic freedom that we still have not achieved.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 7, 2011)

What do you think AV will achieve?  Which bits of the cosmic jigsaw?


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> What do you think AV will achieve?  Which bits of the cosmic jigsaw?


The change of the statuesque a more clear vision the puzzle being more clear.  Its whot comes after AV thats more important ...does that make eny sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2011)

No, now fuck off.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 7, 2011)




----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 7, 2011)




----------



## moochedit (Apr 7, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> All the bits of the jigsaw coming togeather of the peoples search for the cosmic flow depends on a basic freedom that we still have not achieved.


 
wow.. that's so beautiful man 












Bet you roach your polling card before may 5th though


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

*Why put about doubt.*

Hi moochedit.
Thanks for feed back.

Encouraged by the presence of a believer.

To make the words the task to bond with like minded souls.

Not fitting in but being part of.

                Keep the faith 
                         cm.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 8, 2011)

So the posters who support AV on here are a8, Andrew Hereford and this idiot - yet another excellent reason why to vote no.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> So the posters who support AV on here are a8, Andrew Hereford and this idiot - yet another excellent reason why to vote no.


Are you referring to me


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

*All you need is love.*



redsquirrel said:


> So the posters who support AV on here are a8, Andrew Hereford and this idiot - yet another excellent reason why to vote no.


Anyway your the idiot for voting no.
We may never have the chance to change things like this again have you absolutely no imagination at all.
I dread to think whot your hidden agenda is ......


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> So the posters who support AV on here are a8, Andrew Hereford and this idiot - yet another excellent reason why to vote no.


 
There were 32 of us at the last count


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Are you referring to me


 
is this is cosmic "you wanna take this outside" offer?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There were 32 of us at the last count


 
And if i recall it turned out that was you 3


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Anyway your the idiot for voting no.
> We may never have the chance to change things like this again have you absolutely no imagination at all.
> I dread to think whot your hidden agenda is ......


 
I think I might cut my own nose off with a chainswaw. I might never have the chance to do anything like that again.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Odd this - who'd have thought it!

YouGov – Labour would do worse under AV:



> There is a new YouGov poll for Channel 4 News asking how people would vote under AV. It projects that Labour would suffer the most under AV, with the Lib Dems gaining the most and the Conservatives largely unchanged – their losses would be cancelled out by gains.





> Crucially, it challenges the long-held assumption that Lib Dem voters would vote for Labour as a second preference, revealing that these votes are actually swinging to the Conservatives.





> What this all boils down to is that in Con v Lab marginals the lower preferences of Lib Dems would help the Conservatives win seats from Labour, in Lab v LD seats Conservative lower preferences will help the Lib Dems win seats from Labour, in Con vs LD seats Labour lower preferences will help the Lib Dems… but Con losses there will be cancelled out by Con gains against Labour.



But this is impossible! It could never ever happen! etc Mug.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

This confirms nothing - it isn't based on people's actual voting behaviour it is based on polling on second preferences 4 years away from a General Election.  It also fails to look at the increase in first preference support for parties like the Greens that you would currently get under AV - so gives LD 2nd preferences undue weight.

It is highly contestable:
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2011/04/av-just-keeps-getting-better-and-better.html?spref=tw


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

It demonstrates a basic point, however -- that it is far from clear cut that Lib Dem voters would necessarily back Labour as their second choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> This confirms nothing - it isn't based on people's actual voting behaviour it is based on polling on second preferences 4 years away from a General Election.  It also fails to look at the increase in first preference support for parties like the Greens that you would currently get under AV - so gives LD 2nd preferences undue weight.
> 
> It is highly contestable:
> http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2011/04/av-just-keeps-getting-better-and-better.html?spref=tw


 
Er yes it does. 

Eoin is a nice chap but he's one of you lab/lib-dem types and pro-AV. I'm not at all surprised he's spinning as fast as you today - look at that talk of 'potential' votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It demonstrates a basic point, however -- that it is far from clear cut that Lib Dem voters would necessarily back Labour as their second choice.


 
Basic politics - the lib-dems and tories are moving together as an electoral bloc -formally or informally. The logic of the coalition demands it. AV will help them to prop each other up. That's politics - real politics.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

a) Will be the LDs and Tories still be "moving together" in 4 years time?  Given the local government apocalypse they are about to get hit with, there will be major internal pressure for them to begin the process of distancing themselves from the Tories.   LDs would survive better by achieving this than by relying on Tory 2nd prefs which will see them leach support massively to labour.

b) the people who voted LD in May 2010 won't automatically vote Labour this time (some will of course) - others will be voting Green, independents, others.   They will still have 2nd prefs and very unlikely to be Tory.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> one of you lab/lib-dem types


 Why do you persist in this bollocks?  Is McDonnell a lab/lib type?  Have PCS fallen for a Lab/Lib conspiracy?  And the Greens?  don't confuse your own mistaken impressions for the world as it is.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

oops double post


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

You've got all the good guys on your side. It's not fair.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Whilst it's true there are some on "our side" that are fairly explicit about wanting to create Lib/Lab progressive fusion, others would like to see an end to the "Labour or you're irrelevant" utlimatum that FPTP presents to the left.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Come on everyone, COLIN FIRTH supports AV!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Come on everyone, COLIN FIRTH supports AV!



...Not to mention Simon Callow. 

Name me one good luvvie worth their salt that supports the 'no' campaign, eh? It's time you guys admit you're wrong and bow out gracefully.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Firth was certainly right about urging a vote for the lib-dems wasn't he?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

Firth is a shit actor that got lucky with a single role in a big pile of otherwise cack performances.

It had to be said.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

I don't think celebrity endorsements are here or there - don't like that style of campaigning


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

But your other pointless endorsements are somehow relevant?  Yeah, nice one.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

political endorsements are different altogether.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

You mean the 12 prominent business people? Who were they again?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

Course they are.  Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the 12 prominent business people? Who were they again?


 
Wasn't Engels a "businessperson"? - can't read politics off from profession so crudely.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

That's the most pathetic yet.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

how - isn't it true?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

_Look at all the naughty people on your side, that's why you're wrong - the naughty people on my side don't matter. It's not about even whose naughty._

As i said, pathetic.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

I haven't said anything of the sort.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I haven't said anything of the sort.


 
To be fair, 80% of your argument so far has consisted of 'ooh look, David Cameron's voting NO, do you want to be like him?' or similar.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

12 Modern day Engels all lined up for AV. Brilliant. How lucky we are to have such titans amongst us. 

Who exactly are these 12 whose politics we can't read from their 'profession' then?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

An endorsement is an endorsement.  Unless it is backed with hard science -- in which case it is no longer really an "endorsement" as such -- it's just personal opinion.  Well-meaning people can be wrong in their opinion, as can naughty evildoers.  Either take the whole endorsement thing as it comes, Colin Firth and all, or give up on it altogether.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> To be fair, 80% of your argument so far has consisted of 'ooh look, David Cameron's voting NO, do you want to be like him?' or similar.


 
It is in no way significant that not the Tories are totally (or 99.9%) united behind a No vote - if they thought it would punish Labour why would they adopt this position?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

See, we're back to endorsements again.  You like endorsements as long as they are of the _right sort_.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Modern day Engels - whose politics we can in no way read off from their professions:

Lord Aldington
Senior adviser, Deutsche Bank

Russell Chambers
Senior adviser, Credit Suisse

Guy Dawson
Chairman, Financial Institutions, Nomura

Terry Duddy
CEO, Home Retail Group

Lord Jay of Ewelme
Director, Candover Investments

Patrick O’Sullivan
Chairman, Old Mutual

James Palumbo
Co-founder, Ministry of Sound

Vijay Patel
CEO, Waymade Healthcare

Roland Rudd
Senior partner, Finsbury

Lord Sharman of Redlynch
Chairman, Aviva

Sir Stephen Wall
Adviser, Macquarie European Infrastructure Investment Fund



> A vote for change on May 5 would be a victory for fairness and a break with a system of the past. It would be good for the country and good for business.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Aviva have that nice Paul Whitehouse on their adverts, and he seems quite common. I trust them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> An endorsement is an endorsement.  Unless it is backed with hard science -- in which case it is no longer really an "endorsement" as such -- it's just personal opinion.  Well-meaning people can be wrong in their opinion, as can naughty evildoers.  Either take the whole endorsement thing as it comes, Colin Firth and all, or give up on it altogether.


 
whether you see AV as advantageous or not depends on the criterial by which your are judging it - and the selection of criteria is POLITICAL.  So there's the world of difference between someone who is advancing a position from a political perspective, and an apolitical celeb associating themselves with a campaign for reasons of their own profile.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

James Palumbo is really close to actually being called Columbo.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> whether you see AV as advantageous or not depends on the criterial by which your are judging it - and the selection of criteria is POLITICAL.  So there's the world of difference between someone who is advancing a position from a political perspective, and an apolitical celeb associating themselves with a campaign for reasons of their own profile.


 
How do you know how political the celeb is and why the are campaigning for it?
How do you know how little the politician is endorsing something for the sake of personal profile?


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> James Palumbo is really close to actually being called Columbo.


 
He always stops the music at the Ministry of Sound, and then plays one more tune ("choon").


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Aviva have that nice Paul Whitehouse on their adverts, and he seems quite common. I trust them.


 
It's what Engels would have wanted.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Lord Robert Winston is against AV; he has a moustache and he knows Science, so suck on that.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Modern day Engels - whose politics we can in no way read off from their professions



I've no idea what their politics are.  They are probably very mixed.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

I can't see a single reason to be suspicious of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Who knows what politics representatives of big capital have! It's all about choice and the individual!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've no idea what their politics are.  They are probably very mixed.


 
Yeah, probably very mixed.  You're probably right.  

And political endorsements don't have anything to do with personal profile either.  They can entirely be trusted for the in-depth political analysis that lies behind them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> How do you know how political the celeb is and why the are campaigning for it?



I don't rule out endorsements because they come from celebrities.  If they come from celebs with a political view then fine.  



> How do you know how little the politician is endorsing something for the sake of personal profile?


 
Why would there be greater profile for them in declaring for yes than declaring for no.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who knows what politics representatives of big capital have! It's all about choice and the individual!


 
No, it's true.  Some of them are neo-con and others are neo-lib.  Still others are fundamentalist libertarian whilst others are old-school Tory.  And then there are the Friedmanites and the Thatcherites.  Their politics are all over the bloody shop.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who knows what politics representatives of big capital have! It's all about choice and the individual!


 
All businessmen wear bowler hats and are Tories.  Fact.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why would there be greater profile for them in declaring for yes than declaring for no.


 
Why would an individual career Tory stick his head above the parapet to endorse AV against the apparent consensus of his party?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> All businessmen wear bowler hats and are Tories.  Fact.


 
How many CEOs of City businesses do you personally know, out of interest?  Wanna compare?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

personally?  none.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why would an individual career Tory stick his head above the parapet to endorse AV against the apparent consensus of his party?


 
for profile?  except that political endorsements are primarily just that - it's you trying to argue they are aren't


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> personally?  none.


 
I know quite a lot.  Every single one of them has a pretty Friedmanesque attitude towards economics.  I don't know any that are left-wingers.  I'm not discounting the possibility that there are some serious tax 'n' spend capital leaders out there but I'm not betting that there are any in your Magic 12.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> for profile?  except that political endorsements are primarily just that - it's you trying to argue they are aren't


 
What makes you think that a Tory has done any in-depth analysis of his own other than swallowing his party line?  Fuck what they think about it -- chances are they are a total moron.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

I'd be willing to bet that there are more CEOs that are voting NO.   Anyway, I don't think much of business endorsements any more than i think of celeb ones.  I'm interested in political interests.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What makes you think that a Tory has done any in-depth analysis of his own other than swallowing his party line?  Fuck what they think about it -- chances are they are a total moron.


 
But *why is it the party line*?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

Yes, politics sits entirely divorced from the rest of the goings-on of a country.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'd be willing to bet that there are more CEOs that are voting NO.   Anyway, I don't think much of business endorsements any more than i think of celeb ones.  I'm interested in political interests.


 
Good idea. What influence does business have on politics anyway?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But *why is it the party line*?


 
That's the question, isn't it?  You think you have the answer -- that they have done lots of analysis and concluded that they are personally sufficiently worse off for them to campaign in that direction.  I think that you've scratched the surface, no more.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'd be willing to bet that there are more CEOs that are voting NO.


I'm willing to bet that the vast majority won't be voting at all, actually.  They really couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Well the alternative is that the Tories are dispassionately putting forward something that runs against their own interests due to philsophical objections.  How likely does that sound?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well the alternative is that the Tories are dispassionately putting forward something that runs against their own interests due to philsophical objections.  How likely does that sound?


 
Is that the best that your imagination can run to?


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Well the alternative is that the Tories are dispassionately putting forward something that runs against their own interests due to philsophical objections.  How likely does that sound?


 
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

come on then, why are the Tories opposing it if they would benefit?   Isn't it more likely that they believe they would suffer under it?


----------



## Random (Apr 8, 2011)

How about the idea that AV versus FPTP is no big choice at all. That the two systems are equally acceptable to business?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Oh look, yet another _impossible, never going to happen can't ever happen_ lash up between the lib-dems and the tories! This time in Coventry. 

Ever get the feeling that _the politics_ is getting away from you a8?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

First past the post is fine, if you want bigger majorities then we need bigger voter turnouts. 

Ironic that the risk of a low turnout for the referendum could cause a calamity of the Yes vote winning on a pathetic turnout. 

Will yes voters be more insistant to turn out than no voters, I am not sure, but I worry.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> if you want bigger majorities then we need bigger voter turnouts.



This is bullshit - turnout has nothing to do with the likelihood of a party getting a majority in Westminster.  That has to do with the fracturing of the two party system and the increasing number of safe seats.  Actually even under FPTP the likelihood of recurring hung parliaments has never been higher.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

The greater the turn-out, the bigger the Labour vote, in general.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh look



Are you being deliberately simple?  I am not arguing that AV would work in Labour's favour if the election was held today.  I am arguing that 4 years hence the pattern will have returned to something more familiar.  Clegg's mutant coalition politics is not sustainable.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> The greater the turn-out, the bigger the Labour vote, in general.


 
not necessarily - depends on differential element.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Random said:


> How about the idea that AV versus FPTP is no big choice at all. That the two systems are equally acceptable to business?


 
How does that explain why the Tories are so unanimous on it?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

Here's two of the more obvious possibilities:

1) It is politically expedient for the Tories to be seen to have clear blue water between themselves and the Lib Dems on this issue.
2) Some influential individuals genuinely think they'll be worse off under AV and the rest have followed suit.  Note that just because they believe this, doesn't make it true.

Note also that even if it is true that the Tories would be marginally worse off, that doesn't mean the effect would be large enough to be material, nor does it reflect the only issue at stake here.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Are you being deliberately simple?  I am not arguing that AV would work in Labour's favour if the election was held today.  I am arguing that 4 years hence the pattern will have returned to something more familiar.  Clegg's mutant coalition politics is not sustainable.


 
wtf has that to do with the forming under under nose tory/lib-dem electoral pact that you denied could ever happen? And that AV would bolster? You have absolutely no grasp of the politics at work here - none at all.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> not necessarily - depends on differential element.


 
Did I say 'necessarily'? Did I, in fact, say 'in general'?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

1) The Lib Dems like the idea of AV because they think they will often be a second preference. So they think, AV will be good for the Lib Dems. 

2) AV is fundamentally undemocratic and unfair because some or many voters get to express and have counted multiple preferences at the same weight per preference as people whose first preference only is counted. 

3) AV in the second and third rounds can overcome the FPTP verdict of the initial vote and instead elect someone who would not have been elected under a FPTP system. Unfair. 

4) FPTP is not broken, there is no need to fix it. 

5) Even back in Churchill's day he recognised that AV was a weak system, Winston Churchill argued that AV meant ”The most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates.”


----------



## kabbes (Apr 8, 2011)

Geez, WW, I'm going to vote NO but even I think your points 2-5 are rather crap.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> wtf has that to do with the forming under under nose tory/lib-dem electoral pact that you denied could ever happen? And that AV would bolster? You have absolutely no grasp of the politics at work here - none at all.


 
I said it couldn't happen on a national scale at a general election - let's see shall we?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Let's ignore signs of it happening all over the shop? No thanks.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Geez, WW, I'm going to vote NO but even I think your points 2-5 are rather crap.


 
I am sure I can think of some better ones - perhaps I need to !  

The thing that worries me is that the yes campaign could win the referendum because of laziness of the electorate. People wanting change are likely to vote, those apathetic may not bother. It would be awfully ironic if the yes vote were to win on a tiny FPTP turnout.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Let's ignore signs of it happening all over the shop? No thanks.


 
Let's mistake a short-term arrangement for a sustainable longer-term trend.  Great.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This time in Coventry.


 
 


looks like the lib dems are giving the tories a free run against labour in my ward (westwood)

anyone know who "socialist alternaltive" are ?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

The Socialist Party.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> 1) The Lib Dems like the idea of AV because they think they will often be a second preference. So they think, AV will be good for the Lib Dems.
> 
> 2) AV is fundamentally undemocratic and unfair because some or many voters get to express and have counted multiple preferences at the same weight per preference as people whose first preference only is counted.
> 
> ...



These are your arguments _against_ AV?


----------



## moochedit (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The Socialist Party.


 
ah ok cheers. i'll vote for them then. other options are tory,labour,green and bnp.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

Imagine that was a parliamentary ward.  Under FPTP almost certain that EITHER the SP/Green vote would be squeezed out of existence OR they would take enough votes off Labour to let the Tories in.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> These are your arguments _against_ AV?


 
Some of them yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Imagine that was a parliamentary ward.  Under FPTP almost certain that EITHER the SP/Green vote would be squeezed out of existence OR they would take enough votes off Labour to let the Tories in.


 
Or the tories would win by a mile  as they usually do. Great example.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Imagine that was a parliamentary ward.  Under FPTP almost certain that EITHER the SP/Green vote would be squeezed out of existence OR they would take enough votes off Labour to let the Tories in.



As i see it under AV your choice is as follows:

vote labour as 1st choice 
vote tory as 1st choice
vote other party 1st choice but rank labour higher than tories  (so really voting labour)
vote other party 1st choice but rank tories higher than labour  (so really voting tory)
vote other party 1st choice & leave labour and tory boxes blank (so really abstaining from voting)  (you don't have to number all the candidates)  *
spoil your ballot
stay at home on polling day

so not much different to now really.

* because of this it's still possible to win on less than 50% by the way


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Some of them yes.



It's all too easy to come up with five negatives to boost your case, I could easily reel off at least that many about fptp to illustrate how undemocratic it is (I won't, I'm sure they've been covered somewhere here over the past 2,000 plus posts). Could you come up with five positive points on the virtues of fptp? I could even come up with two or three myself, but ultimately we are being asked to judge one against the other, and for me AV has more in its favour than fptp.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2011)

moochedit said:


> spoil your ballet


 


The point is that you can really favour the Greens or the SP, whilst still caring that the Tory is not elected.  

Under FPTP you would have to vote tactically vote Labour in these circumstances OR you would be risking getting the outcome you want least.

AV lets you back who really want to win with the insurance policy that if they are eliminated your vote still influences the outcome.


----------



## scooter (Apr 8, 2011)

Seems like a vote for AV is basically an uber vote for the LibDems. You only vote one time in one election (the referendum) but then the Lib Dems get into government in every future election.

So it's not even like voting for the Lib Dems in an election - it's like voting for them in every future election ever by only voting once. It may be a Lab/Lib coalition or a Con/Lib coalition but it will always be a Government with the Lib Dems in it.

This is good if you happen to be a Lib Dem supporter but not so good if you're not. Why should the third most popular party be in government every time?

And it's not like coalition governments are impossible with FPTP - we've got one now.


----------



## co-op (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> 4) FPTP is not broken, there is no need to fix it.



Eh? This here is the 'No' campaign's biggest weakness surely? FPTP is so obviously crap in modern Britain that the temptation is to vote for _any_ alternative.

There's a historical case for FPTP; in the 1950s the Labour and Conservative parties got as high as 97% of votes cast, often on turnouts of the high 80%s - in those circs, I think you can say FPTP is working - the big two parties were getting active support from over 80% of the electorate. But in 2010 we got 66% turnout (and that's the highest since 1997, in an obviously balanced or critical election so I'd guess as high as you can expect it to get nowadays) and of them only 65% voted for the Big Two - way under half of the electorate - yet they are allowed to stitch up the entire political process. It's utterly corrupt.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 8, 2011)

scooter said:


> And it's not like coalition governments are impossible with FPTP - we've got one now.


 
The point of changing the voting system isn't to ensure that we get coalition governments every time - although of course we probably would.  The point of changing the voting system is to try and get away from a situation where the only people who really decide who governs are a few thousand voters in the marginal constituancies, and where all the parties compete to get _their _votes by making themselves more and more similar in policies and image. 
Many years ago I liked AV, liking the way it keeps the constituency link, but nowadays think it probably isn't a radical enough change.  FPTP is so flawed that I probably am going to vote for AV since a change, however minor, will be an improvement.  Surely the vote for the Green party, for instance, would go up under an AV system, and I'm sure that many people will relish being able to vote for the party which best reflects their views first, and not having to always unenthusiastically vote Labour (or even LD in the past) simply to keep the Tories out.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 8, 2011)

I wonder if AV would make much difference at all. There will be lots of people who will just put down their first choice and ignore the other options. It is not as if there is any real difference between the three tory parties. Of course it is the marginal seats that really count and I don't think that AV will make much difference. Channel 4 News did a trial poll using AV and found that the old perception that people would vote as if they thought that Labour and LibDem had the most in common is wrong. This they concluded meant that it would be the Tories who would benefit from AV rather than the LibDems. Cat meet pigeons.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

They found that labour would lose, tories pretty much stay the same and the lib-dems would gain.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But the key polls are those which are filtered by likelihood to vote.  General cross-sections of the population might be interesting but they won't determine the result.


 
So like the populus one then? The one that finds 

Populus suggest the NO vote is firmer than YES




> Looking again at Populus’s AV polling earlier this month I spotted something interesting. As you’ll recall, Populus asked two questions – one a bare question which found YES on 33% and NO on 37%. The second briefly describing AV in the question which gives NO a higher lead, as we’ve seen in other polling. Here Populus found 46% saying they’d vote NO, 29% YES.
> 
> However, until I looked at the tables I hadn’t spotted something more interesting about Populus’s second question: they gave people a four point answer scale, asking people both how they’d vote, and how certain they were, and the NO vote appears to be much firmer.
> 
> Amongst the 46% who said they’d vote NO, 31% said they would definitely vote NO, 15% would likely vote No but haven’t completely made up their mind. Amongst the 29% who said they’d vote YES, only 11% said they’d definitely vote YES, 18% that they hadn’t completely made up their mind.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They found that labour would lose, tories pretty much stay the same and the lib-dems would gain.



Bear in mind that that is based on current voting intentions. But even so, the argument can't be about which system will automatically give us more Labour governments, it has to be about which system gives us a government that more fairly reflects the wishes of the electorate by effectively taking the vote onto subsequent rounds when an outright winner doesn't appear after the first choices are counted, even if that means we get tory governments. To ensure more Labour governments the Labour party has has got to come up with better policies.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Bear in mind that that is based on current voting intentions. But even so, the argument can't be about which system will automatically give us more Labour governments, it has to be about which system gives us a government that more fairly reflects the wishes of the electorate by effectively taking the vote onto subsequent rounds when an outright winner doesn't appear after the first choices are counted, even if that means we get tory governments. To ensure more Labour governments the Labour party has has got to come up with better policies.


 Of course it's based on current voting intention! What else could it possibly be based on? That's not any sort of criticism of the findings at all. 

I've not and won't be making any such argument - the only one coming close to saying AV is good because it will benefit labour is the labour party member articul8. And frankly, as i've pointed out a number of times to a number of posters, people will decide on what their own priorities in the vote are - you don't get to tell them on what what they're allowed to reach their decision.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's all too easy to come up with five negatives to boost your case, I could easily reel off at least that many about fptp to illustrate how undemocratic it is (I won't, I'm sure they've been covered somewhere here over the past 2,000 plus posts). Could you come up with five positive points on the virtues of fptp? I could even come up with two or three myself, but ultimately we are being asked to judge one against the other, and for me AV has more in its favour than fptp.


 
Positive things about FPTP 

1) FPTP is simple to understand, one person one vote, everyone can understand it

2) Everybody voting just gets one vote of equal value to everybody else's vote

3) FPTP produces a clear winner out of the available candidates

4) FPTP is simple to administer, count the votes and you have your result


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

co-op said:


> Eh? This here is the 'No' campaign's biggest weakness surely? FPTP is so obviously crap in modern Britain that the temptation is to vote for _any_ alternative.
> 
> There's a historical case for FPTP; in the 1950s the Labour and Conservative parties got as high as 97% of votes cast, often on turnouts of the high 80%s - in those circs, I think you can say FPTP is working - the big two parties were getting active support from over 80% of the electorate. But in 2010 we got 66% turnout (and that's the highest since 1997, in an obviously balanced or critical election so I'd guess as high as you can expect it to get nowadays) and of them only 65% voted for the Big Two - way under half of the electorate - yet they are allowed to stitch up the entire political process. It's utterly corrupt.


 
You must be a Lib Dem ..


----------



## weltweit (Apr 8, 2011)

The most likely effect of using AV for elections to the houses of parliament will be to empower the Lib Dems who with FPTP have not yet got the results they were hoping for. 

There is no rule that the Lib Dems will not be able to gain seats under FPTP, in fact if they grow, they inevitably will gain more seats, in the past they won elections so why not in the future. 

But no, because they are having difficulties at present, with the present system, they want to change the system so that they have better chances. 

The only party that will benefit from a Yes vote is the Lib Dems.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Bear in mind that that is based on current voting intentions. But even so, the argument can't be about which system will automatically give us more Labour governments, it has to be about which system gives us a government that more fairly reflects the wishes of the electorate by effectively taking the vote onto subsequent rounds when an outright winner doesn't appear after the first choices are counted, even if that means we get tory governments. To ensure more Labour governments the Labour party has has got to come up with better policies.



AV does not deliver parliaments that are representative of voters' first preferences any more than FPTP does. It has been projected that in 1997 the Tories could have been reduced to third in terms of MPs, even though they still would have been second in terms of first preferences votes. That's less representative and less proportional than the FPTP result.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

I think it's telling that the Yes campaign is focussing more and more on making MPs work harder, making them 'reach out to other voters' and reduce the number of safe seats (the weakest claim by far), and almost entirely ignoring whether or not it delivers parliaments that are a 'fair' representation of voters' wishes.


----------



## co-op (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> You must be a Lib Dem ..


 
Far from it, I still haven't forgiven the SDP for gifting us Thatcher but your talking bollocks about how wonderful FPTP is just makes me yearn for anything except it.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

co-op said:


> Far from it, I still haven't forgiven the SDP for gifting us Thatcher but your talking bollocks about how wonderful FPTP is just makes me yearn for anything except it.


 
Just think about Nick Clegg's smug face if people vote for AV.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think it's telling that the Yes campaign is focussing more and more on making MPs work harder, making them 'reach out to other voters' and reduce the number of safe seats (the weakest claim by far), and almost entirely ignoring whether or not it delivers parliaments that are a 'fair' representation of voters' wishes.


 
Good point.

I'd also add a lot of MPs actually seem to work incredibly hard, but it's what they work hard at that is the problem.


----------



## co-op (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Just think about Nick Clegg's smug face if people vote for AV.


 
This is really the killer argument.

Just heard on the radio that some polls are suggesting that turnout may be as low as 15% in this farcical referendum in areas where there are no other local elections. What a pathetic little stitch-up it is, and everyone knows it.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

I pass some idiot's house on the way to work every morning that has a purple poster saying "Yes to fairer votes!" on it inside a speech bublble. What a slogan, do they think we are school kids or something?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

And of course there could be a lib dem-tory electoral pact. They're in government with each other, something that a year or so agho many people thought would be impossible.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

articul8 said:


> is this is cosmic "you wanna take this outside" offer?



Safe as houses but unpredictable ....


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

*Life is not whot it seems.*



frogwoman said:


> I think I might cut my own nose off with a chainswaw. I might never have the chance to do anything like that again.


I'd rather bite the so called hand that feeds me........
Or maybe I should just give up and let the powers that be carry on pushing me around........


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

How is voting for AV biting the hand that feeds you?


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> How is voting for AV biting the hand that feeds you?


I said the SO CALLED hand that feeds you.
The Tory's dont whont AV and thay are the so called hand that is supposed to be feeding us in the UK at the moment.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I pass some idiot's house on the way to work every morning that has a purple poster saying "Yes to fairer votes!" on it inside a speech bublble. What a slogan, do they think we are school kids or something?


 
How can you possibly vote against fairer votes froggie? Are you some sort of left-wing Nazi?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

Yes. Yes I am.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

I bet if a party promised to Make Things Better you wouldn't even vote for them then.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

No, I wouldn't.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Not even as a second preference?


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Speaking of which, I've had a great idea: when voting in AV, ranking every single candidate should be compulsory, or else your ballot is considered to be spoiled. Then each candidate with fewest votes will be eliminated until one candidate has 100% of valid votes. Now that's what I call fair.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> No, I wouldn't.


Oh do tell all  ............


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2011)

No I think I would vote for Satan actually.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

I would vote for Satan if he promised fairer votes.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Positive things about FPTP
> 
> 1) FPTP is simple to understand, one person one vote, everyone can understand it
> 
> ...



1) Listing in order of preference is hardly rocket science, who do you think won't be able to understand it?

2) Everyone has equal votes with AV too, if there's a need to count second votes then those who's first choice candidate are still in the running will effectively have their first choice counted again. With FPTP in the safe tory constituency where I live, if I vote Green then it's like being told "Sorry, you can't have them, now off you fuck." Whereas with AV it's "You can't have Green, but who would you prefer out of the others?"

3) FPTP invariably gives us clear winners who've only gained around 30% to 40% of the vote. AV also produces clear winners in each constituency but with a minimum of 50%.

4) If AV produces results that are more reflective of voters wishes, then so what if it's marginally more complex?

(Sorry, my turn to be negative).


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

*Theres a star man waiting in the sky.*

I'd like to vote for Pan


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 4) If AV produces results that are more reflective of voters wishes, then so what if it's marginally more complex?


 
If, indeed. Does it produce results that are more reflective of voters wishes at a parliamentary level? That's what most important, because the main point of general elections is to appoint a government with legislative and executive power, not to elect a community worker.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 8, 2011)

With AV we get a chance to f**k about with the system simples


----------



## moochedit (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Speaking of which, I've had a great idea: when voting in AV, ranking every single candidate should be compulsory, or else your ballot is considered to be spoiled. Then each candidate with fewest votes will be eliminated until one candidate has 100% of valid votes. Now that's what I call fair.



OZ does that in national elections but not in some state elections..



> The only large country to use AV for national elections, Australia, forces voters to rank all candidates, he notes.
> Bagehot confesses to considerable relief that that is not the version of AV being offered in Britain.





> But instead, the version being offered in Britain will allow voters to write in a first preference, and leave all others blank: the professor calls this practice "plumping."





> However, he explains, it is not correct to say that AV ensures every MP is elected by a majority. In the Australian states of Queensland and New South Wales, "plumping" is allowed in elections to state legislatures. And where it is allowed, it is very common.





> The greater the degree of plumping, the more an alternative vote election turns into a first past the post election...In Queensland, in 2009, where the Labor Party advised its supporters to "Just Vote 1", to give Labor their first preference and not to give a preference to any other candidate, around 63% of voters plumped. Even where a party does offer advice, that advice may be ignored. In Queensland, the Greens advised that second preferences be given to Labor, but 46% of Green voters decided to plump



http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/04/av_debate


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> If, indeed. Does it produce results that are more reflective of voters wishes at a parliamentary level? That's what most important, because the main point of general elections is to appoint a government with legislative and executive power, not to elect a community worker.



PR would do that but it's not on offer. Most voters are choosing the party that they want to form the government when they vote, not the individual constituency MP. And of course one of the biggest criticisms of FPTP is that we get governments elected with the consent of less than 40% of the electorate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 8, 2011)

Isn't this the question we should all be asking though: Why are we not being offered PR? 

I'm not going to vote, but if I were to go to the voting booth, I would cross out the questions and write exactly this. We should all boycott this vote, imo. Either that or spoil the ballot paper.

All elections should always have a box for 'none of the above' in any case. And if 'none of the above' wins 50%, the election should simply be declared invalid. Without this, no vote is even close to being democratic.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 9, 2011)

co-op said:


> This is really the killer argument.
> 
> Just heard on the radio that some polls are suggesting that turnout may be as low as 15% in this farcical referendum in areas where there are no other local elections. What a pathetic little stitch-up it is, and everyone knows it.


And the proposals for a minimum turnout blocked by those champions of democracy, the Lib Dems.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't this the question we should all be asking though: Why are we not being offered PR?



Think i will spoil it.

Of course when you vote on more than 2 systems you have the problem of what voting method to use for the referendum !

This is how they did it in new zealand 



> In 1992, a non-binding referendum was held on whether or not FPP should be replaced by a new, more proportional voting system. Voters were asked two questions: whether or not to replace FPP with a new voting system; and which system should be adopted instead. A second, binding, referendum was to be held the following year, in which voters would choose between FPP and the new system chosen to replace it.
> 
> The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPP or change electoral systems. The result was in 84.5 per cent favour of replacing FPP, and 15.3% against.[1]
> 
> ...



(they are having another referendum this year as well on whether to change again or go back to fptp)


----------



## moochedit (Apr 9, 2011)

If anyone thinks AV is complicated try and get your head around the Condorcet method ... 



> This binary matrix is inversely symmetric: (runner,opponent) is ¬(opponent,runner). The utility of this structure is that it may be easily added to other ballots represented the same way, to give us the number of ballots which prefer each candidate. The sum of all ballot matrixes is called the sum matrix—it is not symmetric.



http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Condorcet_method


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

Santino said:


> Just think about Nick Clegg's smug face if people vote for AV.


 
And Cameron's smug face if people vote NO.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And of course there could be a lib dem-tory electoral pact. They're in government with each other, something that a year or so agho many people thought would be impossible.


 
There's a wing of the LD MPs that owe their seats to an anti-Tory vote.  People like Cable, Huhne and Farron would get wiped out if they pursued this.  Clegg won't be strong enough to withstand the pressure - he'll either be toppled or dragged back to their old equidistance.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 9, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> A No vote is no guarantee of getting rid of the LibDems. It will be a near guarantee for more (and more solid) Tory government for the future.


 
They couldn't even get elected under FPTP this time round, remember.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> And Cameron's smug face if people vote NO.


 
I'm sure Cameron would be devastated by a yes vote


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

If he thought the above was true why are Tory donors giving excess of £1.9m to make sure it doesn't happen?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There's a wing of the LD MPs that owe their seats to an anti-Tory vote.  People like Cable, Huhne and Farron would get wiped out if they pursued this.  Clegg won't be strong enough to withstand the pressure - he'll either be toppled or dragged back to their old equidistance.


 
People like them have lost that anti-tory vote no matter what - as local polls have shown. They knew the coalition would lose them these votes and threaten their position and they went ahead with it anyway. Why on earth would they not do something similar once more - especially as the result would be their seats _effectively made safe_ rather than your claim of being wiped out. You have the logic of this absolutley arse about face. You're right that they'll be dictated largely by self-interest, problem for you is that that self-interest points to some form of electoral pact with the tories not away from it. It's why it's starting to happen across the country already, and why the Oldham East and Saddleworth voters acted as they did in the by-election. They're ahead of you.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If he thought the above was true why are Tory donors giving excess of £1.9m to make sure it doesn't happen?


 
Because as explained to you a few hundred times now - they and their backers would prefer a NO vote but are not really that bothered by a YES vote. A NO vote keeps the members onside at least though. _That's politics_. Is this really the level that your sophisticated analysis works on - a politician says something and that's what they mean. Nothing else?


----------



## Santino (Apr 9, 2011)

articul8, consider this for a moment: If the Tories were genuinely frightened by the prospect of either result of a referendum on AV, THEY WOULD HAVE NOT AGREED TO HOLD ONE. They've out-manoeuvred the Lib Dems at every turn, can you really not get your head around the actual practice of politics as opposed to your ERS fantasies?


----------



## thriller (Apr 9, 2011)

I'm voting yes.


----------



## Santino (Apr 9, 2011)

thriller said:


> I'm voting yes.



Why?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> With AV we get a chance to f**k about with the system simples


 
No we don't. What we get is something that doesn't advance either democracy as a whole or the power of the electorate as individuals or as a collective. Politicians will have no more onus on them to conform to their constituents' wishes than they do now, and having preference votes won't alter the three-party dynamic that's already in place, except in a few very marginal constituencies.

Nor "simples" at all, hippy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2011)

thriller said:


> I'm voting yes.


 
Unsurprising, given that it's long been established that you're an idiot.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If he thought the above was true why are Tory donors giving excess of £1.9m to make sure it doesn't happen?


 
Are you fucking stupid? Why are the Tories milking their donors for all they're worth? Are you seriously asking that question?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 9, 2011)

Just lost a large response so this is the lite version.. 



Andrew Hertford said:


> 1) Listing in order of preference is hardly rocket science, who do you think won't be able to understand it?



But it is more complicated than FPTP. FPTP is one vote .. simple and easy to understand. 



Andrew Hertford said:


> 2) Everyone has equal votes with AV too, if there's a need to count second votes then those who's first choice candidate are still in the running will effectively have their first choice counted again. With FPTP in the safe tory constituency where I live, if I vote Green then it's like being told "Sorry, you can't have them, now off you fuck." Whereas with AV it's "You can't have Green, but who would you prefer out of the others?"



No, second and third preferences are extra bites of the cherry, they give losing voters extra bites at the cherry. 



Andrew Hertford said:


> 3) FPTP invariably gives us clear winners who've only gained around 30% to 40% of the vote. AV also produces clear winners in each constituency but with a minimum of 50%.



That is just a function of the number of parties, it does not make the election any less fair. 

Just because AV ends up with one party with 50%, does not mean that they are any more desired by the electorate than they would have been had they won with 35% under FPTP. AV is not a more fair system.



Andrew Hertford said:


> 4) If AV produces results that are more reflective of voters wishes, then so what if it's marginally more complex?


 
But it does not. And in its recounts it values someones third preference at the same value as someone else's first preference, that is just silly and certainly unfair.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Are you fucking stupid? Why are the Tories milking their donors for all they're worth? Are you seriously asking that question?


 
Am I fuck, you dumb cunt.  I am asking why they think think that 1.9m of the donors cash is best spent on a NO vote - and on what basis would they spend it on a cause they are not that bothered about losing (as BA claims).   I don't buy that they would spend millions on - and even directly donate their staff to - a cause they are ambivalent about.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

Santino said:


> articul8, consider this for a moment: If the Tories were genuinely frightened by the prospect of either result of a referendum on AV, THEY WOULD HAVE NOT AGREED TO HOLD ONE.


 
Then why are their Central Office totally shitting it about losing (as revealed by Portland communications - link further up thread)?  They conceded a referendum because they believed they would win it.  They are spending millions on it to avoid a humiliating fuck up.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

It reveals nothing of the sort - it's a PR bloke offering the astonishing revelation (based on second hand gossip at that) that some tories used the bog standard political technique of scare mongering to achieve their aims. Your side are doing the exact same as i write. Utterly meaningless - and in no way contradicts the suggestion that a NO vote would be preferred but a YES vote does them any harm. 

I see there's a number of hefty union donations to that shit NO campaign as well. Not mentioned them have you?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 9, 2011)

Caroline Flint is voting NO. 

Just thought I would share that


----------



## Brainaddict (Apr 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I pass some idiot's house on the way to work every morning that has a purple poster saying "Yes to fairer votes!" on it inside a speech bublble. What a slogan, do they think we are school kids or something?


 
Catchy slogans are useful. It was that slogan that - before I'd looked into the proposal - made me suspect it was going to be a load of bollocks.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I see there's a number of hefty union donations to that shit NO campaign as well. Not mentioned them have you?


 
So you agree with union bureaucrats spending money on issues they haven't bothered consulting their members on?  Interesting.... Not that 10k from Paul Kenny really stands comparison with the shedloads of cash thrown at it by Tories.

And what are these other "hefty" donations?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

You'll have to point out to me exactly where i said that i agreed with it.Ta. Unless it was just yet another one of your feeble '_oh so you support *fit in some bollocks here*'_ lines. 

My point was that you didn't mention this union money or support for a NO vote. Odd as you started the thread arguing only the right supported a NO vote. Once again, you're forced into using the tactic claiming of _it's the tops, it's a clique at the centre_ etc to try and dig yourself out of a hole. Transparent.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

Some corking business donations to the YES campaign btw


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

You said some hefty donations...  Yet haven't produced anything beyond one moderately sized donation from GMB.  Who haven't consulted their members.  As though you thought TU tops were always forces of political progress... 

shameless.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

So you've not found me saying what you claim. Then you repeat it. Oh dear.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

what else did you mean to imply by pointing to some [sic] "hefty [sic] union donations" as though that made a NO vote more palatable?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2011)

What else? Maybe that you bringing up some donations and not others makes you look a bit of a tit. You fail to mention for example all the hefty donations from business you have and that the leading donors are almost all also donors to the lib-dems. You either be consistent or you don't bother. Do you really not get it yet after 6 months of you calling people tories for voting NO?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 9, 2011)

Of course, 10k is absolutely the same as £1.8 million - no difference at all.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 9, 2011)

Combustible said:


> I'm sure Cameron would be devastated by a yes vote



What's interesting about that poll is that under AV we actually get a result which is closer to voting intention percentages than you do under FPTP:

It puts Labour on 41%, which proportionally would mean 267 seats. But with AV they'd get 342 seats and with FPTP they'd get 355.

The Tories are on 35%; proportionally- 228 seats.  With AV- 255, with  FPTP- 255.

The Lib Dems are on 11%; proportionally- 72 seats.  With AV- 29, with FPTP- 16.

Labour would still win and their majority would only be 13 less with AV than it would've been with FPTP. Hardly a disaster for them.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> No, second and third preferences are extra bites of the cherry, they give losing voters extra bites at the cherry.


Apols if I don't go into all the points you made, but imo this one addresses one of the most intriguing aspects of the argument. 

Talking about voters as 'losers' or 'winners' implies it's akin to some kind of sporting event where the winners take all and the hapless losers go away with nothing. Voters aren't taking part in a combative sport, the point of a parliamentary election is surely to find out which candidate is most acceptable to the electorate as a whole. Even if the eventual winning candidate isn't the _first_ choice of many of them. 

And no, second or third votes are not more bites of the cherry, the first votes of candidates not eliminated are counted again too, that's how you eventually get to 50%.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 10, 2011)

weltweit said:


> No, second and third preferences are extra bites of the cherry, they give losing voters extra bites at the cherry.


what it really ought to mean is that in a situation where 2 or more left wing candidates combined split a majority left of centre vote, the tory without the split vote wouldn't win as can happen now.

or vice versa, but in this type of situation with 2 or more popular candidates standing from a similar political background and having a combined majority of the votes, the MP returned ought to be more representative of the electorates wishes than can be the case under the current system.

I'm undecided about AV, but reckon I'll probably vote yes on the basis that I know FPTP is a shit system, and AV has the potential to be a marginal improvement.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2011)

Yet moving back into reality we see that the "left" vote isn't really split at all - maybe a little by the greens but it's negligible in comparison with the right vote, which is split between the Lib Dems (nobody really believes they're left of centre or even centrist anymore, surely?) the Tories, UKIP and the BNP. I'm more interested in outcome than process and since it seems that the removal of the split vote would help the right then that's still a no. I've yet to see anyone give a single valid reason for a yes vote.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What's interesting about that poll is that under AV we actually get a result which is closer to voting intention percentages than you do under FPTP:
> 
> It puts Labour on 41%, which proportionally would mean 267 seats. But with AV they'd get 342 seats and with FPTP they'd get 355.
> 
> ...


 
You say Labour could still win but the fact is that 13 seats could be the difference between a Labour majority and another ConDem coalition (not that I consider Labour to be the answer). I'm also not all that keen on increasing the number of Lib Dem seats by nearly 50%.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 10, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> ...
> And no, second or third votes are not more bites of the cherry, the first votes of candidates not eliminated are counted again too, that's how you eventually get to 50%.


 
If you don't believe AV offers a second or third or fourth bite of the cherry for voters who vote for losing candidates, then you have simply not realised how the system works.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 10, 2011)

Sorry sir, your first vote is for a losing candidate. 
Have another try, ok .. 
No sorry sir your second vote is also for a losing candidate 
Have another try why don't you .. 
Oh ok that vote is for a winning candidate, we will use that one shall we, well done! 
Third time lucky! Well done you !


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 10, 2011)

That isn't a good explanation of AV at all. Sir's first vote might well be for the final winning candidate if lots of others have voted it as their second choice. Similarly all down through the list.

The only change to the procedure I want to see is the addition of a None Of The Above box to vote in. That would be a way of communicating to the politicians that lots of people are not apathetic about voting but angry at the limited choice. It would be an alternative to deliberately spoiling the paper which is not counted. The NOTA votes would be published.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 10, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It would be an alternative to deliberately spoiling the paper which is not counted. The NOTA votes would be published.


 
They do currently give a figure for rejected (i.e. spoiled) votes. Although you can't tell how many were intentionally spoiled from that figure, so NOTA would be a good idea.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 10, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Sorry sir, your first vote is for a losing candidate.
> Have another try, ok ..
> No sorry sir your second vote is also for a losing candidate
> Have another try why don't you ..
> ...



Good analogy if you see the election of MPs as being a bit like playing scratch cards.  

Jo Swinson's analogy on Question Time put it well, (and yeah, I know she's a Lib Dem)...

You ask a friend to go to the shops to get you a Mars bar. You say "if they haven't got any Mars bars, get me a Twix instead." 
Your friend comes back with a Twix because they don't have any Mars bars. So ultimately you only end up with ONE bar of chocolate, not two.

With FPTP you'd only be allowed to ask for your Mars bar, and if they don't have them then it's tough shit.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 10, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> You say Labour could still win but the fact is that 13 seats could be the difference between a Labour majority and another ConDem coalition (not that I consider Labour to be the answer). I'm also not all that keen on increasing the number of Lib Dem seats by nearly 50%.



But the number of seats won would be a more proportionate reflection of the percentage of votes cast nationally than they would be with FPTP. It's not about trying to make sure Labour win, Labour would still have to make themselves more attractive to the electorate than the other parties if they wanted to win.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 10, 2011)




----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

Has anyone read the AV information booklet - espcially the last few pages? they explain that regardless of the result of the referendum, the MPs will vote on boundry changes, and if these changes are passed, then AV will be used in future elections whether or not the public want it.


----------



## Santino (Apr 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Has anyone read the AV information booklet - espcially the last few pages? they explain that regardless of the result of the referendum, the MPs will vote on boundry changes, and if these changes are passed, then AV will be used in future elections whether or not the public want it.


 
WTF?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

Its in the electoral commission booklet. "Local elections and Referendum" page 8. 




			
				Electoral Commission said:
			
		

> *If more people vote 'yes' than 'no', when will we start using the 'alternative vote' system?*
> 
> The 'alternative vote' system will be used after a review of the boundaries of the area that each MP represents (known as their constituency) is completed. This is due to happen between 2011 and 2013. This review will happen regardless of the result of the referendum.
> 
> At the end of the review, the UK Parliament will vote on implementing the new boundaries. If the new boundaries are implemented, the 'alternative vote' system will be used for all future elections to the House of Commons.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Its in the electoral commission booklet. "Local elections and Referendum" page 8.


 
That's only describing what happens "if more people vote yes than no" ie the referendum is won.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 10, 2011)

Nah,It's the boundry changes review that happens regardless of the result, not the voting system.

If result is no the boundry changes happen regardless but we still use first past the post as the voting system
if result is yes, the boundry changes happen AND we change to AV.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

No, it says that the switch to av will happen whether the referendum's result is yes or not surely - only depending on the boundary changes? Or have i got that wrong? it doesnt make it very clear  or perhaps im just really tired


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2011)

Nah, that means what happens _if yes wins._

As it goes, if yes wins and the boundary aren't voted through in time we won't have AV for 2015 anyway.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> No, it says that the switch to av will happen whether the referendum's result is yes or not surely - only depending on the boundary changes? Or have i got that wrong?


 
no definately just the boundry changes, although that paragraph is a bit confusing to be fair.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2011)

ok, it really didnt make my brain feel any better


----------



## weltweit (Apr 11, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Jo Swinson's analogy on Question Time put it well, (and yeah, I know she's a Lib Dem)...
> 
> You ask a friend to go to the shops to get you a Mars bar. You say "if they haven't got any Mars bars, get me a Twix instead."
> Your friend comes back with a Twix because they don't have any Mars bars. So ultimately you only end up with ONE bar of chocolate, not two.
> ...


 
Joe Swinsons analogy on Question Time was fundamentally dishonest. 

You go to the store, you can have your first choice chocolate bar because it is there and available to be chosen, it just may be that not too many other people chose the same chocolate bar that you chose.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 11, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But the number of seats won would be a more proportionate reflection of the percentage of votes cast nationally than they would be with FPTP. It's not about trying to make sure Labour win, Labour would still have to make themselves more attractive to the electorate than the other parties if they wanted to win.


 
No, they'd try to appeal to the people who are voting now - the people who are voting Tory and Lib Dem. It wouldn't suddenly make them start to try to appeal to disenfranchised working class voters. Especially as a large proportion of those people are in safe (even under AV) Labour seats. It would be the same as now - targeting swing voters in marginals - only worse - they'd now be targeting swing voters and Tories in marginals.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 11, 2011)

Jo Swinson put absolutely nothing well on Question Time.  She was a desperate woman.

Electoral systems are nothing like choosing chocolate bars.  There's pretty much nothing that works in that analogy, not least because the effect of the outcome of an election has rather more impact that what you stuff your facehole with.  Context and qualitative impact can't just be thrown aside as if they don't matter.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 11, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, they'd try to appeal to the people who are voting now - the people who are voting Tory and Lib Dem. It wouldn't suddenly make them start to try to appeal to disenfranchised working class voters.


 
In fact AV could well make Labour less likely to try and appeal to disenfranchised working class voters.  Although many simply don't vote, some will vote for smaller parties and will be far more likely to put Labour as a second preference hence nullifying their impact.  A similar (possibly more significant) thing could well happen with UKIP.  UKIP may also be completely nullified as a threat to the Tories because most UKIP voters will probably put the Tories as second preference.  This is not a negligible boost for the Tories, there have been quite a few seats in the last few elections which the Tories have lost but the combined Tory+UKIP vote would have won.

A big problem with FPTP is the effective disenfranchisement of a lot of voters and main parties have no incentive to appeal to them. AV doesn't solve this and if anything makes it worse as they are likely to be able to mop up second preferences of those who protested on smaller parties.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 11, 2011)

Combustible said:


> In fact AV could well make Labour less likely to try and appeal to disenfranchised working class voters.  Although many simply don't vote, some will vote for smaller parties and will be far more likely to put Labour as a second preference hence nullifying their impact. .


The evidence from here in Australia certainly doesn't indicate that AV will make Labour pay more attention to their working class base. The ALP has chased after swing voters, while neglecting it's heartlands, just like the British Labour Party.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But the number of seats won would be a more proportionate reflection of the percentage of votes cast nationally than they would be with FPTP. It's not about trying to make sure Labour win, Labour would still have to make themselves more attractive to the electorate than the other parties if they wanted to win.


 
You're the only person in the country arguing for AV on the grounds that it is a more proportional system than FPTP. Why do you think that might be?


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No we don't. What we get is something that doesn't advance either democracy as a whole or the power of the electorate as individuals or as a collective. Politicians will have no more onus on them to conform to their constituents' wishes than they do now, and having preference votes won't alter the three-party dynamic that's already in place, except in a few very marginal constituencies.
> Nor "simples" at all, hippy.


You dont get it do you, shame.
I still say it's better than nothing, at the moment you can only vote for a safe seat or take a chance.
With AV we can take a chance first and then vote a more safe seat and if we all voted with are hearts and took a chance we could change the  main two party's getting in even if it was in just a few places for a start.
                       simples peace and love


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

You should be on the AV posters.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 11, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> With AV we can take a chance first and then vote a more safe seat and if we all voted with are hearts and took a chance we could change the  main two party's getting in even if it was in just a few places for a start.


 
Why couldn't that happen under FPTP?


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 11, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Why couldn't that happen under FPTP?


 Yeah horses for courses.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I see there's a number of hefty union donations to that shit NO campaign as well. Not mentioned them have you?


 
You don't "see" that because there aren't.  There is one relatively modest donation from the GMB.  But £1.88m from hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, investement bankers, business tycoons and corporate tax avoiders.

And you - mug that you are - are suggestign we play into their hands.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

But why didn't you mention them at all? Why are you not mentioning the businesses and orange book liberals funding your side? You need to be consistent here. Can you do it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

10k from one union - which didn't consult its members.  I would have thought most GMB members would be embarrased and angry to see their money going into the same pot as cash from this crowd.  There are some business people voting Yes - like Gordon Roddick - whose politics I don't share.  But they are of a different order to this lot:
http://labouryes.org.uk/no2av-the-mask-slips/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> 10k from one union - which didn't consult its members.  I would have thought most GMB members would be embarrased and angry to see their money going into the same pot as cash from this crowd.  There are some business people voting Yes - like Gordon Roddick - whose politics I don't share.  But they are of a different order to this lot:
> http://labouryes.org.uk/no2av-the-mask-slips/



I'm still interested why you didn't mention it.  I'm especially interested as to why you didn't mention Paul Marshall - amongst your backers. Oh, that's right you didn't mention _any_ when it came to money did you? I wonder why?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

one guy with an open and longstanding connection to the LDs - not really on the same scale now is it as the phalanx of big capital bankrolling the No.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Open and long standing? That's enough is it? Why isn't that enough for anyone else? Open and long standing. Sort of like the other side.

What sort of faction capital does he represent? Why aren't you publishing donors under £7500  - you want public openess - why are you not taking the lead?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 11, 2011)

The Tory faction is much more numerous and well-resourced - the fact they are prepared to cough up over £1.8m suggests they are not blase about the outcome, contrary to your assertions.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 11, 2011)

This is tonights Political Broadcast from No To AV.... (starts with the rik mayell thing i posted a few pages back but is longer)

http://votenotoav.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/preview-of-tomorrows-political-broadcast-from-no-to-av/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Is Rik mayall on board then?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 11, 2011)

I liked rik mayall in some of the episodes of bottom so i'll vote no to av. that appears to be the level of articul8s arguement here ...


----------



## moochedit (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is Rik mayall on board then?


 
He's in the PPB for notoav so he must be a supporter.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 11, 2011)

excellent, i like him, so i will vote no. if you like him you should vote no too. [/articul8


----------



## moochedit (Apr 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> excellent, i like him, so i will vote no. if you like him you should vote no too. [/articul8


 
what about eddie izzard ?


----------



## rover07 (Apr 11, 2011)

moochedit said:


> This is tonights Political Broadcast from No To AV.... (starts with the rik mayell thing i posted a few pages back but is longer)
> 
> http://votenotoav.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/preview-of-tomorrows-political-broadcast-from-no-to-av/


 
Judging by this broadcast.

NO campaign have no arguments apart from:

1. Its a bit complicated

2. Its not first past the post.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're the only person in the country arguing for AV on the grounds that it is a more proportional system than FPTP. Why do you think that might be?



That's not what I'm doing is it. I'm pointing out that the Yougov Channel 4 poll which supposedly proved AV would be a disaster for Labour was in fact nothing of the sort. Others can do whatever they like with the fact that the poll gave a more proportional result using AV than FPTP, but I can't see that there's anything there for the no camp to cheer about.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Jo Swinson put absolutely nothing well on Question Time.  She was a desperate woman.
> 
> Electoral systems are nothing like choosing chocolate bars.  There's pretty much nothing that works in that analogy, not least because the effect of the outcome of an election has rather more impact that what you stuff your facehole with.  Context and qualitative impact can't just be thrown aside as if they don't matter.



You could say the same for any analogy. The Lame gambling and sporting analogies we've been getting from FPTP fans so far have all been hopelessly out of context. Cameron desperately trying to equate a general election to the Grand National on the radio this evening was particularly excruciating.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Are you replying to Cameron? Why use his shit argument to make another shit one?

And no you cannot. Some analogies are apt.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's not what I'm doing is it. I'm pointing out that the Yougov Channel 4 poll which supposedly proved AV would be a disaster for Labour was in fact nothing of the sort. Others can do whatever they like with the fact that the poll gave a more proportional result using AV than FPTP, but I can't see that there's anything there for the no camp to cheer about.


 
No one but you said that it would be a disaster for labour. You have explicitly said it produces more proportionate outcomes because of  its nature. Take it back if you wish.


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2011)

No doubt their money will fund a cracking anti-AV broadcast.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 12, 2011)

Yes, I generally hate analogies.  They are almost universally shit, don't help draw out any truly illuminating points and lead to people arguing the analogy rather than the actual issue.

You'll find that none of the posts from the post-heaviest NO posters on this thread have involved analogies.  No "sporting contests", for example.  Besides, if you really aren't here to score points, why try to score some on a "but they're doing it too" basis?

Jo Swinson's shitty analogy was shit.  It didn't do anything useful so it was just obfusication.  If you want to defend it then you'll have to do better than "but all analogies are shit"


----------



## moochedit (Apr 12, 2011)

moochedit said:


> This is tonights Political Broadcast from No To AV.... (starts with the rik mayell thing i posted a few pages back but is longer)
> 
> http://votenotoav.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/preview-of-tomorrows-political-broadcast-from-no-to-av/


 
and here is tonights yes to av party political broadcast....

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/referendum-broadcast


----------



## Santino (Apr 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I generally hate analogies.  They are almost universally shit, don't help draw out any truly illuminating points and lead to people arguing the analogy rather than the actual issue.
> 
> You'll find that none of the posts from the post-heaviest NO posters on this thread have involved analogies.  No "sporting contests", for example.  Besides, if you really aren't here to score points, why try to score some on a "but they're doing it too" basis?
> 
> Jo Swinson's shitty analogy was shit.  It didn't do anything useful so it was just obfusication.  If you want to defend it then you'll have to do better than "but all analogies are shit"


 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a bad analogy is like a pear.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I liked rik mayall in some of the episodes of bottom so i'll vote no to av. that appears to be the level of articul8s arguement here ...


 
err - I've specifically said I disagree with celeb endorsements being so prominent in our campaign.  Fine to criticise my arguments but not to lazily attribute to me stuff I have argued against. 

Pointing out that Tory donors have given £1.88m to the campaign has a political significance.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> err - I've specifically said I disagree with celeb endorsements being so prominent in our campaign.  Fine to criticise my arguments but not to lazily attribute to me stuff I have argued against.
> 
> Pointing out that Tory donors have given £1.88m to the campaign has a political significance.


 
The same level of significance as pointing out that you're paid to promote AV?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

On balance I'd say that the yes video is even more disingenuous than the no video. The whole thing rests on the idea that there will be less safe seats - something that the stats simply do not back up, in fact quite the opposite.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 12, 2011)

Fewer.  Fewer safe seats


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 12, 2011)

I think the only possible thing that could convince me to vote yes is the no campaign idea that I'm too thick to work out how preferences work.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> err - I've specifically said I disagree with celeb endorsements being so prominent in our campaign.  Fine to criticise my arguments but not to lazily attribute to me stuff I have argued against.
> 
> Pointing out that Tory donors have given £1.88m to the campaign has a political significance.


 
I didn't attribute anything to you, your'e the one who's saying "peter stringfellow votes no so you should vote yes"


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 12, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> On balance I'd say that the yes video is even more disingenuous than the no video. The whole thing rests on the idea that there will be less safe seats - something that the stats simply do not back up, in fact quite the opposite.



A few days ago a study by The New Economics Foundation (whoever they are) claimed that the number of very safe seats would fall from 331 to 271 if AV was implemented, and the number of very marginal seats would rise from 81 to 125.  The NEF claim to be neutral on AV.  Clearly this is pretty key plank in the pro-AV arguement, as shown by their broadcast.   What's the evidence that the number of safe seats would rise?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> A few days ago a study by The New Economics Foundation (whoever they are) claimed that the number of very safe seats would fall from 331 to 271 if AV was implemented, and the number of very marginal seats would rise from 81 to 125.  The NEF claim to be neutral on AV.  Clearly this is pretty key plank in the pro-AV arguement, as shown by their broadcast.   What's the evidence that the number of safe seats would rise?


 
Australia.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Fewer.  Fewer safe seats


 
Pedant. Anyway, they also argue that seats will be less safe so I was sort of right by accident anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 12, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Pedant. Anyway, they also argue that seats will be less safe so I was sort of right by accident anyway.


 
That's a fantastic example of why the difference between "fewer" and "less" matters, actually!  "Less safe seats" actually means something completely different to "fewer safe seats".  Thanks for that!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> A few days ago a study by The New Economics Foundation (whoever they are) claimed that the number of very safe seats would fall from 331 to 271 if AV was implemented, and the number of very marginal seats would rise from 81 to 125.  The NEF claim to be neutral on AV.  Clearly this is pretty key plank in the pro-AV arguement, as shown by their broadcast.   What's the evidence that the number of safe seats would rise?



Their study basically showed that AV would make very little difference in terms of safe/marginal - only bu concentrating on the tiny number of very marginal seats and ignoring the larger number of marginal seats forecast by their model under FPTP can the YES campaign claims be backed up:


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 12, 2011)

In Australila which uses AV,  more seats seem to change hands on a given swing.   This would seem to imply that there are more marginals.  Chart shows results of last 12 elections.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

How many marginal seats would be made safe by lib-dems and tories lining up together - formally or informally. Power into the hands of the parties and out of the hands of hr voters (if you buy that bullshit anyway).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> That's a fantastic example of why the difference between "fewer" and "less" matters, actually!  "Less safe seats" actually means something completely different to "fewer safe seats".  Thanks for that!


 
 I hadn't realised you were being serious.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Their study basically showed that AV would make very little difference in terms of safe/marginal - only bu concentrating on the tiny number of very marginal seats and ignoring the larger number of marginal seats forecast by their model under FPTP can the YES campaign claims be backed up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm sure I read somewhere that studies had shown that Australia had more safe seats under AV than it would have under FPTP. I can't remember where I read it though so it's possible I actually read it in a dream or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith;11676933][QUOTE=butchersapron said:


> Their study basically showed that AV would make very little difference in terms of safe/marginal - only bu concentrating on the tiny number of very marginal seats and ignoring the larger number of marginal seats forecast by their model under FPTP can the YES campaign claims be backed up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Exactly  - nothing.(and that's without even knowing on what basis the reports authors decided how people would historically have voted under AV)


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 12, 2011)

Per this graph and given a House of Commons of 600, the number of very marginal seats would rise from 45 to 90 and in terms of deciding who forms a government that does represent a big difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Per this graph and given a House of Commons of 600, the number of very marginal seats would rise from 45 to 90 and in terms of deciding who forms a government that does represent a big difference.


 
Does it? I don't see how it necessarily does - just because they _may_ become very marginal it doesn't mean anything beyond one of the big parties will either win or win by wooing the voters of one of the other big parties - more power to the parties to wheel and deal with your vote.

 And again, with no info about how they decided to distribute preference votes in this report


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 12, 2011)

The simple fact is this. If a voting system is being offered to us by the political establishment the one thing we can be sure of is that it isn't going to mkae things more democratic. In stead of farting around discussing what they are currently offering we should simply accept that the only way to get a more democratic system is to vote no, have a widespread discussion about what people actually want, and then hold out for that. If we don't have to protest on a large scale to get it then I'm pretty certain it's not going to be worth having. I don't trust Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, or any of their cohorts, to propose anything that isn't going to further increase the control of party HQs over the entire democratic process.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And again, with no info about how they decided to distribute preference votes in this report


 
I think the assumption used to be that most tory and labour voters give their 2nd prefs to the lib dems and most lib dem voters give their second prefs to labour,
so i would guess they based it on that.

I very much doubt that is still the case though  (if it ever was true in the first place) as many labour voters hate the lib dems even more than the tories now and the remaining lib dem voters must be more tory leaning.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Yes, that's exactly what the polls have show over the last year.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If a voting system is being offered to us by the political establishment...


It's taken them long enough to grant us any say whatsoever on the system by which MPs are elected - this is the first time ever and has been granted, despite people calling for it since the 19th C at least.  And even now Tory corporate interests are chucking pots of cash at conning the public into voting no.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No one but you said that it would be a disaster for labour. You have explicitly said it produces more proportionate outcomes because of  its nature. Take it back if you wish.



Is this all you have left to resort to? Why not try and come up with a few solid reasons as to why you actually think FPTP is better and fairer than AV, because this kind of answer is getting you nowhere. Is FPTP better because it’s easier to understand? Is it because you get more safe seats? Weltweit had a good go a couple of pages back (no. 2302). See if you can do any better.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

Jesus christ, have you been reading any posts on this thread but your own? Is _what_ all i've left to resort to? Pointing out that a) you've misread my post and put words in my mouth as a result and b) your support for AV on the grounds that it produces more proportional outcomes is mistaken, this being the reason behind you being the only AV person to use the argument. The others have all recognised as ropey old tat.


----------



## xenon (Apr 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I have no hope of it really changing anything for the better, but I'll vote yes anyway on the grounds of wanting to make SOME kind of change to this rotten system.  I can't help feeling that perpetually refusing to vote to change anything will simply guarantee that nothing ever changes.
> 
> Waiting for the poll, by the way...
> 
> But put a "sell-by date" on the poll, because you'll want to take another sounding at some point in the future and compare them.


 

^ This.

It's a broken system. Voting for AV is the equivalent of giving it a wack and switching it back on. If it goes bang, who cares. Need a bran new one then. I favour a technical Demarchie. But I also favour a 20 hour working week and a whole load of other stuff that aint happening any time soon.

Why are the Tories against AV? I thought they had a taste for creative destruction. /sarcasm.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

YouGov show NO campaign seven points ahead



> Tonight’s YouGov poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%. More interesting is the Alternative Vote tracker – on the bare referendum question, weighted by likelihood to vote, YouGov are now showing a lead for the NO campaign. Yes are on 37%, No are on 44%. This is the first time that YouGov’s bare referendum question has shown the No campaign ahead.





> YouGov also reasked the prompted version of the question they’ve asked since last Summer (to different samples, obviously) and found Yes on 33%, No on 45%.


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2011)

All the Yes campaign has is shouting that the reasons for voting are obvious, and AV is obviously fairer and obviously better. It's not actually a very good strategy because it makes people think that it can't be that black and white.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> YouGov show NO campaign seven points ahead


 
Just goes to show what effect £1.88 million of Tory money can buy you.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

Xenon, I've done a complete about turn since then.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just goes to show what effect £1.88 million of Tory money can buy you.


 
Pathetic. The status quo is so threatened they've used almost their entire reserves (£1.8 million nearly bankrupting them of course) to stop the orange book lib-dems and murdoch funded freedom fighters (£2 million plus). Do you have any idea how crap you look right now?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

Indeed.  As if a serious threat to the Tories would only warrant £1.88m.  Ashcroft spends that in his sleep.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

I was right about the need to put a sell-by date on the poll, incidentally.  You now have no decent way of seeing how opinion has shifted between then and now.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The simple fact is this. If a voting system is being offered to us by the political establishment the one thing we can be sure of is that it isn't going to mkae things more democratic. In stead of farting around discussing what they are currently offering we should simply accept that the only way to get a more democratic system is to vote no, have a widespread discussion about what people actually want, and then hold out for that. If we don't have to protest on a large scale to get it then I'm pretty certain it's not going to be worth having. I don't trust Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, or any of their cohorts, to propose anything that isn't going to further increase the control of party HQs over the entire democratic process.



Why not vote yes, and then have a widespread discusion on whot people actually want.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

You mean why not do something that will make substantive change impossible for a long time then have a discussion about how to change things? I think a spot a flaw in your argument. Aside from you ignoring what Eric actually said about how change doesn't come from being offered by those who benefit from the current set up.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

Surely by voting no means your happy with the system.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Yes, just look at all the satisfied customers on here lining up to say why they're voting no. Do yourself a favour - read at least some of this thread. 

(it also means that you're a tory, you forgot that one)


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2011)

I heard that the No campaign end each working day by kicking a puppy.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Surely by voting no means your happy with the system.


 
There's been plenty of discussion on this and other threads. I'm voting no, because I think AV is piss poor, but would still like to see electoral reform. Personally I'd like to see STV but at the least PR.

My position is that if we accept AV, we'll not get a chance again in many many years to look at reform of our voting system. I'm not convinced that adoption of AV will significantly change our political landscape. If Lib Dems and Labour had any backbone and desire for voting reform, they'd have abandoned AV too and looked at decent alternatives to FPTP.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Surely by voting no means your happy with the system.


 
Voting no could mean that; it could also mean that you don't want one majoritarian system replaced by another, you want PR and see AV as delaying proper reform, you don't want a system that can be less proportional than FPTP, you want to damage the Lib Dems and the coalition, you think that the proposed change is politically marginal and as such poor value for money...I could go on but hopefully you get the point.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Surely by voting no means your happy with the system.


 
it means you're not happy with AV


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, just look at all the satisfied customers on here lining up to say why they're voting no. Do yourself a favour - read at least some of this thread.
> 
> (it also means that you're a tory, you forgot that one)



Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


 
You shouldn't just accept the first alternative you're given without really asking 'will it be an improvement?', as well as only thinking about the short-term.


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


 
If you accept a shitty little adjustment that's being offered in lieu of a real change you're condoning the whole crappy system.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


 
Not being happy with the powers that be doesn't demand that you accept the first offer they make; given that the offer is coming from those you're unhappy with you should be employing a great deal of scepticism and circumspection.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

stephj said:


> You shouldn't just accept the first alternative you're given without really asking 'will it be an improvement?', as well as only thinking about the short-term.


No way am I thinking about the short- term 
But if we just sit around winging about things we will carry on getting no where.....


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been



There have been many changes in the voting system

from wiki 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom



> The system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928. From 1688 to 1832, less than 10% of the adult male population had the right to vote.
> 
> The first act to increase the size of the electorate was the Reform Act 1832 (sometimes known as the Great Reform Act). It abolished 56 rotten boroughs (which had elected 112 MPs) and decreased the property qualification in boroughs. It gave some parliamentary representation to the industrial towns (142 MPs) by redistributing some MPs from boroughs who had disproportional representation. The electoral register was created. The overall result of the Act was that the electorate was increased to 14% of the adult male population. Although this was not a large increase, the Act was the first big step towards equal representation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 13, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The simple fact is this. If a voting system is being offered to us by the political establishment the one thing we can be sure of is that it isn't going to mkae things more democratic. In stead of farting around discussing what they are currently offering we should simply accept that the only way to get a more democratic system is to vote no, have a widespread discussion about what people actually want, and then hold out for that. If we don't have to protest on a large scale to get it then I'm pretty certain it's not going to be worth having. I don't trust Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, or any of their cohorts, to propose anything that isn't going to further increase the control of party HQs over the entire democratic process.



A 'no' vote will be used by all conservatives (small 'c') as evidence that there is no desire for democratic change, and we'll be stuck with the current rotten system for the forseeable.  Perhaps you've missed that fact there has been 'widespread discussion' of electoral reform going on for years now?  Any democratic changes will ultimately always be offered by the politcal establishment.  Ever since the Reform Bill of 1832 that has been the case, and whilst there is still more to do you can't argue that the (albeit shit) current system is _less _democratic that things were in the days of rotten boroughs.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been



We have a shit system. What they are offering us is shit squared, when what we want is a shovel to remove all the shit.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

If we get AV then that's it until we are old.  Talking of it as a pathway to further change is palpably ridiculous.  They're not going to change the whole damn system and then change it again.  They'll want a series of elections under their belt as a tester before they even begin to think of introducing further change.

A vote for "no" may or may not mean that we are stuck with FPTP.  But a vote for "yes" means we are DEFINITELY stuck with AV.  Anybody voting for AV because they think it might lead to PR is deluded in the extreme.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

The Tories pulled a fast one on the Lib Dems - a referendum on PR voting would have been a much better prize, Lib Dems accepted this AV referendum which isn't PR.


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> The Tories pulled a fast one on the Lib Dems - a referendum on PR voting would have been a much better prize, Lib Dems accepted this AV referendum which isn't PR.


 
It's almost as if some hard-nosed political cut-throats were negotiating with some incompetent twats who had delusions of grandeur.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


 
That's what they call leading someone by the nose Malcolm. Ask whose interests are served by this proposed change, ask why it's this system that's been offered, ask by who, ask what it means for real change, and ask why those who offer it get to decide what we're offered. Do a bit more than jumping through their hoops.

And as noted above, the _voting_ system has been changed loads of times - the actual system, rarely, in fact changes in the voting system are often used to prop up the actual system.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> No way am I thinking about the short- term
> But if we just sit around winging about things we will carry on getting no where.....



It is very short term thinking to just take the first offer, which is more of the same; i.e. 'we will carry on getting nowhere'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> It's almost as if some hard-nosed political cut-throats were negotiating with some incompetent twats who had delusions of grandeur.


 
exactly!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> A 'no' vote will be used by all conservatives (small 'c') as evidence that there is no desire for democratic change, and we'll be stuck with the current rotten system for the forseeable.  Perhaps you've missed that fact there has been 'widespread discussion' of electoral reform going on for years now?  Any democratic changes will ultimately always be offered by the politcal establishment.  Ever since the Reform Bill of 1832 that has been the case, and whilst there is still more to do you can't argue that the (albeit shit) current system is _less _democratic that things were in the days of rotten boroughs.


 
Why don't you widen your view out from just focusing on the electoral system - onto how society is organised as whole? A change to another system of FPTP will do zero to address that. Or do you imagine that it will in some way?


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> There have been many changes in the voting system
> 
> from wiki
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom


I was simply talking about the government offering the av vote votes for women etr came about through direct action.
If you wish to misinterpret me dont be so blatantly obvious


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Nice dovetailing of malcolm and the lib-dems naivety in the negotiations here...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If we get AV then that's it until we are old.  Talking of it as a pathway to further change is palpably ridiculous.  They're not going to change the whole damn system and then change it again.  They'll want a series of elections under their belt as a tester before they even begin to think of introducing further change.
> 
> A vote for "no" may or may not mean that we are stuck with FPTP.  But a vote for "yes" means we are DEFINITELY stuck with AV.  Anybody voting for AV because they think it might lead to PR is deluded in the extreme.


 
Yep, and the test elections will be to establish/ensure that under the new electoral system nothing changes - power relations unchanged etc



> If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

Malcom, seriously, how do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> I was simply talking about the government offering the av vote votes for women etr came about through direct action.
> If you wish to misinterpret me dont be so blatantly obvious





> Ok Im not happy with the powers that be so I vote against the first change in the voting system that has ever been


 is what you said

the first change in the voting system!  I pointed out there had been other changes, lots of other changes.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> No way am I thinking about the short- term


 
Accepting the first thing someone gives you is short-term so  back at ya.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> is what you said
> 
> the first change in the voting system!  I pointed out there had been other changes, lots of other changes.



YES but we still only have 2 safe party's to vote for.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> YES but we still only have 2 safe party's to vote for.


 
who are the safe parties?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> YES but we still only have 2 safe party's to vote for.


 
And with AV you'll have how many 'safe parties'?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> who are the safe parties?


Only the Tory's or Labour have had a chance of getting in since my life began so thay are the only safe parties.
Voters have felt voting for say the green party allthogh there harts might say yes why not or the loony party that would be fun, dont believe enough other voters will so they may vote for a safe labour party instead of the greens because thay only have one vote, but as I have said with AV they can vote green first choice and then labour or lib.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

And that will make them feel better for at least five minutes until they realise that they have functionally just voted Labour or Lib.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> And that will make them feel better for at least five minutes until they realise that they have functionally just voted Labour or Lib.



I see your point


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Only the Tory's or Labour have had a chance of getting in since my life began so thay are the only safe parties.
> Voters have felt voting for say the green party allthogh there harts might say yes why not or the loony party that would be fun, dont believe enough other voters will so they may vote for a safe labour party instead of the greens because thay only have one vote, but as I have said with AV they can vote green first choice and then labour or lib.



they are the two biggest parties yep, a PR voting system would enable other parties such as the Greens to get into parliament (although the Greens do already have one MP under FPTP) and other minor parties like UKIP and BNP

AV will only have an impact in marginal constitencies


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> And that will make them feel better for at least five minutes until they realise that they have functionally just voted Labour or Lib.


Your presuming people will not vote green first chiose.


----------



## strung out (Apr 13, 2011)

what makes you think people will vote less tactically under AV than they do now?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2011)

If AV is so good, how come hardly any other countries use it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> Your presuming people will not vote green first chiose.


 
No he's not.

Tactical voting under AV will just be displaced into the second round, and it'll leave the door open for parties to do back door stitch ups. It'll hand the party bureaucracies more power.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> they are the two biggest parties yep, a PR voting system would enable other parties such as the Greens to get into parliament (although the Greens do already have one MP under FPTP) and other minor parties like UKIP and BNP
> 
> AV will only have an impact in marginal constitencies


 
..and even then only to come up with the same range of results - a big party winning but with the pretence of _we're all in thisrtogether, look i must have had an appeal to almost everyone - i deserve this_


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If AV is so good, how come hardly any other countries use it?


 
Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> what makes you think people will vote less tactically under AV than they do now?


I can only speak for my self.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he's not.
> 
> Tactical voting under AV will just be displaced into the second round, and it'll leave the door open for parties to do back door stitch ups. It'll hand the party bureaucracies more power.


So what's your answer.
Where do we go from here.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

You vote NO.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> they are the two biggest parties yep, a PR voting system would enable other parties such as the Greens to get into parliament (although the Greens do already have one MP under FPTP) and other minor parties like UKIP and BNP


 
Even worse, AV could well make it harder for smaller parties to get into parliament.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 13, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Even worse, AV could well make it harder for smaller parties to get into parliament.


 
so now you're against AV?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea


 
How many other countries (other than former British colonies who had our shit system inflicted on them) use FPTP?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> . It'll hand the party bureaucracies more power.


 
how?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how?


 
Please, don't play so naive. It will lead to the parties in marginal seats knocking up deals in order to get the 2nd prefs of other parties - and it won't be the 73 green voters they're courting and offering deals to.

In Aus back room deals lead to parties _offering guidance_ on on how all the preference votes should best be used to achieve their favoured income. Another example of AV far from doing away with tactical voting actually expanding it.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 13, 2011)

My main argument is that this whole debate is naively accepting a whole set of restrictions from the political party elites without questioning them at all.

Firstly we do not have an electoral system for Parliamentary or Council elections that is based on party politics. It doesn't matter how much effort the various party HQs make to pretend that's the case, it simply isn't so. We do not vote for a party. We vote for specific candidates, and at present that is our ONLY electoral option to oppose or subvert political party hierarchies. This is what they want to take away eventually. They've already taken away pretty much any semblance of internal party democracy whereever it existed. The objective is that we get to choose only to vote for a party, and the apparatchiks at central office decide who our elected representatives will be.

This is important. We've just gone through a major scandal through a bunch of thieving bastards being caught fiddling their expenses as MPs. These people mostly haven't been completely ditched by their party organisations. They are sitting there waiting to come back. Yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards giving political parties the right to choose after the fact the candidate we will be deemed to have voted for. There is no way they can be trusted to do that. We have to stay with a system where we vote for specific candidates only.

Now AV doesn't break the link between MP and constituency that currently exists. However it is vulnerable to more behind the scenes tactical deals. It also completely fails to fix what I see as the big problem with British politics, which is the lack of connection between voter and candidate. Also the Electoral Commission claim it will make it more difficult for extremist parties to get elected... in other words it entrenches the current mainstream parties even more firmly.

I think it's a sop thrown at us to prevent us actually looking at what is really wrong with British politics. So I would rather see it knocked firmly on the head and a proper debate held that looks at the real issues that need to be faced.

What we actually need is something more like the US primary elections system. Something that increases the democratic basis for the selection of candidates. We need strict limits on national election spending by and on behalf of political parties, along with an increase in the local spending limits. We need MPs and councillors who are in the pockets of their constituents, and not in the pockets of party bureaucracies that are in hock to wealthy vested interests. AV does nothing at all to move us towards that.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Unbelievably inept and directly insulting drivel from the YES campaign today. Pathetic. They're really losing it as the date approaches.



> Say No to the BNP. Say Yes on 5th


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Please, don't play so naive. It will lead to the parties in marginal seats knocking up deals in order to get the 2nd prefs of other parties - and it won't be the 73 green voters they're courting and offering deals to.
> 
> In Aus back room deals lead to parties _offering guidance_ on on how all the preference votes should best be used to achieve their favoured income. Another example of AV far from doing away with tactical voting actually expanding it.



In Aus voters have to rank all the candidates so hence the need for guidance.   AV means that tactical voting does not mean voters are unable to demonstrate their true preferences.  

Don't see what is wrong with appealing for 2 preference votes - Livingstone has done it quite successfully by appealing to anti-war LDs (remember them?!) and Greens [he lost last time because the 1st preference votes collapsed].  This wasn't secret backroom dealing.  It was an open appeal to voters of other parties.  And took Labour somewhat to the left not the soggy Blairite centre.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Unbelievably inept and directly insulting drivel from the YES campaign today. Pathetic. They're really losing it as the date approaches.


 
Given Warsi's bullshit attacks saying AV would give parties like the BNP extra influence, it's not unreasonable to point out that Griffin is backing a No vote and that AV would keep out the BNP.


----------



## strung out (Apr 13, 2011)

the BNP aren't anywhere near power in FPTP either though. it's a red herring.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

Yes but if our opponents accuse us of giving influence to the BNP then surely it's fair game to defend ourselves from the charge?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Given Warsi's bullshit attacks saying AV would give parties like the BNP extra influence, it's not unreasonable to point out that Griffin is backing a No vote and that AV would keep out the BNP.


 
It's just your _if you vote NO you're a tory_ intensified (out of the palpable bad tempered desperation evident to most people)- this time _if you vote NO you're a racist!_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes but if our opponents accuse us of giving influence to the BNP then surely it's fair game to defend ourselves from the charge?


 
By suggesting that if you vote NO you somehow support the BNP? No, it's not.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

who's suggested that!?!  We are just pointing out that Griffin clearly doesn't believe the Tory lies being told about our campaign, or he wouldn't be advocating a No vote.


----------



## Santino (Apr 13, 2011)

Yes to fairer votes, except for BNP voters.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> In Aus voters have to rank all the candidates so hence the need for guidance.   AV means that tactical voting does not mean voters are unable to demonstrate their true preferences.
> 
> Don't see what is wrong with appealing for 2 preference votes - Livingstone has done it quite successfully by appealing to anti-war LDs (remember them?!) and Greens [he lost last time because the 1st preference votes collapsed].  This wasn't secret backroom dealing.  It was an open appeal to voters of other parties.  And took Labour somewhat to the left not the soggy Blairite centre.



Could you get any more patronising? The need for guidance? And of course, those recommendations would have nothing whatsoever to do with the parties horse trading behind closed doors well before the election would they? 

Livingstone's election was effected by by the lib-dems - the greens barely figured. And it wasn't the appeal that took them a step leftwards - that has always been Livingstone's platform. Nothing to with AV at all - or are you claiming that AV would today lead to him having to take a step rightwards to win back these lib-dem votes. because that would sort of destroy one of the only remaining claims you're left running with. (Beyond calling people tories and racists of course).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> who's suggested that!?!  We are just pointing out that Griffin clearly doesn't believe the Tory lies being told about our campaign, or he wouldn't be advocating a No vote.


 
Er...






			
				you lot said:
			
		

> Say No to the BNP. Say Yes on 5th


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

and where does it say that people everyone who votes no is a racist?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Oh grow up, the implication is that nice non-racists vote YES. What does that say about the NO vote that you've been castigating and characterising as tory, as right wing, as representing the status quo then?. Don't compound the original political idiocy with this defensive guff. The whole point is that _they don't have to say it_ - it's dog whistle politics.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 13, 2011)

LOL @ the desperation


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2011)

Belushi said:


> LOL @ the desperation


 
Indeed, any argument no matter how unfeasible.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes but if our opponents accuse us of giving influence to the BNP then surely it's fair game to defend ourselves from the charge?


 
The BNP are not the only party outside of the mainstream. Excluding the BNP by using AV also excludes any party of the left. Better to concentrate on attacking the BNP by educating voters than to go to a system that works against any non-mainstream party.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

Latest odds of result on oddschecker

Basically, about 2.25 for YES and about 1.6 for NO.  So quite tight but the betting public are distinctly favouring a NO right now.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

Whilst I'm looking at oddschecker, I also note that it's not looking that good for ol' Eddy M


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Indeed, any argument no matter how unfeasible.


 
It's hardly unfeasible to say that AV will keep the BNP out - it's pretty obvious.  You might say that there is no threat of them breaking through at Westminster level in any case.  That would be a reasonable point to make.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Why aren't you arguing that it'll keep the Greens out? You're arguing the opposite for them aren't you? You're being very inconsistent.(BNP 563,743 votes, Greens 285,616 last general election).


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2011)

a8?  Inconsistent?  It is to laugh!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

It's the magic vote that harms all bad small parties and helps all good small ones.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Given Warsi's bullshit attacks saying AV would give parties like the BNP extra influence, it's not unreasonable to point out that Griffin is backing a No vote and that AV would keep out the BNP.


 
BNP wouldnt be the only ones it'd keep out.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 13, 2011)

*I'm voting YES because the The Sun's Newspaper telling people to vote NO! *


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why aren't you arguing that it'll keep the Greens out? You're arguing the opposite for them aren't you? You're being very inconsistent.(BNP 563,743 votes, Greens 285,616 last general election).


 
The point is that a party like the Greens are far more likely to pick up transfers from other broadly centre-left parties - whereas parties like the BNP repel supporters of other parties.
So it's not equally bad for the Greens - in fact once they are in position to seriously compete with Labour or LDs for seats it is likely to help them.  (quite apart from the benefit of them finally get to see where there support is without it getting tactically squeezed - which means they would be able to target better to make local gains).

And local single-issue campaigns could well benefit from AV as they would pick up preferences from all main parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

What on earth makes you think that the BNP wouldn't pick up transfers? They picked up plenty in the london mayorals - and given that this is far from their stronghold i think you're being a little naive here.

And' once the Greens 'are in position to seriously compete with Labour or LDs for seats' - you mean effectively never then outside of Brighton and Norwich. And AV is likely to work against that ever happening anyway with it's centrist funneling dynamic.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> so now you're against AV?


 
When wasn't I?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

on the contrary, it has a disaggregating, dispersing dynamic by allowing people's genuine 1st prefs to show through.   On BNP transfers, they will be eliminated early on in virtually every seat so it's a total red herring.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's the magic vote that harms all bad small parties and helps all good small ones.


 
To be fair the No2AV website makes a similar claim for FPTP.  According to them AV  makes it harder for small parties like the Greens to get seats, whilst simultaneously giving the BNP more influence.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> on the contrary, it has a disaggregating, dispersing dynamic by allowing people's genuine 1st prefs to show through.   On BNP transfers, they will be eliminated early on in virtually every seat so it's a total red herring.


 
Wrong, wrong wrong  - 100% wrong -  the BNP saved far more deposits than the Greens last time around - the Greens will be ones less likely to even reach the stage of receiving transfer votes. 70 saved deposits for the BNP versus 6 for the Greens. Fantasy land.

If you want to argue that AV will help the Greens you have to argue that it will help the BNP more. Which makes that pathetic Vote yes if you're not a racist crap above look even worse.

Almost every post you make undermines your own arguments.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Oh for fucks sake


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong, wrong wrong  - 100% wrong -  the BNP saved far more deposits than the Greens last time around - the Greens will be ones less likely to even reach the stage of receiving transfer votes. 70 saved deposits for the BNP versus 6 for the Greens. Fantasy land.
> 
> If you want to argue that AV will help the Greens you have to argue that it will help the BNP more. Which makes that pathetic Vote yes if you're not a racist crap above look even worse.


 
Not at all - BNP voters are less likely to cast subsequent preferences than Greens.   So even if they have more 1st preferences than the Greens it in no sense shows they would have more influence.  You are essentially saying "all minor parties are equally repugnant to the majority of voters" which is manifestly not true.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not at all - BNP voters are less likely to cast subsequent preferences than Greens.   So even if they have more 1st preferences than the Greens it in no sense shows they would have more influence.  You are essentially saying "all minor parties are equally repugnant to the majority of voters" which is manifestly not true.


 
Says who? And make your mind up - one minute you're talking about the BNP not being recipients of transfers yet now, when that it's shown that they're more likely than the Greens to be in a position to receive transfer votes, you're suddenly talking about first preferences. And on what basis have you come to the conclusion that "BNP voters are less likely to cast subsequent preferences than Greens"?

I'm saying nothing of the sort - i'm saying that the BNP are more likely than the Greens to do better under AV, or at the very least to do as well. And so consequently your magic vote claim that AV will be good for nice small parties and unambiguously bad for nasty small parties is shown to be desperate inconsistent self-serving political fantasy.


----------



## strung out (Apr 13, 2011)

i would have thought that BNP voters are quite likely to cast preferences in favour of UKIP and the tories


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

No, BNP voters vote only BNP and no one else would ever consider giving them any sort of preference vote. *THAT'S AN A8 FACT!!*

Quite handy eh?


----------



## co-op (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Says who? And make your mind up - one minute you're talking about the BNP not being recipients of transfers yet now, when that it's shown that they're more likely than the Greens to be in a position to receive transfer votes, you're suddenly talking about first preferences.



TBF you are right that the BNP did better at the last GE than the Greens and so it could be argued that they are 'more likely to be in a position to receive transfers', but surely the reality is that they actually won't get any transfers? 

Who will vote for a party smaller than the BNP and then put the BNP down second choice? I can't imagine what realistic scenario delivers transfers to the BNP. 

By contrast the Greens are likely to start polling higher votes because those who have some sympathy with the GP but would otherwise not vote for them - although I'd totally agree that this is likely to make no difference since they will still be eliminated and their votes transferred centre-wards.

This could be why the BNP oppose and the Greens support AV?


----------



## Combustible (Apr 13, 2011)

Tbh as things stand, the BNP have little chance of winning a seat in FPTP or AV.  But we are being told by many Yes campaigners that AV is the first step along the road to PR (if it's what the particular audience want to hear).  I don't think anyone doubts that the BNP do better under PR so why scaremonger about the BNP to win AV.  Making it harder for them only to make it easier?  Are those who are claiming that this is the first step to PR going to turn around after AV passes and suddenly claim that the BNP doing better doesn't matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

co-op said:


> TBF you are right that the BNP did better at the last GE than the Greens and so it could be argued that they are 'more likely to be in a position to receive transfers', but surely the reality is that they actually won't get any transfers?
> 
> Who will vote for a party smaller than the BNP and then put the BNP down second choice? I can't imagine what realistic scenario delivers transfers to the BNP.
> 
> ...



Well, they did get transfers in the London mayorals - which is, as noted above, one of their weakest areas. I can't see the Greens leaping from 6 saved deposits to 70 even if their vote does go up (which i see no reason to believe it will in any massive amount, i understand why a8 needs to argue that it will though). 

I think the Greens support it because they've been politically mugged by the lib-dems and the idea of being 'progressive' (or more accurately,fear  of not being seen to be 'progressive') - their more sensible wing is as opposed to AV as Griffin is.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

The more sensible wing?  Yes right....

I didn't say no-one that voted 1st for BNP would express a later preference, but they are less likely to give a 2nd pref than Greens.  That is evident from the 2nd preference polling.  Tories are the other party with a high rate of "plumping" (elderly etc.) - which is why they're less likely to prop up LDs than you are counting on,.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Ok, what polling suggests this?

But again, it doesn't matter if true as we were talking about the comparative likelihood of them receiving transfer votes.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

Got a no2av leaflet through my door today  I love the slogan. "Under AV - the only vote that will count will be nick clegg's".


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The point is that a party like the Greens are far more likely to pick up transfers from other broadly centre-left parties - whereas parties like the BNP repel supporters of other parties.


 
Lol. 

Really? 

You don't think any supporters of Ukip or for that matter the NF would put BNP as there second preference?!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

It might even increase the bnp vote as currently a lot of what stops some people voting bnp especially in more tory etc areas is the "embarrassment" factor. If they thought their vote for the bnp would only count as a 2nd preference etc then that might make the partys share of the vote go up.


----------



## co-op (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, they did get transfers in the London mayorals



That's true, quite a few, but the London Mayorals is supplementary vote rather than AV - it may not make much difference but the way people voted seems to indicate that loads of people didn't really understand the system - i.e. they were voting in large numbers for small-party candidates with their second choice - which is daft, they 'should' have done it the other way round, i.e. voted small and then transferred to large. 

But because SV didn't allow us to see whose vote went where it's annoyingly unsatisfying anyway.




butchersapron said:


> . I can't see the Greens leaping from 6 saved deposits to 70 even if their vote does go up (which i see no reason to believe it will in any massive amount, i understand why a8 needs to argue that it will though).
> 
> I think the Greens support it because they've been politically mugged by the lib-dems and the idea of being 'progressive' (or more accurately,fear  of not being seen to be 'progressive') - their more sensible wing is as opposed to AV as Griffin is.


 
I doubt the Greens will save that many either but at £500 a pop that's a lot of money they lose at a GE and a few thousand quid would be a fair bit to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Lol.
> 
> Really?
> 
> You don't think any supporters of Ukip or for that matter the NF would put BNP as there second preference?!


 
Or labour, or tory.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

Or green


----------



## co-op (Apr 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Lol.
> 
> Really?
> 
> You don't think any supporters of Ukip or for that matter the NF would put BNP as there second preference?!



I can see the political logic of those parties' voters transferring but how often do all three stand? (I hardly see the NF anywhere) 

And when it's just UKIP and the BNP then the BNP will usually be the smaller so won't get transfers. BA made a fair point that they received loads of second prefs in London mayorals but that's SV - not sure to what extent the system really functions there. My feeling was that a lot of Monday Club type tories bung the BNP a second pref as a gesture, but electorally it's meaningless to do so as under SV there's zero choice of a BNP second pref having any effect. In fact there's sod all point bunging them a second pref under AV if your first vote's for the tories...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

AV helped to see off Pauline Hanson in Aus.  Parties like that don't prosper from votes transferring - they are "marmite" candidates.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 13, 2011)

So why will it help the left and not the right or is that something you just hope?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

because leaning left can (sometimes) be a productive strategy for gaining transfers (eg. Ken Livingstone) whereas the far right are in general transfer repellent.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Have you got the polling that shows BNP voters are less likely to use their preference votes?

Livingstone got his votes from the lib-dems according to you. Is that your perspective for tacking left? How or where is that going to work today given that all left-leaning lib-dems are now gone - and would have voted labour 2nd pref anyway.

And don't be so daft - you don't need to say yes i love the BNP to try and pick up their second prefs you just need to do what they all did on Question Time when Griffin was on - when they lined up to be harder on immigration than him. Can you not recognise politics when its staring you in the face?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

Not just (anti-war) LDs - also Greens, Left List/Respect - even a few IWCA time before last!  Do you dispute that the platform on which he stood was to the left of New Labour leadership nationally?

Not just that BNP are less likely to use prefs, but also less likely to get prefs transferred in.  BES, YouGov and other surveys show this.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

You said the lib-dems not me. And he had all those 2nd preferences already. AV had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Where? I can't see any of the polls indicating any such thing.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> he had all those 2nd preferences already


 
Well he couldn't have received ANY 2nd prefs in FPTP was in place. D'oh .


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

So what? Your argument was that he had to move left to attract this mighty block (it's one of the last remaining arguments you've got left). He didn't.

Any chance of you not just skipping over my questions and points btw - i do try to reply to each one of yours but you just ignore point after point. I've been letting it go before but it's starting to get a bit annoying now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

He'd have won under FPTP as well btw.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

Part of the reason he got re-selected is that he is better placed to pick up such transfers than others (eg. oona king).

Will have a look if I can dig out specific polling on preferences tomorrow if i get chance - not scrabbling around for it now


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Well YG reckon that the BNP are with the lib-dems the party most likely to use 2nd prefs, singly most likely to use 3rd prefs, singly most likely to use 4th prefs, and second most likely to use 5th and 6th prefs.


----------



## xenon (Apr 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Xenon, I've done a complete about turn since then.


 
Are well. Excuse me if I don't trall through this 64 page monster to find out why. )(though I might.) But I suspect there's nothing contained in this thread to convince me voting for AV is any worse than leaving the situation as is. As I say, if it's broken, smashing it up a bit hardly makes any difference. Why should political vandleism be only for those in power.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well YG reckon that the BNP are with the lib-dems the party most likely to use 2nd prefs, singly most likely to use 3rd prefs, singly most likely to use 4th prefs, and second most likely to use 5th and 6th prefs.



YouGov give inconsistent results - viz their poll for IPPR out tomorrow compared to their one for the Sun today.

But what counts aren't just any preferences, but preferences with a chance of influencing the outcome (otherwise they are just idly cast).  So on 2nd prefs 43% of Greens cast a 2nd vote for either Lab or Con compared to just 23% for BNP.  Massive difference there.

Still less are those 23% actually meaningful - given UKIP only get 6% of 1st prefs it doesn't matter that 51% of their vote goes BNP 2nd, because BNP will have already been eliminated.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

Fuck me, talk about shifting the goalposts much. First they were the least likely to use their other prefs now it's they're using them more than anyone else _but not in the right way_  Wrong again.

Nice example of how AV funnels representation towards the main parties there as well btw.

What exactly is the massive difference? The green 2nd prefs for mainstream parties are votes that are far less likely to ever even be counted than the BNP's - this shows what exactly? How does this show that AV benefits the greens and harms the BNP?

RE: your edit: and this one for IPPR shows that BNP voters are least likely to use their preference votes does it?

edit: and now your other edit: 



> Still less are those 23% actually meaningful - given UKIP only get 6% of 1st prefs it doesn't matter that 51% of their vote goes BNP 2nd, because BNP will have already been eliminated.



Now you're starting to get it! That's why the Green votes are meaningless too - because they simply won't be counted. The BNP's have a far greater chance of actually  being counted though. You're being inconsistent again.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2011)

UKIP and BNP and Greens are only of interest if you consider who their second and third preferences are likely to be because they are likely to be eliminated in the first second or third rounds. 

Silly system, counting second or third preferences at the same value as first, they aren't they are second or third preferences, they should not hold the same value as first votes. 

Lunacy. 

If Britain does not vote NO I will be very dissapointed.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2011)

This really is splendid stuff though! Green votes that don't count somehow don't count less than BNP votes that don't count (and more than BNP ones that do). Amazing where the demands of a model rather than actual politics can lead you isn't it?


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Latest odds of result on oddschecker
> 
> Basically, about 2.25 for YES and about 1.6 for NO.  So quite tight but the betting public are distinctly favouring a NO right now.


 


kabbes said:


> Whilst I'm looking at oddschecker, I also note that it's not looking that good for ol' Eddy M



The bookies thought Australia would win the Ashes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> The bookies thought Australia would win the Ashes.


 
A bit off topic but there's one on there about Clegg's occupation on 31 December 2015. 10/11 still Lib Dem leader which looks ridiculously short to me, 4/5 House of Lords (most likely IMO) but he's also 100/1 for CEO of Forgemasters  I'm tempted to stick a tenner on Tory MP at 40/1 though.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 14, 2011)

I am as confused as fuck i see one poll saying yes is winning another saying no is winning ,i suspect this may be down to the wording of the question asked .But i am still voting no to hurt clegg


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I am as confused as fuck i see one poll saying yes is winning another saying no is winning ,i suspect this may be down to the wording of the question asked .But i am still voting no to hurt clegg


 
Polling is a fiendishly complicated business and with most election polls the pollsters have years and years of statistics to base their calculations on, but a referendum is a one-shot deal so much harder to make sense of.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I am as confused as fuck i see one poll saying yes is winning another saying no is winning ,i suspect this may be down to the wording of the question asked .But i am still voting no to hurt clegg


 
There's basically been two typed of poll, one that asks the actual referendum question with no explanation and that gives a brief intro then the question. The first started off with a clear lead for YES but now is either level, ahead by 1 point or behind by 7ish. The second one has always had NO ahead. 

The most common thinking is that the first is coming into line with the second due to the amount of info and debate the nearer we get to the vote. Hence the desperation from the YES camp - even go the extent of urging a low turnout. The ERS urging a low turnout, that's proper desperate.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The most common thinking is that the first is coming into line with the second due to the amount of info and debate the nearer we get to the vote. Hence the desperation from the YES camp - even go the extent of urging a low turnout. The ERS urging a low turnout, that's proper desperate.


 
Do you have a link for that?  It sounds hilarious if true.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This really is splendid stuff though! Green votes that don't count somehow don't count less than BNP votes that don't count (and more than BNP ones that do). Amazing where the demands of a model rather than actual politics can lead you isn't it?


 
I'm trying to work out whether you genuinely have difficulty understanding fairly basic points or are deliberately trying to mislead.  2nd preferences do count if they are cast for candidates left in the race - Green voters tend to do this [meaning other parties have an incentive to appeal to Greens] whereas BNP voters tend not to - and besides which appealing for BNP 2nd prefs could easily lose 2nd prefs from other voters.

I'd speculate (hard to quantify) that BNP supporters are less likely to tactically vote for another party under FPTP than are Greens - so will benefit less from the unwind under the first round of AV .


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Do you have a link for that?  It sounds hilarious if true.


 
Of course he doesn't - it's only true in his sad little fantasies


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Do you have a link for that?  It sounds hilarious if true.


 
Articul8 here pleading with people not to vote if they're not voting YES - magnified by all the little lib-dem and pluralists running the campiagn all around the county.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm trying to work out whether you genuinely have difficulty understanding fairly basic points or are deliberately trying to mislead.  2nd preferences do count if they are cast for candidates left in the race - Green voters tend to do this [meaning other parties have an incentive to appeal to Greens] whereas BNP voters tend not to - and besides which appealing for BNP 2nd prefs could easily lose 2nd prefs from other voters.
> 
> I'd speculate (hard to quantify) that BNP supporters are less likely to tactically vote for another party under FPTP than are Greens - so will benefit less from the unwind under the first round of AV .



They don't need to appeal to the BNP in any formal sense - they can have and do use the dog whistle method that the YES campaign has been using so relentlessly over the last few days regarding the BNP. You're perfectly aware of this, you've seen mainstream politicisna falling over themselves to sound tough on immigration etc - Cameron is doing it today FFS.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

That IPPR 'poll' is reported on here - it's on a totally different basis from other polls as it includes a mock AV election before polling - unlike the real referendum. Their poll of polls also turns out very different figures than the poll of polls we saw earlier this week. I'm not going to say any more until i see the proper details - the specific questions, pre-mock election polling etc


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> The bookies thought Australia would win the Ashes.


 
Well, all odds just come down to how sure you think you are about something happening.  As long as it is less than 100%, you are admitting that you can be wrong.

In the round, however, the bookies' favourites in a two-horse race will tend to win more often than not.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> Are well. Excuse me if I don't trall through this 64 page monster to find out why. )(though I might.) But I suspect there's nothing contained in this thread to convince me voting for AV is any worse than leaving the situation as is. As I say, if it's broken, smashing it up a bit hardly makes any difference. Why should political vandleism be only for those in power.


 
You don't care about what argument is so powerful that it can force me and lots of others to completely change their mind?  Gosh.

In summary, then, it comes down to this: the destruction of the welfare state being wrought by this current government risks permanently damaging the fabric of our society.  This has far more long-term consequence than a small change from one FPTP voting system to another.

Many of those of us voting NO are doing so in the hope that it is our best chance of putting a brake on this destruction.  There are various reasons to think why this might happen; many of them are discussed in this thread.

There are also reasons to believe AV will essentially be no different to FPTP in any case, plus voting for it will destroy any chance of futher change for several generations.  But these arguments are really a secondary issue.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2011)

OK, I can't do it justice right now. But it seems to me refusing to vote in favour of AV partly on the basis that it will inhibit any further profound reforms, is extremely nyeve. I can't see the political establishment reading rejection of AV as a sign there needs to be a better system. The opposite seems more plausible. The peple like things as they are. It's worked thus far, etc. Arguments that are already being made by the no camp.

I don't see the direct link between this referendam and the anti welfare policies. But I'll have a look back when I get a chance.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

It is extremely New Year's Eve.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2011)

Alas, I'm denied the bennefit of a spellcheck at work. (no MS Office for us phone drones.)


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> OK, I can't do it justice right now. But it seems to me refusing to vote in favour of AV partly on the basis that it will inhibit any further profound reforms, is extremely nyeve.  I can't see the political establishment reading rejection of AV as a sign there needs to be a better system. The opposite seems more plausible. The peple like things as they are. It's worked thus far, etc. Arguments that are already being made by the no camp.



The naivity is all yours, my friend.

If we vote for AV then that's it.  They're not going to go through all the effort of changing the system only to change it again 10 years later.  That'll be your lot until enough elections have passed to create more momentum.  My guess is 50 years at least.  Ten electoral cycles sounds about right.

If we vote against AV then that *might* be it.  At that point it comes down to how it's spun.  Those favouring the status quo might win out.  Or those arguing that the rejection was because we didn't want a microscopic increment might be persuasive.  It's an unknown.

At _worst_ it means FPTP for the rest of your life versus AV for the rest of your life.  And AV is no shake up!  This is the biggest myth of them all.  AV is basically the same thing as FPTP.  A few seats pass here or there but it has no real overall impact.  So really you're either voting YES to keep things as they are for the rest of your life or you are voting NO to maybe keep things as they are for the rest of your life.



> I don't see the direct link between this referendam and the anti welfare policies. But I'll have a look back when I get a chance.


 
Please do.  The above discussion is really irrelevant in the face of it.  The single most important thing here is to stop the welfare destruction in its tracks. 

The link is to do with the inevitably shaky alliance between the Liberals and the Tories if and when the Liberals start to sink.  At the moment they are swallowing the destruction of their political capital on the grounds that they might get this AV boost.  If they fail to get the one thing they wanted then it will create some serious noise in the grass roots of their party.  It's the one thing that might stop any further changes.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

What I enjoy is the vague noises about change, which then dissolve when specifics come up. Will it lead to smaller parties getting in? 'Oh, no.' Will it lead to more hung parliaments because the larger parties dominate less? 'No, not at all.' So what change do we get? 'Fairer votes!'


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Articul8 here pleading with people not to vote if they're not voting YES - magnified by all the little lib-dem and pluralists running the campiagn all around the county.


 
Pleading?  Please   I just think that if people want to see a PR system but can't bring themselves to vote for AV - they shouldn't fall into the trap of giving a positive endorsement for FPTP.

But obviously I hope there's a YES vote on a decent turnout.  And your claims that ERS are trying to suppress turnout are blatantly untrue.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Pleading?  Please   I just think that if people want to see a PR system but can't bring themselves to vote for AV - they shouldn't fall into the trap of giving a positive endorsement for FPTP.
> 
> But obviously I hope there's a YES vote on a decent turnout.  And your claims that ERS are trying to suppress turnout are blatantly untrue.



Would you rather people not vote at all than vote NO?


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 14, 2011)

We're kind of damned if we do, damned if we don't regarding this AV vote.  A 'yes' vote indeed may well entrench AV as our voting system for many years - at least in terms of elections to the House of Commons, and a 'no' vote will clearly knock back the cause of political reform for years.  

I'm still unconvinced by the 'voting no to fuck up the coalition' idea.  Facing wipeout, would the Lib Dems really bring down the government if faced with a 'no' vote?  I'm assuming that they do have a list of other things that they want to get out of being in government.


----------



## strung out (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Pleading?  Please   I just think that if people want to see a PR system but can't bring themselves to vote for AV - they shouldn't fall into the trap of giving a positive endorsement for FPTP.
> 
> But obviously I hope there's a YES vote on a decent turnout.  And your claims that ERS are trying to suppress turnout are blatantly untrue.


 
but the question asks if i think the uk should use AV. why should i abstain if i think we shouldn't?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> I'm still unconvinced by the 'voting no to fuck up the coalition' idea.  Facing wipeout, would the Lib Dems really bring down the government if faced with a 'no' vote?  I'm assuming that they do have a list of other things that they want to get out of being in government.


 
They might pull out of the coalition altogether.  But that's not the only way a retrenchment might lead them to stall future cuts.  They could just decide not to go along with the Tories any more whilst still holding the coalition together.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2011)

But why would the Libdems do that if they lost the AV vote? How does it follow? Just throwing their toys out the pramb? Polishing their political gravestone? It's an appealing idea, that they might scupper the coalition but what's their motivation other than petulance.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> But why would the Libdems do that if they lost the AV vote? How does it follow? Just throwing their toys out the pramb? Polishing their political gravestone? It's an appealing idea, that they might scupper the coalition but what's their motivation other than petulance.


 
To be honest, xenon, this has all been written about in-depth in this thread already.  I'm only giving you the summarised highlights.

In brief: the motivation is a retrenchment of their political capital.  Their current actions are making them deeply unpopular (poll ratings now in the single figures).  Their one chance of saving themselves -- particularly under FPTP -- will be to start putting clear water between themselves and the Tories on welfare reform issues.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 14, 2011)

And what about Ed Milliband and Labour Yes, supporters of which include a wide swathe from Rushanara Ali to Tony Benn?  Surely if there was any real feeling that a 'no' might fuck up the coalition in any meaningful way then not so many leading Labourites would be supporting a 'yes' vote? Or is it a case that Labour wouldn't want to win an election right now, subscribing as they do to all the 'we're all in it togehter' crap, which would entail them cutting almost as much as the Tories anyway?  

Worrying for the 'yes' camp someone called Phil Collins is listed as a 'progressive supporter' on the Labour Yes website.   Could this be the same man who threatened to leave the country if Labour were elected in 1997?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

Seeking to undermine the destruction of the welfare state is not necessarily aligned with seeking to immediately place Labour in power.


----------



## xenon (Apr 14, 2011)

kabbes said:


> To be honest, xenon, this has all been written about in-depth in this thread already.  I'm only giving you the summarised highlights.
> 
> In brief: the motivation is a retrenchment of their political capital.  Their current actions are making them deeply unpopular (poll ratings now in the single figures).  Their one chance of saving themselves -- particularly under FPTP -- will be to start putting clear water between themselves and the Tories on welfare reform issues.


 

OK, I will have a read through later. But I admit, I'm finding this idea difficult to believe. Well, difficult to believe that the Libdems would be so out of touch they think they can save themselves now. They're already dead far as I can tell . U Turns at this stage compound their image as lyers and oppotunists.

Course that doesnt' stopthem trying to rehabilitate their party allbeit in vein I suppose.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

I've said it before (probably in this thread) but I'll say it again: I think the best chance for many of them to save their seats (which is what most of them will care about most) is to establish a break-away faction that claims the centre left ground and announces itself by splitting from the government. This will be just as cynical and pragmatic as anything else they've done, but would be tremendous fun to watch.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> I've said it before (probably in this thread) but I'll say it again: I think the best chance for many of them to save their seats (which is what most of them will care about most) is to establish a break-away faction that claims the centre left ground and announces itself by splitting from the government. This will be just as cynical and pragmatic as anything else they've done, but would be tremendous fun to watch.


 
They should call themselves the Social Democratic Party and really get on the 80's revival bandwagon.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

strung out said:


> but the question asks if i think the uk should use AV. why should i abstain if i think we shouldn't?


 
No it says we currently use FPTP, should we use AV instead?   A no vote suggests we are fine with FPTP.  A yes vote doesn't mean we should use AV instead for time immemorial, but until we get the opportunity to replace it with something better still.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> ?
> Worrying for the 'yes' camp someone called Phil Collins is listed as a 'progressive supporter' on the Labour Yes website.   Could this be the same man who threatened to leave the country if Labour were elected in 1997?


 
No it's a different one - this one wsa very happy with the result in 97.


----------



## strung out (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it says we currently use FPTP, should we use AV instead?   A no vote suggests we are fine with FPTP.  A yes vote doesn't mean we should use AV instead for time immemorial, but until we get the opportunity to replace it with something better still.


 
i don't think we should use AV instead, so i'll be voting no. answering the question honestly


----------



## moon23 (Apr 14, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The naivity is all yours, my friend.
> 
> If we vote for AV then that's it.  They're not going to go through all the effort of changing the system only to change it again 10 years later.  That'll be your lot until enough elections have passed to create more momentum.  My guess is 50 years at least.  Ten electoral cycles sounds about right.
> 
> ...


 
I can tell you as a Lib Dem, if people vote to stick with FPTP then we will be in no hurry to head to the polls. The only hope for the Lib Dems then is that the economy picks up and we make a bit of cash from floating the banks in the final year for a bonus pre-election budget. My one consolidation if the vote is for FPTP is that it ties the left of the party to the coalition that I support. 

Having AV might make it more likely for a leadership challenge within the party in a year or so from someone like Tim Farron on the left and a split from the coalition before the end of the term.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 14, 2011)

The flaw with a lot of the arguments here is that they are based on what the short term political outcome will be or speculation as to whether it will or won't lead to future reform. The question should be is AV a better process than FPTP. I think it is as it gives voters more choice and power to express who they want to represent them.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *The flaw with a lot of the arguments here is that they are based on what the short term political outcome will be or speculation as to whether it will or won't lead to future reform.* The question should be is AV a better process than FPTP. I think it is as it gives voters more choice and power to express who they want to represent them.



It's not very liberal to try to dismiss perfectly legitimate political considerations; I can see why you'd want to though.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it says we currently use FPTP, should we use AV instead?   A no vote suggests we are fine with FPTP.  A yes vote doesn't mean we should use AV instead for time immemorial, but until we get the opportunity to replace it with something better still.


 
Would you rather people not vote at all than vote NO?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The flaw with a lot of the arguments here is that they are based on what the short term political outcome will be or speculation as to whether it will or won't lead to future reform. The question should be is AV a better process than FPTP. I think it is as it gives voters more choice and power to express who they want to represent them.


 
I think there will be quite a large proportion of voters, those who vote Labour or Conservative who will not put a second or third preference at all because they know usually in their constituencies it usually comes down to a choice between Labour or Conservative. 

That leaves the rest for whom a second or third preference may be considered, but all it will in effect do for them is turn their UKIP, BNP or Greens vote into an eventual vote for Labour or Conservative. 

Some advantage that is!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The flaw with a lot of the arguments here is that they are based on what the short term political outcome will be or speculation as to whether it will or won't lead to future reform. The question should be is AV a better process than FPTP. I think it is as it gives voters more choice and power to express who they want to represent them.


 
What planet are you on?

The electoral system should be the one that best realises the wishes and needs of the electorate, not the one that is the "best process" (and which will, doubtless entirely unlooked-for, serve your party best).

Your own dickhead leader said it best: "AV is a miserable little compromise".


----------



## weltweit (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh, and I completely forgot the LibDems


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> Would you rather people not vote at all than vote NO?


 
Anyone who believes that there is no reason to move away from FPTP should vote no.  But those who want PR should vote Yes to reject FPTP, or at the very least spoil your ballot to protest the options.


----------



## strung out (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Anyone who believes that there is no reason to move away from FPTP should vote no.  But those who want PR should vote Yes to reject FPTP, or at the very least spoil your ballot to protest the options.


 
that's not what the question is though. you're thinking of a referendum where the options are "vote NO to show your support for FPTP, vote YES to show your support for PR". those aren't the options on the table.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Anyone who believes that there is no reason to move away from FPTP should vote no.  But those who want PR should vote Yes to reject FPTP, or at the very least spoil your ballot to protest the options.


 
Yes or no - would you rather people not vote at all than vote NO? It's a simple question.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Anyone who believes that there is no reason to move away from FPTP should vote no.  But those who want PR should vote Yes to reject FPTP, or at the very least spoil your ballot to protest the options.


 
No, that's what you need people to do. Voters are able to make their own choices and to vote yes or no for all sorts of reasons you might not approve of, ignoring your finger wagging 'should' in the process.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Pleading?  Please   I just think that if people want to see a PR system but can't bring themselves to vote for AV - they shouldn't fall into the trap of giving a positive endorsement for FPTP.
> 
> But obviously I hope there's a YES vote on a decent turnout.  And your claims that ERS are trying to suppress turnout are blatantly untrue.


 
That presumes support for PR. Personally I am 100% against PR since it would give even more power for central party bureaucracies to get the people they want elected. It's precisely because AV is being claimed to be a step towards PR that I object to it.

The real question that is being dodged is whether party bosses should have more or less power, or whether the electorate should have more or less power. From what I can see one hell of a lot of people seem to think that there will somehow be an improvement in British politics if the British people completely give up any right to vote for or against specific individual candidates. I can see why those at the top of the political parties are in favour of it, it means no more maverick MPs and councillors. I simply don't understand how anyone thinks it will be an improvement on the current situation.

We need more direct control over which individuals are elected to represent us, not less. Moving towards a system where we don't have a direct vote on individual candidates gives more power to the party central offices. It means that we will end up electing even more corrupt slimeballs who can only be trusted to lick all the right arses.

FPTP is a crap system. The only systems that are worse are all the others. It isn't FPTP that is broken. It's the totally undemocratic centralised party system that's the problem. We shouldn't be wasting time on the sideshow of AV when what we actually need is to find a way to make our elected representative more directly accountable to the electorate.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

It's a total tangent to this discussion but my (possibly naive) ideal would be FPTP with no parties, so that it is entirely about the individuals that are standing as candidates.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

Yes to AV's current hard-hitting argument:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Of possible interest to some, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread (not that it matters one way or the other) the mighty SWP have come out against AV.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8, would you rather people not vote at all than vote NO? Yes or no.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What planet are you on?
> 
> *The electoral system should be the one that best realises the wishes and needs of the electorate*, not the one that is the "best process" (and which will, doubtless entirely unlooked-for, serve your party best).
> 
> Your own dickhead leader said it best: "AV is a miserable little compromise".



Surely you're not saying that FPTP is *the* one are you? 

All electoral systems are flawed and AV is indeed a compromise, but at least it's a hell of a lot closer to "realising the wishes and needs of the electorate" than FPTP.


----------



## strung out (Apr 14, 2011)

no it isn't


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> All electoral systems are flawed and AV is indeed a compromise, but at least it's a hell of a lot closer to "realising the wishes and needs of the electorate" than FPTP.


 
Like how?


Oh, you mean 'realising the wishes and needs of the electorate who would be happy with AV'.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Surely you're not saying that FPTP is *the* one are you?
> 
> All electoral systems are flawed and AV is indeed a compromise, but at least it's a hell of a lot closer to "realising *the wishes and needs of the electorate*" than FPTP.



I don't think they're for you to decide.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Surely you're not saying that FPTP is *the* one are you?


 
Only an idiot or someone fundamentally dishonest could read that in to VP's post.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No he's not.
> 
> Tactical voting under AV will just be displaced into the second round, and it'll leave the door open for parties to do back door stitch ups. It'll hand the party bureaucracies more power.



If 50% voted green it would not get displaced into the second round.
I dont realy know about these back door stitch ups but im not saying they dont happen.
I know whot you and some of the no voters are saying on this thread you think for me its wow now we can change the system/status quo im not that naive .
I know whots on offer is still going to make it realy difficult to topple those in control.
But I just cant get my head around voting no.
Surely it would be better to not vote at all.
Allso with a no vote they could use that as excuse not to bother any more refs on the voting system.


----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

cosmic malcolm said:


> If 50% voted green it would not get displaced into the second round.
> I dont realy know about these back door stitch ups but im not saying they dont happen.
> I know whot you and some of the no voters are saying on this thread you think for me its wow now we can change the system/status quo im not that naive .
> I know whots on offer is still going to make it realy difficult to topple those in control.
> ...


 
Not voting is much more likely to be used as an excuse for no more referendums on the voting system.


----------



## cosmic malcolm (Apr 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> Not voting is much more likely to be used as an excuse for no more referendums on the voting system.


Yes thats true so we are back to square one  ...........
Yes or no.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Surely you're not saying that FPTP is *the* one are you?



No



> All electoral systems are flawed and AV is indeed a compromise, but at least it's a hell of a lot closer to "realising the wishes and needs of the electorate" than FPTP.



Quantify how it's "closer" to doing so, and I'll concede that you're correct *if* your arguments have substance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Only an idiot or someone fundamentally dishonest could read that in to VP's post.


 
You said it!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

I've answered this.  If people want positively to keep FPTP I would rather they vote NO than not at all.  If they want to see FPTP replaced I would hope they'd vote Yes but would rather they spoilt their ballots than voted No.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of possible interest to some, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread (not that it matters one way or the other) the mighty SWP have come out against AV.


 
Never underestimate the potential for the SWP to reach the wrong position in the end.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've answered this.  If people want positively to keep FPTP I would rather they vote NO than not at all.  If they want to see FPTP replaced I would hope they'd vote Yes but would rather they spoilt their ballots than voted No.


 
I have quite a bit of sympathy with this – even though it is an odd stance for someone who in the past has advocated tactical voting. 

If your real answer is 'neither of the above', shouldn't you say so on the ballot paper? It's not your fault they've worded it wrongly.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Voting NO is also saying 'none of the above' if you want to get into what the actual question means:



> “At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Voting NO is saying "FPTP suits us just fine thankyou for asking sire"


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh so we're not going on the actual question then?

Ok, voting YES is saying yes please Nick Clegg fuck me up the arse and help destroy society whilst we're at it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

There are two clauses to the alternative, "should it be replaced" and "with the Alternative Vote" - If you say no you are saying No to both clauses.  if you object to the latter clause scratch it out, spoil your ballot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Voting NO is also saying 'none of the above' if you want to get into what the actual question means:


 
Nah, that's really a 'have you stopped beating your wife' type question. I for one can't answer that honestly yes or no. My answer would be 'no AV should not be used instead – how about truly proportional STV. Or drawing lots.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, voting YES is saying yes please Nick Clegg fuck me up the arse and help destroy society whilst we're at it.


 
Genuine LOL.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 14, 2011)

This link below claims to show how your constituency would be changed under AV.  
(disclaimer - i have no idea how biased or accurate this is, although I suspect it's a bit outdated now.)

http://av.yabari.com/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, that's really a 'have you stopped beating your wife' type question. I for one can't answer that honestly yes or no. My answer would be 'no AV should not be used instead – how about truly proportional STV. Or drawing lots.


 Quite simple, nothing in a NO vote or the question necessarily indicates approval of FPTP - you've got a thread full of people who hate FPTP voting NO right here. You've also got a few people whose position depends on arguing that it does, despite the evidence piling up in front of them over the thousands of posts that demonstrates quite clearly  that it means nothing of the sort.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Anyone who actually votes No (as opposed to being unconvinced that AV is enough of an improvement, or remain sceptical) is helping the Tory and Labour enemies of PR.  If you're an anarchist who thinks it makes fuck all difference, and don't care you are helping the Tories to maximise their chances of future majorit governments, go ahead and vote NO...

if you're not a total dickhead don't vote NO (whatever else you think of AV)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

There you go combustible, a perfect example of that desperate pleading...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 14, 2011)

Anarcho-Tory lash up speaks: vote no.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 14, 2011)

Yeah there's been plenty of desperate rubbish from articul8 in this thread.  I particularly like the act of conjuring up two questions from one.  I thought you meant that the YES campaign had been saying this sort of thing more officially.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Quite simple, nothing in a NO vote or the question necessarily indicates approval of FPTP - you've got a thread full of people who hate FPTP voting NO right here. You've also got a few people whose position depends on arguing that it does, despite the evidence piling up in front of them over the thousands of posts that demonstrates quite clearly  that it means nothing of the sort.


 
No, I disagree. The word 'instead' implies it – would you rather this or that. By voting no, you're indicating that you would rather have FPTP than AV. And I am sure that if a 'no' vote wins, this is how it will largely be interpreted by the various vested interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Combustible said:


> Yeah there's been plenty of desperate rubbish from articul8 in this thread.  I particularly like the act of conjuring up two questions from one.  I thought you meant that the YES campaign had been saying this sort of thing more officially.


 
I suspect they've got that planned for the days immediately leading up to the vote - at least to what they see as their progressive pluralist audience.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, I disagree. The word 'instead' implies it – would you rather this or that. By voting no, you're indicating that you would rather have FPTP than AV. And I am sure that if a 'no' vote wins, this is how it will largely be interpreted by the various vested interests.


Not necessarily at all. I wouldn't rather have AV than FPTP. I wouldn't rather have FPTP than AV either. This is the position of loads of people on this thread. There's no reason whatsoever for you to do the foreclosing of the question that those who devised the question want you to. There's no need at all for you to do their work for them.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 14, 2011)

So, 100+ pages later it's essentially still "if you don't vote yes you're a Tory".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 14, 2011)

moochedit said:


> This link below claims to show how your constituency would be changed under AV.
> (disclaimer - i have no idea how biased or accurate this is, although I suspect it's a bit outdated now.)
> 
> http://av.yabari.com/


 
Well, according to that one Sheffield Central, my constituency, would move from Labour to Lib Dem (the hated Paul Scriven from those horrible hotel adverts no less) so I don't think it's all that accurate - he's got about as much chance of getting in here now as Osama Bin Laden would have in New York.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 14, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well, according to that one Sheffield Central, my constituency, would move from Labour to Lib Dem (the hated Paul Scriven from those horrible hotel adverts no less) so I don't think it's all that accurate - *he's got about as much chance of getting in here now as Osama Bin Laden would have in New York.*


 


found this now...



> University of Essex, which asked 13,356 people to fill out a mock AV ballot form after the election. Using this, they calculated the percentage of second preferences that would be expressed for each of the first preferences on the ballot. This data was then applied to the constituencies to get the results.
> 
> There are some health warnings that should be kept in mind when using this data:
> 
> ...



I would think that mock AV ballot would be well out of date now. My constituency Coventry South showed labour winning under both systems, but that was based on lib dem 2nd prefs mainly going to labour under AV, which i am not sure is true anymore. In reality I suspect labour would still win but only because they will take a lot of first choice votes from the lib dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh look, Huhne on Question Time is playing the scary BNP if you vote NO you love Nick Griffin card - Huhne of course being the lib-dem MP who disgraced himself on a previous Question Time by out BNP-ing Griffin himself who was sitting alongside him. 

Trust these people, vote YES.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 14, 2011)

I might vote for AV but it wouldn't be my first choice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Oh yeah another cracker from the YES camp speaking through Huhne -_ the communist party are against it!_


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)

Yeah, I've been watching that and shouting at the telly too.

Howard arguing for FPTP is being a twat too, mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

His partner is a8's boss. Fancy that. Bit of a bubble.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 14, 2011)




----------



## Santino (Apr 14, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> So, 100+ pages later it's essentially still "if you don't vote yes you're a Tory".


 
Now it's 'if you vote NO, you support the BNP'.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 14, 2011)

I remember that one from page 2.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2011)

He'll be threatening to shoot a kitten next.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify how it's "closer" to doing so, and I'll concede that you're correct *if* your arguments have substance.



Under AV the winning candidate won't be able to get away with just 30% or 40% of the vote, they'll have to gain the consent of enough voters who may not have had them as their first choice, but still rate them enough as a potential MP to put them second, or even third. The key word is 'consent', our representation shouldn't just be about winning a race, but should be about finding the candidate who is most acceptable to most voters.

Also, those of us living in 'safe' constituencies with complacent MPs will at last be able to give our first vote to the candidate who best reflects our own views instead of having to choose either to vote tactically or have our vote ignored.

I could go on. If you're keyed up on this referendum VP then I'm sure none of this is news to you and like everyone else here your mind is probably already made up so I'm not expecting you to 'concede' as you put it. 

Now your turn.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Voting NO is also saying 'none of the above' if you want to get into what the actual question means:



A No vote is going to be translated as 'FPTP is fine and we don't want to change it thank you'. Of course it is. It'll be a vote to keep FPTP for generations to come.


----------



## strung out (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Under AV the winning candidate won't be able to get away with just 30% or 40% of the vote


 
you sure about that? i thought you could still be elected under AV with 40ish% of the vote


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> A No vote is going to be translated as 'FPTP is fine and we don't want to change it thank you'. Of course it is. It'll be a vote to keep FPTP for generations to come.



A yes vote is going to be translated as 'AV is your chosen electoral reform and we won't change it again thank you'.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> A No vote is going to be translated as 'FPTP is fine and we don't want to change it thank you'. Of course it is. It'll be a vote to keep FPTP for generations to come.


 
..and you think a YES vote is going to be translated as _Ooh, here's an idea let's suddenly listen to the people and act in their interests, why didn't we do that before?_

Hopelessly naive. 

I _don't care_ if the system translates my political choice into a narrative that legitimate them (which is exactly what AV does as well) i'm not naive enough to think that they'll act any different or the systems dynamic will be altered by a pathetic change in the voting system.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

strung out said:


> you sure about that? i thought you could still be elected under AV with 40ish% of the vote


 
You certainly can - academic modeling has shown that unless all preference are used (which they won't be) around 60% of MPs will be elected with less than 50% of the vote. Under FPTP it's 66% (sometimes less).


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

How many other respected countries run AV as their voting system? 

I expect those in favour of AV should be able to provide a substantive list. 

So how many are there?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

What a shit question - how many other comparable European countries use FPTP?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> A No vote is going to be translated as 'FPTP is fine and we don't want to change it thank you'. Of course it is. It'll be a vote to keep FPTP for generations to come.


 
Yes absolutely - it's only a position you can risk if you don't think PR would much of a step forward either (like Butchersapron)


----------



## Combustible (Apr 15, 2011)

Whilst in your world a vote for AV will actually be translated as 'we don't want AV but PR'.  A vote for AV will funnily enough be translated as 'we want AV' and that's what we will get.  Not yet another referendum and voting system change a couple of years down the line.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

How will it be possible to suggest their is an appetite for radical reform of the voting system if the public have rejected even a moderate change?  It's abc to take what you can and come back for more


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How will it be possible to suggest their is an appetite for radical reform of the voting system if the public have rejected even a moderate change?  It's abc to take what you can and come back for more


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How will it be possible to suggest their is an appetite for radical reform of the voting system if the public have rejected even a moderate change?  It's abc to take what you can and come back for more


 
Please give examples where voting for a minor amendment to a system has facilitated radical change of that system.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How will it be possible to suggest their is an appetite for radical reform of the voting system if the public have rejected even a moderate change?  It's abc to take what you can and come back for more


 
An industry spokesman said to today that 'the union obviously don't want a 10% pay rise because they've rejected a 2% one'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> An industry spokesman said to today that 'the union obviously don't want a 10% pay rise because they've rejected a 2% one'.


 
An industry spokesman said to today that 'the union voted to accept a 2% pay rise but we're going to give them a 10% pay rise because they obviously value pay rises'


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

Bad example, union in the case of a pay settlement have a fairly obvious way of forcing management to the negotiating table - how do you plan to do it in the event of a no vote? this lot haven't been forced to offer any concessions on their own privileges since 1884!  Voters aren't unionised!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> how do you plan to do it in the event of a no vote?!


 
The same way you plan to do it in the event of a yes vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Bad example, union in the case of a pay settlement have a fairly obvious way of forcing management to the negotiating table - how do you plan to do it in the event of a no vote? this lot haven't been forced to offer any concessions on their own privileges since 1884!  Voters aren't unionised!


Exactly, what on earth makes you think this is any kind of concession - esp one that undermines 'their' privileges.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The same way you plan to do it in the event of a yes vote.


 
By saying _look sir, we can be good, we've shown that to you now. _


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh look, Huhne on Question Time is playing the scary BNP if you vote NO you love Nick Griffin card


fucking hell, are they STILL playing that card? 
That, to me, is the single most irritating and counterproductive tactic of the 'YES' campaign (i.e. "vote NO and you'll be in with the Tories/fascists/Satanic Paedophile Party")


----------



## ExtraRefined (Apr 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Under AV the winning candidate won't be able to get away with just 30% or 40% of the vote, they'll have to gain the consent of enough voters who may not have had them as their first choice, but still rate them enough as a potential MP to put them second, or even third. The key word is 'consent', our representation shouldn't just be about winning a race, but should be about finding the candidate who is most acceptable to most voters.


 
No they won't, not without a_ reopen nominations_ option which won't be there


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How will it be possible to suggest their is an appetite for radical reform of the voting system if the public have rejected even a moderate change?  It's abc to take what you can and come back for more


AARRGHH! Because the voters aren't bloody stupid, or mute, and are quite capable of saying "we want the real deal, not a fake immo!"


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Bad example, union in the case of a pay settlement have a fairly obvious way of forcing management to the negotiating table - how do you plan to do it in the event of a no vote? this lot haven't been forced to offer any concessions on their own privileges since 1884!  Voters aren't unionised!


 
I was poking fun at your risible assertion that a rejection of marginal change can't be articulated as a demand for radical change. It might be something the ERS could look into; you'll need a new project for after the referendum.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> A No vote is going to be translated as 'FPTP is fine and we don't want to change it thank you'. Of course it is. It'll be a vote to keep FPTP for generations to come.


No it won't! It'll be translated into whatever each of the minds of a thirty million electorate choose to translate it as. What stunning, utter contempt for the voter you have.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> How many other respected countries run AV as their voting system?
> 
> I expect those in favour of AV should be able to provide a substantive list.
> 
> So how many are there?


 


articul8 said:


> What a shit question - how many other comparable European countries use FPTP?


 
It is a perfectly valid question. 

I can tell you, not one comparable European country uses AV. Not ONE!


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Under AV the winning candidate won't be able to get away with just 30% or 40% of the vote, they'll have to gain the consent of enough voters who may not have had them as their first choice, but still rate them enough as a potential MP to put them second, or even third. The key word is 'consent', our representation shouldn't just be about winning a race, but should be about finding the candidate who is most acceptable to most voters.


bollocks.
If I'm in a seat with four candidates-Labour,LD,tory and BNP, I'll vote tory and LD to keep the fash out, but do you really think I'd be happy to have a Tory or LD as my 
MP? Would I fuck. So 'acceptable' actually translates as "least awful". Yippee! - I _don't_ think


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I can tell you, not one comparable European country uses AV. Not ONE!


 
Only because most have better systems still - we are just about the only ones lumbered with FPTP in Europe.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is a perfectly valid question.
> 
> I can tell you, not one comparable European country uses AV. Not ONE!



Only three countries in the entire world use AV, including Australia who would apparently like to get rid of it. 

Wheras, the number of countries around the world that use FPTP is rather more considerable: 

Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, 
Dominica, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

How many of those are former British colonies? the British ruling class inflicted it on most of them!

And there are no moves to get rid of it in Australia.  None.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How many of those are former British colonies? the British ruling class inflicted it on most of them!


 
Good thing too !!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

Oh, and American presidential elections are FPTP iirc


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How many of those are former British colonies? the British ruling class inflicted it on most of them!
> 
> And there are no moves to get rid of it in Australia.  None.


 
A poll last year suggested a majority of Australians would prefer FPTP.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How many of those are former British colonies? the British ruling class inflicted it on most of them!


so? They've still had ample time as independent states to change things


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so? They've still had ample time as independent states to change things


 
yeh, it's not like corrupt ruling elites find the system protects them for their electorates is it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> A poll last year suggested a majority of Australians would prefer FPTP.


 
Polls here always show support for hanging, but there are no moves to reintroduce it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Oh, and American presidential elections are FPTP iirc


 
America is a former British colony!  And there are moves to introduce IRV (their name for AV) in the states. Obama introduced a Bill supporting IRV when he was a senator.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> fucking hell, are they STILL playing that card?
> That, to me, is the single most irritating and counterproductive tactic of the 'YES' campaign (i.e. "vote NO and you'll be in with the Tories/fascists/Satanic Paedophile Party")



And furthermore articul8 is claiming that AV is one step on the road to PR.  Which will help the BNP.  And apparently those saying 'vote YES or your siding with the BNP' will suddenly turn around and campaign to support PR despite that is also what the BNP want


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

I have never said we should vote Yes in order to stop the BNP getting seats.  However, it is reasonable to counter the argument that AV will increase the influence by pointing to the fact that they are opposing it.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yeh, it's not like corrupt ruling elites find the system protects them for their electorates is it?


your point about colonialism is still a dud one though


----------



## xenon (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> An industry spokesman said to today that 'the union voted to accept a 2% pay rise but we're going to give them a 10% pay rise because they obviously value pay rises'


 

Except this isn't at all like pay negotiations. Vote against AV by all means. But don't pretend it will mean a spur to wider political reform. Voting yes, likewise doesn't proclude campaigning for profound changes.

Vote against a pay settlement. You're either replaced,, strike or something else has to be put on the table. Even if it's not what you wanted initially. Here, what has to change. Nothing. No pressure on the political establishment to change anything. What will the electrat do? Refuse to participate? Like now?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

No, it's not like pay negotiations.  But the general principle stands that rejecting a specific change doesn't mean an endorsement of the status quo.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

Combustible said:


> And furthermore articul8 is claiming that AV is one step on the road to PR.  Which will help the BNP.  And apparently those saying 'vote YES or your siding with the BNP' will suddenly turn around and campaign to support PR despite that is also what the BNP want


 
Quite - _vote YES to help the BNP._


----------



## Stardark (Apr 15, 2011)

I posted this on the Billy Bragg forums, but I think it deserves to get buried in a 100+ page thread, too...



> Hi,
> 
> Yes, I did see Katie's email. I can't spare £10, I'm afraid, but would it help if I told Baroness Warsi to go and fuck herself? She listens to me, as we're good friends.
> 
> ...


I know they need to fund their campaign somehow, and 'No2AV' probably have oodles of cash, but the BNP angle seems so lame...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

It is lame. And the YES campaign has had pretty much the same level of funding as the NO campaign - and from similar sources (neo-liberalorange bookers, business types, people paid by Murdoch etc).


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

Bollocks is it.  YES campaign is NOT tied to one party to anything like the degree the NO is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

How does that change the _level_ of funding one iota?


----------



## Stardark (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, voting YES is saying yes please Nick Clegg fuck me up the arse and help destroy society whilst we're at it.


Yes, but how else are you going to swing an invitation to a Buckingham Palace garden party?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How does that change the _level_ of funding one iota?



It is not a level playing field - we are being outspent on newspaper ads, national poster campaigns, direct mails and more.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It is not a level playing field - we are being outspent on newspaper ads, national poster campaigns, direct mails and more.


 
So your levels of funding aren't broadly similar is that what you're saying? Be careful.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

I'm saying that the  the scale of their spending appears to be out of proportion to the donations to the campaign they have published so far.


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying that the  the scale of their spending appears to be out of proportion to the donations to the campaign they have published so far.


 
A new low.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

Funding whatever .. I haven't seen one iota of propoganda yet for either camp.


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Funding whatever .. I haven't seen one iota of propoganda yet for either camp.


 
You've seen articul8's posts, which are made possible by the ERS.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It is lame. And the YES campaign has had pretty much the same level of funding as the NO campaign - and from similar sources (neo-liberalorange bookers, business types, people paid by Murdoch etc).


plus all that dosh from ERS and ERS Ltd


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It's a total tangent to this discussion but my (possibly naive) ideal would be FPTP with no parties, so that it is entirely about the individuals that are standing as candidates.


 
The trouble is that it is tangential to the discussion when in fact the crucial question is how can we bring British politics back to being relevant to the British people and not simply to a small political elite. AV isn't a solution to any of the problems we actually face.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

When the Roman Republic faltered, Octavius fought a civil war and become Emperor Augustus.

Just sayin', is all.  Just sayin'.  It's not for me to say that Emperor Kabbes would be a good idea.  Not for me at all.


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> When the Roman Republic faltered, Octavius fought a civil war and become Emperor Augustus.
> 
> Just sayin', is all.  Just sayin'.  It's not for me to say that Emperor Kabbes would be a good idea.  Not for me at all.


 
One of the first qualities I look for in an Emperor is no qualms about putting himself forward for a position of responsbility.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> When the Roman Republic faltered, Octavius fought a civil war and become Emperor Augustus.
> 
> Just sayin', is all.  Just sayin'.  It's not for me to say that Emperor Kabbes would be a good idea.  Not for me at all.


Oh gawd, St george's day would become St Stats day!


----------



## kabbes (Apr 15, 2011)

or possibly just St. Ats day


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> or possibly just St. Ats day


 
I'd prefer an AT-ATs day.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

Don't eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The trouble is that it is tangential to the discussion when in fact the crucial question is how can we bring British politics back to being relevant to the British people and not simply to a small political elite. AV isn't a solution to any of the problems we actually face.


 
What do you mean by back Eric? I assume you mean something like 'make' or that?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> A poll last year suggested a majority of Australians would prefer FPTP.


Pie in the sky tho, a8 right on this one, no one's talking about moving from AV


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

Victory for the yes campaign!


----------



## moon23 (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It is lame. And the YES campaign has had pretty much the same level of funding as the NO campaign - and from similar sources (neo-liberalorange bookers, business types, people paid by Murdoch etc).



Left foot forward beg to differ 

*NO to AV: A campaign of the Tories, by the Tories, for the Tories*


http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/04/the-tory-dominated-no-to-av-campaign/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Under AV the winning candidate won't be able to get away with just 30% or 40% of the vote, they'll have to gain the consent of enough voters who may not have had them as their first choice, but still rate them enough as a potential MP to put them second, or even third. The key word is 'consent', our representation shouldn't just be about winning a race, but should be about finding the candidate who is most acceptable to most voters.
> 
> Also, those of us living in 'safe' constituencies with complacent MPs will at last be able to give our first vote to the candidate who best reflects our own views instead of having to choose either to vote tactically or have our vote ignored.
> 
> ...



I'll admit that in an ideal world the above is quite possible, and that in the best of all possible worlds it might even work that smoothly and efficiently, with everyone having understood the system perfectly and acting accordingly, to serve the public good, but as it is, for at least the "bedding-in" period (say 5-10 years) the 3 main parties will be the primary beneficiaries in a similar way as to under FPTP. 

The idea that preference voting alone ensures greater democracy is a fallacy. It cannot, purely because unless 100% of the electorate understand the system perfectly, some people are going to miss the point that they don't *have* to list preferences, and will do so on the basis of which of the candidates they can best stomach. And you can bet that the 3 main parties have factored that into their thinking too.

Oh, and "consent"? It's a chimera, a pleasant-sounding phantom manufactured to appeal to people. It doesn't actually mean anything different than giving your vote.


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Left foot forward beg to differ
> 
> *NO to AV: A campaign of the Tories, by the Tories, for the Tories*
> 
> ...


 
What have you got against Tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Left foot forward beg to differ
> 
> *NO to AV: A campaign of the Tories, by the Tories, for the Tories*
> 
> ...



Good for them. That says nothing whatsoever about levels of funding. The horses mouth above said what? Now ask why. 

Do you want the details of your major backers like Marshall on here? The details of the lib-dem business supporters funding the YES campaign?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Left foot forward beg to differ
> 
> *NO to AV: A campaign of the Tories, by the Tories, for the Tories*
> 
> ...


so that's a 'no' from you then, given that they're your new bezzer mates


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The details of the lib-dem business supporters funding the YES campaign?


 
There are some, but not on the scale of Peter Cruddas (no relation).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> There are some, but not on the scale of Peter Cruddas (no relation).



Let's compare figures shall we? Be careful.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 15, 2011)

You think all the NO camp money is now out in the open?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think all the NO camp money is now out in the open?


 
That looks like a slur.. 

If you can't do better than that I would not bother at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 15, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You think all the NO camp money is now out in the open?


 
I said _Let's compare figures shall we? Be careful._


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean by back Eric? I assume you mean something like 'make' or that?


 
No. We had a brief spell from the end of WW2 until the mid 70s when British politics was in the hands of quite a large political elite. Not good, but way better than it is now. Obviously I'd prefer to see the real needs of the British people being the focus of a political system that has genuine mass democratic involvement. However since that's never yet happened anywhere in the world I'll settle for just including a few people who aren't law or politics graduates from an upper middle class background.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Obviously I'd prefer to see the real needs of the British people being the focus of a political system that has genuine mass democratic involvement. However since that's never yet happened anywhere in the world I'll settle for just including a few people who aren't law or politics graduates from an upper middle class background.


I'd "settle2 for nothing less than revolution and a mass culling of the bastards, meself


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'd "settle2 for nothing less than revolution and a mass culling of the bastards, meself


 
That would be gravy.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll admit that in an ideal world the above is quite possible, and that in the best of all possible worlds it might even work that smoothly and efficiently, with everyone having understood the system perfectly and acting accordingly, to serve the public good, but as it is, for at least the "bedding-in" period (say 5-10 years) the 3 main parties will be the primary beneficiaries in a similar way as to under FPTP.
> 
> The idea that preference voting alone ensures greater democracy is a fallacy. It cannot, purely because unless 100% of the electorate understand the system perfectly, some people are going to miss the point that they don't *have* to list preferences, and will do so on the basis of which of the candidates they can best stomach. And you can bet that the 3 main parties have factored that into their thinking too.
> 
> Oh, and "consent"? It's a chimera, a pleasant-sounding phantom manufactured to appeal to people. It doesn't actually mean anything different than giving your vote.



You're right that AV will be less effective if voters fail to realise they don't have to number everyone on the list, but I honestly can't see that passing basic information of that sort on to voters will be a problem. We've had multiple voting in local elections for years and listing preferences isn't rocket science.

You asked me to quantify why AV is fairer than FPTP. I've given a couple of reasons why I think it is but I'm still waiting to hear similar positive endorsements of FPTP. All the 'no' campaign seem to be able to come up with are: "It creates strong government," "it's simple to understand," "it excludes smaller parties," and "it's popular throughout the world." 

Facepalm heaven.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> bollocks.
> If I'm in a seat with four candidates-Labour,LD,tory and BNP, I'll vote tory and LD to keep the fash out, but do you really think I'd be happy to have a Tory or LD as my
> MP? Would I fuck. So 'acceptable' actually translates as "least awful". Yippee! - I _don't_ think



But you have a choice. If you don't want to vote for the tory then don't. AV will not actually help the bnp get someone into parliament, only them managing to gain mass popular support can do that.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 15, 2011)

stephj said:


> A yes vote is going to be translated as 'AV is your chosen electoral reform and we won't change it again thank you'.



Are you sure? What if the right wing press (who are all lining up for FPTP) decided AV wasn't working and decided to push for another referendum five or ten years down the line? 

If we say no to changing the system now, then that'll be it.

Now I'm off for a week. Byeee...


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 15, 2011)

Off you fuck, then.


----------



## Santino (Apr 16, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're right that AV will be less effective if voters fail to realise they don't have to number everyone on the list


 


Andrew Hertford said:


> But you have a choice. If you don't want to vote for the tory then don't.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

she still writing that appalingly titled book with solomon?


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

Got a NOtoAV leaflet today (well, my wife did). It's just misleading and stupid. Page 1: It will cost £26m to explain AV to everyone, Page 2: Here's how AV works (this is the third leaflet we've had that explains it) ... err. Their explanation actually makes it sound fairer, despite the titles saying "THIS IS WHY YOU MUST VOTE NO". "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's". That's just funny.

They also claim that we'd need to spend £120m on electronic voting. Is that a credible claim considering we already have preference voting in other elections and they don't need electronic voting?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 16, 2011)

Will AV eliminate safe seats? Probably not and I've heard no one make the convincing argument that it will. A safe Tory seat with a majority of 12,000 under FPTP will still be a safe seat. All this crap about candidates having to "work harder for votes" is just a load of well, crap...innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You asked me to quantify why AV is fairer than FPTP. I've given a couple of reasons why I think it is but I'm still waiting to hear similar positive endorsements of FPTP. All the 'no' campaign seem to be able to come up with are: "It creates strong government," "it's simple to understand," "it excludes smaller parties," and "it's popular throughout the world."
> 
> Facepalm heaven.



That's what you've read on this thread is it? That's what you've taken from it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

magneze said:


> Got a NOtoAV leaflet today (well, my wife did). It's just misleading and stupid. Page 1: It will cost £26m to explain AV to everyone, Page 2: Here's how AV works (this is the third leaflet we've had that explains it) ... err. Their explanation actually makes it sound fairer, despite the titles saying "THIS IS WHY YOU MUST VOTE NO". "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's". That's just funny.
> 
> They also claim that we'd need to spend £120m on electronic voting. Is that a credible claim considering we already have preference voting in other elections and they don't need electronic voting?


 
Does it matter? What is your basis for voting?


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

to be honest the yes and no campaigns are so horrendously awful that i'm ignoring them. what do people think of the NO to AV, YES to PR lot?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> to be honest the yes and no campaigns are so horrendously awful that i'm ignoring them. what do people think of the NO to AV, YES to PR lot?


 
Tory/bnp types


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does it matter? What is your basis for voting?


It matters if it's a completely bogus claim.

My basis for voting is a mixture of "is it any better?" mixed with the tactical voting conundrum of Yes, supporting Clegg & No supporting Cameron.

I'm torn, because tactical voting in a general election makes some sense, whereas this is more of a straight question. However, I'm also aware that it's not the question I would have wanted (PR vs FPTP would have been my choice for question).

Does a No mean that the system won't get changed for the foreseeable or will it further fuel the PR campaign and we'll get a vote on that eventually.

Does a Yes mean that we get a system no-one really wants and stops the PR campaign because we've already changed the voting system. Or is it a step towards PR.

I'm floating between Yes, No and not bothering at all at the moment. (mmmm, what a comfy fence this is)


----------



## moochedit (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> to be honest the yes and no campaigns are so horrendously awful



I agree they are both awful campaigns. I guess they are aimed at the non-political types that don't understand it though and not people that have already made up their mind months ago.

I received that notoav leaflet yesterday.  I've not received a yestoav leaflet or the electoral commission booklet yet though.



strung out said:


> what do people think of the NO to AV, YES to PR lot?


 
David Owen supports them. Nuff said really. (having said that i'm tempted to spoil it myself)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Will AV eliminate safe seats? Probably not and I've heard no one make the convincing argument that it will. A safe Tory seat with a majority of 12,000 under FPTP will still be a safe seat. All this crap about candidates having to "work harder for votes" is just a load of well, crap...innit?


 
It won't eliminate safe seats.  But if will increase the number of marginals and reduce the number of safe seats.   MPs who are currently elected on around 30-40% will have an incentive to appeal beyond their "in-the-bank" votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

So lib-dems, tories and labour candiates will have to try to appeal to lib-dems tories and labour voters. And more of them will have to -this is its strength? No other system will force the main parties onto the same ground electorally - vote YES.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

magneze said:


> It matters if it's a completely bogus claim.
> 
> My basis for voting is a mixture of "is it any better?" mixed with the tactical voting conundrum of Yes, supporting Clegg & No supporting Cameron.
> 
> ...



That about sums up my position too, it's a bugger isn't it?

I am persuaded by the argument that a change to AV would freeze any chance of moving to PR for many years, but I am not persuaded by the argument that a no vote would help a push towards PR, in fact I think that would also screw the chance of any change for many years.

So, as far as PR is concerned, it’s buggered whatever the outcome of this vote is, devil & deep blue sea, etc.

I do like the idea of being able to register my real first choice, and second & third choices on a tactical basis instead of a straightforward tactical vote and my gut feeling is it could produce some interesting outcomes that show the ‘real’ support for smaller parties and therefore enforce the message that PR should be introduced. But, I can also see the dangers.

At the end of the day, no one can actually forecast what would happen.

From my understanding if the last election had been under AV, the LibDems would have gained more seats & the Tories less, giving them the option of coalition with either Labour or Tories, thus they could have forced a vote on PR instead of AV, is that correct?


----------



## moochedit (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> From my understanding if the last election had been under AV, the LibDems would have gained more seats & the Tories less, giving them the option of coalition with either Labour or Tories, thus they could have forced a vote on PR instead of AV, is that correct?


 
That might have been true at the last election. But i doubt the lib dems would get as many 1st prefs or labour voters 2nd prefs in any future av election (if yes won) now.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

Why assume that?  Under FPTP they camp out on exactly the  same spot to win over the swing voting demographic in the marginals.  AV couldn't increase thatendency because it's already happened.   I'm talking about a new bloc where Labour, Greens, anti-cuts, independents and others might begin to coalesce - as they have to a greater extent in London.   Having MPs elected under AV, and a second chamber elected under PR create the conditions for that process to begin.    

What's your alternative?  To keep a system that has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why assume that?



Just based on lib dem poll scores and the fact that many labour supporters are pissed off with the lib dems for propping up the tories really. 



articul8 said:


> Having MPs elected under AV, and a *second chamber elected under PR* create the conditions for that process to begin.



is that on offer ?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

moochedit said:


> That might have been true at the last election. But i doubt the lib dems would get as many 1st prefs or labour voters 2nd prefs in any future av election (if yes won) now.


 
Well as my crystal ball is currently in for repair, I wouldn't like to guess at that.

A lot can happen in the next four years and support for the Libdems could bounce back, plus in a straight 3-way contest I suspect most Labour voters would still give the 2nd prets to the LibDem, in the hope that if Labour didn't get an outright majority there would be a better chance of a Lab-LD coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

No it couldn't and no they wouldn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Why assume that?  Under FPTP they camp out on exactly the  same spot to win over the swing voting demographic in the marginals.  AV couldn't increase thatendency because it's already happened.   I'm talking about a new bloc where Labour, Greens, anti-cuts, independents and others might begin to coalesce - as they have to a greater extent in London.   Having MPs elected under AV, and a second chamber elected under PR create the conditions for that process to begin.
> 
> What's your alternative?  To keep a system that has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail.



Have you looked out of the window recently? And i don't mean at your mdoel of how things _should_ work in the garden.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it couldn't and no they wouldn't.


 
Good to see your crystal ball is working for you.

Anyway, I am more interested in your thoughts as to if AV showed more support for smaller parties, lets take the Greens as an example and say support was registered at 10% instead of 1% and they still only got 1 seat or even lost that, wouldn't this give a boast to the campaign for a PR system?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

What's that about crystal balls? Are you really asking me that?

I think it's pretty clear that the anti-tory, pro-labour lib-dem vote is gone. National local and specific polls have indicated this for 12 months now. These people are not joking. They're not lying. They're never voting lib-dem again. I can't understand why this isn't going into some people heads, why they insist on operating on old outdated maps.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It won't eliminate safe seats.  But if will increase the number of marginals and reduce the number of safe seats.   MPs who are currently elected on around 30-40% will have an incentive to appeal beyond their "in-the-bank" votes.


 
If that is so, then why do so many supporters of AV claim that is the case? This idea that candidates will "work harder for your vote" is also a fiction. The only thing most politicans work hard for is themselves.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's that about crystal balls? Are you really asking me that?
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that the anti-tory, pro-labour lib-dem vote is gone. National local and specific polls have indicated this for 12 months now. These people are not joking. They're not lying. They're never voting lib-dem again. I can't understand why this isn't going into some people heads, why they insist on operating on old outdated maps.



We all know what has happened in the last 12 months, but it's impossible to predict what will happen in the next 12 months, or more likely the 48 months before the next election.

Anyway, any answer to my question? 

I am genuinely interested, as I see the logic in this argument, but I am open to be persuaded otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm not being funny but there's hypotheticals based on extension of reality and there's stuff that's not. I'm happy to deal with the first sort. On the general point, i think, along with the sensible Greens, that AV is going to harm them - in the immediate and in the longer run. I think Lucas would probably not have been elected in Brighton and if she were it would have been as the end result of a mass of anti-voting across all the main parties rather than the close community support some people suggest AV will necessitate.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

Lucas and he Green Party leadership- and the party as a whole, which endorsed this position at its conference - have taken leave of their senses by voting for AV, whilst an odd bunch of isolated eccentrics are more "sensible"?  

The British Election Survey suggested Brighton Pavillion could still have gone Green with AV, but in any case it's hardly a strong case since was a pretty freak outcome under FPTP.
Of course, Claphamboy is right - and it's a point I've raised consistently - that without the tactical voting squeeze you'd see the real extent of Green support (and hence the level of dispropotionality masked by FPTP).


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

moochedit said:


> is that on offer ?


 
Not in the referendum, but both coalition parties are formally committed to it.  Of course, if there's a NO vote a section of the Tory backbenchers will use this as "proof" that the public like the tried and tested FPTP system, and hence might ditch this commitment.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

How telling that the socialists in the greens arde disnmissed as ' isolated eccentrics' - the more right wing are i suppose. hard nosed realists? Sound familiar.

AV extends tactical voting it doesn't get rid of it - a total myth. It displaces it to the 2nd round - it effectively makes all votes except for a few tactical votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not in the referendum, but both coalition parties are formally committed to it.  Of course, if there's a NO vote a section of the Tory backbenchers will use this as "proof" that the public like the tried and tested FPTP system, and hence might ditch this commitment.


 
Wooh! PR in the lords!!! Maybe top down handed to us reforms are going to undermine the state after all. 

What other formal commitments have govts made in the past?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

[Jeremy Paxman mode]

But, BA you're still not answering the question.

[/Jeremy Paxman mode]

I know your position is that if the YES vote wins, we have lost the chance for a vote on PR for years, which I agree with. However, I think the same will apply if the NO vote wins. 

So, whichever way it goes, the PR campaign is fucked in the short term.

However, if we stick with FPTP the Greens are likely to continue register around 1% of the vote, as it’s considered a wasted vote. Whereas under AV they are likely to register 8%+, as they do in the Euro elections where they are seen as having a chance, but that 8%+ would count a lot more in a general election, because the turnout is almost double.

So, surely, seeing parties getting a 10% share in national elections, but no MPs would be a major positive for any campaign for PR?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How telling that the socialists in the greens arde disnmissed as ' isolated eccentrics' - the more right wing are i suppose. hard nosed realists? Sound familiar.


I know socialists active in the Greens who aren't involved with the Green Left because - with one or two honorable exceptions - they are a bunch of loons.



> AV extends tactical voting it doesn't get rid of it - a total myth. It displaces it to the 2nd round - it effectively makes all votes except for a few tactical votes.


But it means that tactical considerations DON'T obscure real first preferences as they do under FPTP - as Claphamboy has recognised.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> [Jeremy Paxman mode]
> 
> But, BA you're still not answering the question.
> 
> ...




I'm not really interested in PR. Never have been - don't know why you're trying to get me to agree to some sort of program to achieve it. Look at the countries with various forms of PR - does capital still dominate? Has the actual system beyond the electoral form changed? If you follow your own logic though FPTP is a better platform for getting PR.

I'm also not interested in the Greens either, but what on earth makes you think under AV the Greens are going to automatically get 8%+. They get 8% in the euros because no one really gives a shit, the european parliament is seen as nothing to do with real life. Not going to happen in a General election - even with the centrist funneling of AV. Weak heart Greens get to vote green but effectively vote lib-dem or labour.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wooh! PR in the lords!!! Maybe top down handed to us reforms are going to undermine the state after all.
> What other formal commitments have govts made in the past?


 
I never said their formal commitment can be taken at face value (that's why I pointedly referred to them as merely "formal").  But an internal dynamic of reform in bourgeois institutions can have unintended consequences - Marx thought the struggle for the universal franchise was equivalent to make socialism a formality.  I'm not claiming this about AV - or PR come to that - but to be contemptuous of concessions at this level is plain stupid.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 16, 2011)

We have to have AV, I mean everybody else has it. Simply loads of countries use AV .... 

Oh .. wait ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I know socialists active in the Greens who aren't involved with the Green Left because - with one or two honorable exceptions - they are a bunch of loons.
> 
> 
> But it means that tactical considerations DON'T obscure real first preferences as they do under FPTP - as Claphamboy has recognised.



BNP, tory suporting loons i suppose. Thanks for the political argument there.

So it does away with tactical voting except where it extends it. Cheers. Greens get to secretly vote lib-dem and labour. We progress.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

{at weltweit] You're the only one using that stupid argument.  At one time no countries gave women the vote.  Was that a good argument to restrict the franchise to men for ever more?  Was it fuck


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I never said their formal commitment can be taken at face value (that's why I pointedly referred to them as merely "formal").  But an internal dynamic of reform in bourgeois institutions can have unintended consequences - Marx thought the struggle for the universal franchise was equivalent to make socialism a formality.  I'm not claiming this about AV - or PR come to that - but to be contemptuous of concessions at this level is plain stupid.


 
You think a formal commitment to PR in the House of Lord from parties representing different factions of neo-liberalism counts as a concession? As something we've won though struggle? Something we've imposed on them? You're a fucking loon.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> BNP, tory suporting loons i suppose. Thanks for the political argument there.


I didn't say that - there are a few marginal voices.  But they don't represent all socialists in the Greens.



> Greens get to secretly vote lib-dem and labour. We progress.


 
No the point is that Greens get to show their support for the Greens rather than appearing as Labour/LD out of tactical imperatives thrown up by FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think a formal commitment to PR in the House of Lord from parties representing different factions of neo-liberalism counts as a concession? As something we've won though struggle? Something we've imposed on them? You're a fucking loon.


 
Where have I said that?  I think that if an elected 2nd chamber were to actually come about, it would have been as a result of over a century of struggle against hereditary privilege and patronage.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

So when i say they get to vote lib-dem/labour they do. Just not first off. I understand that you need to argue that there's a hidden Green vote, i don;t think there is. If there is why isn't there a hidden BNP vote? We're back to AV being good for nice small parties by bad for nasty small parties. The magic vote - all things to all men.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Where have I said that?  I think that if an elected 2nd chamber were to actually come about, it would have been as a result of over a century of struggle against hereditary privilege and patronage.


 
Where? Here:



> ...to be contemptuous of concessions at this level is plain stupid.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where? Here:


 
No I didn't say that a formal commitment is a "concession" (or if it is it is pitifully weak) - I'm talking about the implementation of those plans.   Or you are happy with an unelected Lords as well as with the present voting system? At this rate you'll be celebrating the monarchy.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So when i say they get to vote lib-dem/labour they do. Just not first off. I understand that you need to argue that there's a hidden Green vote, i don;t think there is. If there is why isn't there a hidden BNP vote? We're back to AV being good for nice small parties by bad for nasty small parties. The magic vote - all things to all men.


 
I think there is a hidden Green vote and possibly a hidden BNP vote too - but the fact is no-one knows because the FPTP system doesn't let people vote for their 1st preference AND retain an ability to influence the outcome unless you happen to be supporting the leading parties.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

So when you describe something as a concession you don't actually mean that it's a concession? You mean something else - that i'm a tory monarchist maybe. When you describe PR in the lords as concession but didn't mean that it was a concession what did you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I think there is a hidden Green vote and possibly a hidden BNP vote too - but the fact is no-one knows because the FPTP system doesn't let people vote for their 1st preference AND retain an ability to influence the outcome unless you happen to be supporting the leading parties.


 
So what?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So when you describe something as a concession you don't actually mean that it's a concession? You mean something else - that i'm a tory monarchist maybe. When you describe PR in the lords as concession but didn't mean that it was a concession what did you mean?


 
I said an elected Lords, held under PR, would represent a concession - as opposed to an unelected chamber dominated by patronage.  But simply making formal promises you know full well won't be enacted is not a concession (or only very slightly) - it is a delaying tactic.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

So it _is_ a concussion after all - and when i laugh at it and what it represents, a pathetic sight lowering forelock tugging desperation, that's what i'm laughing at.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So what?


 
So the strangehold of the big parties is broken down at least in respect of the appeal for first preference support - the real rate of Green support would be exposed.  of course, for the most part the big 3 would reconsolidate their dominance thereafter.  But the extent of disproportionality would be further exposed, and they would be able to target their support more accurately at local level.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So it _is_ a concussion after all


Interesting parapraxis - concession/concussion 



> and when i laugh at it and what it represents, a pathetic sight lowering forelock tugging desperation, that's what i'm laughing at.


 
What, the formal commitment or the actuality?  The latter is not "forelock tugging desperation" but finally delivering on an objective of the Labour movement for a century even if its a concession forced from the Tories (just as was the 1867 reform act for example).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

A) So what? B) You're basing this on a hunch - or ona  model of how politics should be, an ideal type substituted for reality. C) So you now arguing that AV is more disproportionate than FPTP - and the terrible shock of this would lead to the big parties having better electoral organisation. Fantastic.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Interesting parapraxis - concession/concussion
> 
> 
> 
> What, the formal commitment or the actuality?  The latter is not "forelock tugging desperation" but finally delivering on an objective of the Labour movement for a century even if its a concession forced from the Tories (just as was the 1867 reform act for example).


 
Neither, you - and what you have to argue to try and use this 'concession' as a rallying point.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> C) So you now arguing that AV is more disproportionate than FPTP - and the terrible shock of this would lead to the big parties having better electoral organisation. Fantastic.


 
No - I'm arguing that the true extent of FPTP disproportionality is masked - AV would bring that out.  I'm saying that this would allow smaller parties to up their game at local level and have more of a voice in the electoral debate even if not necessarily in electoral outcomes.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

So AV is inherently disproportionate then?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Neither, you - and what you have to argue to try and use this 'concession' as a rallying point.


 
Even the fact of the referendum on AV represents a modest concession - never before in British history have the people had the chance to determine directly how their representatives are to be elected.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

Shudder ye scions of state - for you know not what ye have done. What pompous guff.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So AV is inherently disproportionate then?


 
It is not a proportional system.  I've never claimed it is.  Although I don't think *in general* (as opposed to in some specific cases) it is automatically more disproportionate than FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Shudder ye scions of state - for you know not what ye have done. What pompous guff.


 
It is true - even putting making this limited degree of change in the hands of the voters has scared them - look at George Osborne taking a pop at the ERS on the front pages


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It is not a proportional system.  I've never claimed it is.  Although I don't think *in general* (as opposed to in some specific cases) it is automatically more disproportionate than FPTP.


 
Can you tell Andrew (_march 26th was our kristanacht_) Hertford that? Or are you going to allow this sort of rubbish amongst AV supporters to pass unchallenged?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It is true - even putting making this limited degree of change in the hands of the voters has scared them - look at George Osborne taking a pop at the ERS on the front pages


 
Yes, see the whopping great £1.8 million they've put up. They're terrified.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can you tell Andrew (_march 26th was our kristanacht_) Hertford that? Or are you going to allow this sort of rubbish amongst AV supporters to pass unchallenged?


 
I don't know what he's been saying.  I've just told you what I think.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, see the whopping great £1.8 million they've put up. They're terrified.


 
That's what they've *declared*.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't know what he's been saying.  I've just told you what I think.


 
You been ignoring his contributions to this thread then?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

There are 112 pages to this thread.  There may have been the odd claim in one or two posts I've either not clocked or not thought it worth engaging with.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

Here - this'll be up your street .  A pluralist tome from Compass:
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not really interested in PR.



So, you're not interested in any proportional system, any reform at all?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> So, you're not interested in any proportional system, any reform at all?


 
What do you mean by 'reform'? You surely can't just say 'reform' can you? 

I'd quite like PR for instrumental reasons - the reasons that A8 has offered here for AV are essentially just re-tooled traditional arguments for PR - but i don't think it's getting at the root of the problem, though it _could_ be a step towards helping organise to get at the root.


----------



## Oscar_Lomax (Apr 16, 2011)

i will spoil my non-existent ballot paper and scrawl in green ink that "Corporal Clogg must hang".

I will then locate myself in my kitchen area and eat baked beans for at least 15 minutes (yes, a lot of baked beans).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Here - this'll be up your street .  A pluralist tome from Compass:
> http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/


 I'll look forward to reading the millionaire's latest some time next week.

Neal Lawson - the pluralists Ken Follet.


----------



## Oscar_Lomax (Apr 16, 2011)

Two werDS: not GooD EnuFF


----------



## Oscar_Lomax (Apr 16, 2011)

when peepl~E get upset and angry online. Funny. I have done it and it is still funny.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'll look forward to reading the millionaire's latest some time next week.
> 
> Neal Lawson - the pluralists Ken Follet.


 
millionaire?  Know he made a few bob when they flogged off LLM, and he's book some book receipts coming in, probably a few quid from writing for the Guardian, maybe an odd consultancy..

But not sure that adds upto 6 figures.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean by 'reform'? You surely can't just say 'reform' can you?
> 
> I'd quite like PR for instrumental reasons - the reasons that A8 has offered here for AV are essentially just re-tooled traditional arguments for PR - but i don't think it's getting at the root of the problem, though it _could_ be a step towards helping organise to get at the root.



Now you're confusing me, a few posts ago you said you're no fan of PR and now you're saying that it could be a step towards getting to the root of 'the problem', a position I hold.

So, we're once again back to my original question - AV is likely to show the true support of smaller parties and therefore be a campaign tool for a move towards PR, whereas FPTP will continue to disguise support for smaller parties and work against any move towards PR.

You have stated that you disagree, but you have not explained why.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> millionaire?  Know he made a few bob when they flogged off LLM, and he's book some book receipts coming in, probably a few quid from writing for the Guardian, maybe an odd consultancy..
> 
> But not sure that adds upto 6 figures.


 You're very naive in lots of way aren't you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

maybe - he could be secretly organised a crack smuggling ring in league with the Columbians.  But it would be news to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Now you're confusing me, a few posts ago you said you're no fan of PR and now you're saying that it could be a step towards getting to the root of 'the problem', a position I hold.
> 
> So, we're once again back to my original question - AV is likely to show the true support of smaller parties and therefore be a campaign tool for a move towards PR, whereas FPTP will continue to disguise support for smaller parties and work against any move towards PR.
> 
> You have stated that you disagree, but you have not explained why.




I said it could potentially be helpful to organising to get at the root - not at getting to root itself. These are very different things.

Why are you assuming that the true support is somehow larger than what current results show? Why don't you argue that FPTP shows the true level of support? AV is not a step towards PR in any way whatsoever - you cannot simply assert that it is with no supporting argument then moan that people haven't offered a detailed enough rebuttal to your unsupported assertion. 

And for the record, i've argued from the start on this thread that AV is a block on any moves towards PR as top down changes like this only happen once all sides are agreed that it does not and will not hurt their wider shared interests -that's why this is happening - and that any move towards imposing PR (rather than getting it crumbed off the masters table) has to rely on the sort of extra-parliamentary social struggle that would put the entire system under question, not this sort of bureaucratic managed 'change' (read legitmate us and out system, please). AV will re-legitimate the system and the parties that represent its interests for you your life and throw away the almost unprecedented disgust at all stripe of politicians and what they represent on some nice london pluralist hobby horse and funnel  it into votes for the tories, lib-dems and labour - whilst de-arming the anti-cuts movement at the same time.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> AV is a block on any moves towards PR as top down changes like this only happen once all sides are agreed that it does not and will not hurt their wider shared interests -that's why this is happening - and that any move towards imposing PR (rather than getting it crumbed off the masters table) has to rely on the sort of extra-parliamentary social struggle that would put the entire system under question, not this sort of bureaucratic managed 'change'


 
You're contradicting yourself again here.  How is it that virtually every country in Europe has some kind of PR?   Why did their ruling political elites accept that it's OK for them, whilst ours think it's too dangerous to let us vote on it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You're contradicting yourself again here.  How is it that virtually every country in Europe has some kind of PR?   Why did their ruling political elites accept that it's OK for them, whilst ours think it's too dangerous to let us vote on it?


 
Where's the contradiction? Think about what you've just asked me. Think about what you've pointed out means in terms of how PR would change social relations.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm well aware that in and of itself PR will not lead to the fall of capitalism.  That is very obvious.  But countries with PR have seen socialist groupings gain a foothold in the debate - in Ireland, Greece, Germany, Holland and elsewhere.  Of course they are still marginal, but they are there.  I suppose on balance the ruling class in these countries think this is a price they have to pay for the legitimacy of the state and electoral arrangements to be accepted.  

But why has the British political class been able to withstand these pressures - bourgeois democratic pressures if you like to call them that - for so long?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you assuming that the true support is somehow larger than what current results show? Why don't you argue that FPTP shows the true level of support? AV is not a step towards PR in any way whatsoever - you cannot simply assert that it is with no supporting argument then moan that people haven't offered a detailed enough rebuttal to your unsupported assertion.



Are you seriously suggesting there's no evidence of tactical voting under the FPTP system? 

FFS, I've done it, loads of people I know have done it, loads of posters on here have admitted they have done it, polls indicate it happens and so does electoral outcomes.

Just how much evidence are you looking for?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Are you seriously suggesting there's no evidence of tactical voting under the FPTP system?
> 
> FFS, I've done it, loads of people I know have done it, loads of posters on here have admitted they have done it, polls indicate it happens and so does electoral outcomes.
> 
> Just how much evidence are you looking for?



WTF? I've argued that AV _extends_ tactical voting not that FPTP doesn't have it. Do yourself a favour, i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but read the thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm well aware that in and of itself PR will not lead to the fall of capitalism.  That is very obvious.  But countries with PR have seen socialist groupings gain a foothold in the debate - in Ireland, Greece, Germany, Holland and elsewhere.  Of course they are still marginal, but they are there.  I suppose on balance the ruling class in these countries think this is a price they have to pay for the legitimacy of the state and electoral arrangements to be accepted.
> 
> But why has the British political class been able to withstand these pressures - bourgeois democratic pressures if you like to call them that - for so long?


 
Well, two things, the British state is not one of these that's been formed or re-founded post Vienna or 1871 - it's legitimation myths, it's structures didn't have to be constructed recently, and these pressure have barely existed outside of some isolated cranks. What's got to do with top down state led re-organisation of fuck all like AV is?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> WTF? I've argued that AV _extends_ tactical voting not that FPTP doesn't have it. Do yourself a favour, i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but read the thread.


 
FFS - I've been following this thread for months.

Yes, AV extends tactical voting AFTER the first vote, but seems to allow people to express themselves with their FIRST vote - that surely means their FIRST vote will show their real support for their party of choice, whereas FPTP does not?

In anyway. Whatsoever. No?


----------



## Oscar_Lomax (Apr 16, 2011)

aas i sed.  spoil uyer paper.

two werd`s``; bo;;ox


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

tbf, if i was minded to vote in an election, i'd probably still use my first preference to vote tactically. in fact, given that the same three two parties are going to get in, in most places, i don't see that anything's changed to make me vote any less tactically than before.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> FFS - I've been following this thread for months.
> 
> Yes, AV extends tactical voting AFTER the first vote, but seems to allow people to express themselves with their FIRST vote - that surely means their FIRST vote will show their real support for their party of choice, whereas FPTP does not?
> 
> In anyway. Whatsoever. No?



So why the hell are you asking me if i think that under FPTP that tactical voting doesn't happen? I've never said any such thing.

So let's get this clear fist, AV extends tactual voting? We agree on that?

What is this 'real support'? Isn't voting lib-dem or labour 2nd pref real support? Surely that's what Av argues doesn't it? As these are thE votes that will actually count.


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

How I'm starting to think of things is:

A yes vote is a positive vote for AV, you should vote yes if you want AV.

A no vote is NOT a vote for FPTP.

Thinking of it that way, for a supporter of PR, the only way to vote is no.


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

Actually, what is the question we will be asked on May 5th? Is it:

AV Yes/No

or

AV/FPTP

?


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

"At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?"


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

.





> At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

i'm sure this has been mentioned before already, but this is a pretty shitty day to hold the referendum anyway isn't it? the turnout is going to be much higher in places that are already voting, meaning you're going to have a properly skewed set of results depending on whether people are voting in locals or not.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So why the hell are you asking me if i think that under FPTP that tactical voting doesn't happen? I've never said any such thing.



You have claimed there's no 'hidden' support for smaller parties under FPTP, I fundamentally disagree with that, because all the evidence would suggest otherwise, because of, err, tactical voting! 



> So let's get this clear fist, AV extends tactual voting? We agree on that?



Yes, beyond the FIRST vote. Those FIRST votes will, however, show that smaller parties therefore have more support than the FPTP system suggests and therefore those results could help fuel the campaign for a proper PR system



> What is this 'real support'? Isn't voting lib-dem or labour 2nd pref real support? Surely that's what Av argues doesn't it? As these are thE votes that will actually count.


 
And where have I suggested otherwise?

I've made clear I am no great fan of AV, only that it could expose the real support for smaller parties, by way of the FIRST votes, and became a campaign tool for PR.

I am still waiting on you, or anyone else, to counter that logic.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm well aware that in and of itself PR will not lead to the fall of capitalism.  That is very obvious.  But countries with PR have seen socialist groupings gain a foothold in the debate - in Ireland, Greece, Germany, Holland and elsewhere.  Of course they are still marginal, but they are there.  I suppose on balance the ruling class in these countries think this is a price they have to pay for the legitimacy of the state and electoral arrangements to be accepted.
> 
> But why has the British political class been able to withstand these pressures - bourgeois democratic pressures if you like to call them that - for so long?


 
How come so many Greek people don't care enough to vote?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/gree-n09.shtml


> The most important statistic from Sunday’s election was the protest represented in the abstention rate. With 40 percent of the vote in, 40.2 percent of the electorate did not vote. Blank or spoiled votes posted were also at a record 9 percent. In the municipal counts, the abstention rates were 40.5 percent, while blank and spoiled votes accounted for 5.37 percent.
> 
> In Greece the electorate is legally bound to vote, yet just 60 percent of the electorate turned out.



Boycott, let the state look stupid spending its resources for nothing. That's how Yes2AV and No2AV look to so many - stupid, a waste of time.







If you want to give legitimacy by voting in referenda, go ahead. 
In Britain no question ever asked by state referendum has been worth answering.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> You have claimed there's no 'hidden' support for smaller parties under FPTP, I fundamentally disagree with that, because all the evidence would suggest otherwise, because of, err, tactical voting!



No i didn't. I suggested that your 8%+ for the greens is not realistic in a general election.



> Yes, beyond the FIRST vote. Those FIRST votes will, however, show that smaller parties therefore have more support than the FPTP system suggests and therefore those results could help fuel the campaign for a proper PR system



And i'm suggesting that they if they do it won't be on any significant scale and that it doesn't matter anyway - their votes are effective votes for mainstream parties. AV insists that they are.



> And where have I suggested otherwise?
> 
> I've made clear I am no great fan of AV, only that it could expose the real support for smaller parties, by way of the FIRST votes, and became a campaign tool for PR.
> 
> I am still waiting on you, or anyone else, to counter that logic.


Adding 'i'm still waiting' doesn't actually make it true - we've dealt with the idea of disaggregation at some length. Tell me why FPTP doesn't show real support (real in whatever terms you're talking in).  Maybe the 1%s are because there's no support?

How could something that funnels support to the centre lead to PR? Do you think they're after achieving something that further cements their political rule and legitimation the'll go _ok, time to do something for the people now_?


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Adding 'i'm still waiting' doesn't actually make it true - we've dealt with the idea of disaggregation at some length. Tell me why FPTP doesn't show real support (real in whatever terms you're talking in).  *Maybe the 1%s are because there's no support?*


 
It's tough for some on the electoral left beyond Labour to accept this, but that's the reality. For greens, respect and the other socialist lash ups of one kind or another, people don't buy the talk. They don't believe you. That's the way it is.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

sihhi said:


> It's tough for some on the electoral left beyond Labour to accept this, but that's the reality. For greens, respect and the other socialist lash ups of one kind or another, people don't buy the talk. They don't believe you. That's the way it is.


 
You may be right.  But you don't and can't know that - given that there is every reason to believe that the extent of smaller party support is greater than expressed at FPTP elections.  The Europeans, the GLA, the other devolved assemblies all show smaller parties doing better.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You may be right.  But you don't and can't know that - given that there is every reason to believe that the extent of smaller party support is greater than expressed at FPTP elections.  The Europeans, the GLA, the other devolved assemblies all show smaller parties doing better.



Take the GLA, they're still small parties which change nothing even when elected - whether BNP or Green.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> tbf, if i was minded to vote in an election, i'd probably still use my first preference to vote tactically.


 
In which case you'll show yourself up to be a fucking moron, tbh.


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

well, the same two parties are going to get in, what difference would it make?

e2a: by that i mean, if i'm going to be forced to vote tactically on the second preferences, when there are only two realistic choices of who's going to get in, i may as well just avoid the hassle of ticking a load of extra boxes and just tick my first preference tactically.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

sihhi said:


> Take the GLA, they're still small parties which change nothing even when elected - whether BNP or Green.


 
I don't think the Greens "change nothing" in London (although I don't really rate their GLA people).  Livingstone has to win Green 2nd prefs (and Respect, anti-war Lib dems) so they do influence the position of the Labour in London (eg. with the congestion zone, the bike scheme Boris is taking credit for).  Ok these might not be huge advances.  But they aren't irrelevant.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> well, the same two parties are going to get in, what difference would it make?
> 
> e2a: by that i mean, if i'm going to be forced to vote tactically on the second preferences, when there are only two realistic choices of who's going to get in, i may as well just avoid the hassle of ticking a load of extra boxes and just tick my first preference tactically.



No one is going to 'force' you to add a second preference vote, there is no requirement to do so.


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> No one is going to 'force' you to add a second preference vote, there is no requirement to do so.


 
well exactly, so i either have to 'waste' a vote by going for a party that won't get in, or vote tactically for a 'least bad' option. i may as well just cut the bullshit and vote tactically with the first option. or not at all of course, which is what i'll probably end up doing.


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> "At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?"


So, a no is not a vote for FPTP as I suspected. That's good.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

Re-You have claimed there's no 'hidden' support for smaller parties



butchersapron said:


> No i didn't. I suggested that your 8%+ for the greens is not realistic in a general election.



You're right, I should not have used the word 'claimed', as it was only a 'suggestion' you made - one in direct conflict to all the available evidence.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

strung out said:


> well exactly, so i either have to 'waste' a vote by going for a party that won't get in, or vote tactically for a 'least bad' option. i may as well just cut the bullshit and vote tactically with the first option. or not at all of course, which is what i'll probably end up doing.



 

If someone, would like to counter the argument that at least AV, for all it's faults, will, via the FIRST vote, give a better indication of support for smaller parties and therefore add fuel to the campaign for PR, I'll be interested in seeing that argument.

The fact that no one has this afternoon, tips me towards voting yes.

*goes back to lurking the on thread*



magneze said:


> So, a no is not a vote for FPTP as I suspected. That's good.



It will end-up being counted as a vote in support FPTP, and that's a fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Re-You have claimed there's no 'hidden' support for smaller parties
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I should not have used the word 'claimed', as it was only a 'suggestion' you made - one in direct conflict to all the available evidence.


 

What evidence?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

yep - voting No will - whatever your motives - be taken as an endorsement of FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> If someone, would like to counter the argument that at least AV, for all it's faults, will, via the FIRST vote, give a better indication of support for smaller parties and therefore add fuel to the campaign for PR, I'll be interested in seeing that argument.
> 
> The fact that no one has this afternoon, tips me towards voting yes.
> 
> ...



Are you reading this thing?

You're positing a potential outcome - one i don't think will happen - as a given fact. It doesn't work by you saying what you want to see than asking people to challenge it and if they don't (because it's mental, 10% + votes for the greens for example) your invented scenario becomes reality. That's jazzx shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yep - voting No will - whatever your motives - be taken as an endorsement of FPTP.


 
BY who? The state? What would a YES vote say to these same people?


----------



## magneze (Apr 16, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yep - voting No will - whatever your motives - be taken as an endorsement of FPTP.


Considering the question on the referendum paper, I'm not sure that's true.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What evidence?


 
See post 2010.

Are you seriously denying this?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> See post 2010.
> 
> Are you seriously denying this?


 
Denying what? Where is all this evidence?

This is post# 2010



butchersapron said:


> There's nothing _to_ undermine in the banality that more popular parties get more votes and have a broader appeal than less popular ones. The argument of yours that was so central and has now quietly gone by the wayside is that the requirement to win 50%+ of all votes meant parties had to try and broaden their appeal - there's no such requirement, so there's no such imperative. What motivation there is and the positives (as you see them) apply just as well under FPTP.


----------



## strung out (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


>


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 16, 2011)

What depresses me about this thread is I appear to be about the only person contributing who thinks about voting for a candidate rather than a party. If it's indicative of the whole of the country then it's absolutely no wonder that we elect pretty much nothing but fraudsters and central office puppets.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

ComRes show NO campaign 6 points ahead



> The poll also asked ComRes’s regular tracker on AV voting intention, and found the NO campaign ahead by six points. Topline figures (weighted by likelihood to vote – though it’s unclear whether ComRes asked specifically about likelihood to vote in the referendum) with changes from last month are YES 37%(+3), NO 43% (+6), Don’t know 21%(-7).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

_Incidentally_:



> 41% of people agreed with the statement that the Liberal Democrats should pull of the coalition if they don’t get the changes they want to the NHS policy… though I expect a large chunk of those responses will be from people who think the Lib Dems should pull out of the coalition anyway. YouGov asked a similar “should the Lib Dems leave the coalition if…” question about the AV referendum back in March, but with more nuanced answer options. 11% of people though the Lib Dems should leave the coalition if the AV referendum was defeated… but 27% thought they should leave it anyway.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2011)

Is it weighted by certainty to vote?  Critical thing is turnout.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2011)

> 41% of people agreed with the statement that the Liberal Democrats should pull of the coalition if they don’t get the changes they want to the NHS policy… though I expect a large chunk of those responses will be from people who think the Lib Dems should pull out of the coalition anyway. YouGov asked a similar “should the Lib Dems leave the coalition if…” question about the AV referendum back in March, but with more nuanced answer options. 11% of people though the Lib Dems should leave the coalition if the AV referendum was defeated… but 27% thought they should leave it anyway.



Doesn't this prove that the AV referendum is meaningless and both AV campaigns deserve equal fire?

It's lunacy for anyone to be debating (pro-cuts) bourgeois democracy when we should be debating workplace democracy, democracy within the anti-cuts movement, democracy within trade unions, democracy within public services like nurseries and old people's homes etc.

Do you disagreee with the above, butchersapron and articul8?

The poll probably confirms general feeling - 40% of the population think the present government needs to be put down soon, AV or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2011)

I do disagree. It's not lunacy - it's politics, immediate politics. You do this every single day - it's not lunacy. It might be a bit desperate or whatever but there you go. I'm getting desperate.

You don't debate the ideal model by saying that what we should be debating it. Of course we should, but if it 's just us then we're not debating it at all  - unless we cannot find a a way that shows that we're part of normal culture we're lost anyway - don't get beached with the right position.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I do disagree. It's not lunacy - it's politics, immediate politics. You do this every single day - it's not lunacy. It might be a bit desperate or whatever but there you go. I'm getting desperate.
> 
> You don't debate the ideal model by saying that what we should be debating it. Of course we should, but if it 's just us then we're not debating it at all  - unless we cannot find a a way that shows that we're part of normal culture we're lost anyway - don't get beached with the right position.



1. I don't have a right position. That's the point I was making. 
The ideal model you mean post-revolution? I was thinking about now within anticuts work not ideal ones, just better than what we're doing now. 
I have no ideal models anyway.

2. Is it wrong to assert the main point about capitalist democracy? To talk about parties being funded by specific coalitions of (usually business) interests?

3. What I worry about is: How do we keep democracy alive with a midwife who says she opposes all cuts but wishes the police had arrested everyone in a mask on March 26 alongside the manager of a day centre (who will be redeployed) alongside the people who work under that manager (who probably won't)? 
What about differences in income within the anti-cuts side now that a few 'non-political' people are involved? There's couples with dual above-average incomes (teacher and health+safety inspector) both in the anti-cuts campaign and part-time garden worker sole as provider. 
Should we levy? If we don't, we're at the mercy of TU officials. If we do, how should we levy? 

4. Perhaps it's me but AV feels remote. AV doesn't feel like immediate politics, either. I haven't seen a single window poster about the referendum. Not one. One person has discussed it saying he's not sure but it won't make any difference even if AV does come.

5. I don't think it's normal culture, it's normal political culture. Does us being part of it help anyone? I find it bizarre that just like the main capitalist parties the supposedly more democratic our side is telling its supporters how to vote.

Yes 2 AV Labour is Yes.
No Labour including the LRC is No.
Greens Yes
Plaid Yes
SP is No with meetings across the country "Socialist Party: Why Socialists are opposed to AV"
CPB is No
SWP is "Socialist Worker backs a no vote in the referendum on AV and supports PR"
Lib Dems Yes
RESPECT is "Say YES to PR by voting NO to AV"
Tories No.
CPGB Weekly Worker "Winning a 'yes' vote in the May 5 referendum on AV should be seen as part of the battle for extreme democracy"

6. Do you agree
both AV campaigns deserve equal fire?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2011)

Damn right they do - the interest as the heart of both should be exposed, and given sunlight so we see the similarity of them

(I'm sorry for just replying to 6 tonight ...i will come back on 1-5 tmw)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

sihhi said:


> It's lunacy for anyone to be debating (pro-cuts) bourgeois democracy when we should be debating workplace democracy, democracy within the anti-cuts movement, democracy within trade unions, democracy within public services like nurseries and old people's homes etc.
> 
> Do you disagreee with the above, butchersapron and articul8?


 
I'm not arguing - and have never argued - that parliamentary socialism becomes possible if only you have AV, or PR.   I'm all for emphasising the role of extra-parliamentary struggle.  But the belief in the legitimacy of democratic representation in parliament runs deep in the psyche.   People that want the coalition to fall are more likely to think that will happen by the LDs leaving it and challenging a Tory minority, or by electing a Labour government, than by an insurrectionary mass wave of anti-cuts militancy.  So the electoral terrain can't be just abandoned.

Fighting for individual reforms is not the same as putting a "reformist" horizon to your political ambitions.  The Tories fear AV not only because it would make it harder for them to get a majority if the LDs shift their alignments, but also because it would be destabilising for the parliamentary tradition - because after getting AV, people will still be arguing for further reform (which we will of course) and the system will appear to be "up for grabs" rather than the settled form of centuries of evolution.  And this dynamic of change will have come about because the British people have insisted on change at the first opportunity they have been given.  

Butchers seems oblivious to fact that a No vote would be interpreted not only as a blow to Clegg, but as an indication that people are generally content with the political system as it stands.  The NO camp are playing a classic divide-and-rule job on people who want the system to change - the NO to 2, Yes to PR people are aligned with the FPTP for ever brigade.


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Butchers seems oblivious to fact that a No vote would be interpreted not only as a blow to Clegg, but as an indication that people are generally content with the political system as it stands.


 
How can you live with yourself while posting fundamentally dishonest things like that? He's not oblivious of it, he just doesn't agree with your moon-man arguments.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm still not convinced that ANYONE on this thread is talking sense. I don't recall ever having the option to vote for a political party in any parliamentary election. What I've been given is a voting form for a set of individual candidates with their party affiliation marked on it. We do not get to vote on which party governs the country, we get to vote on who is the MP to represent our constituency. So discussing this issue as if all voting was on a party basis alone doesn't make sense.

There are important issues that are being completely ignored because NOBODY on this thread is discussing the actual process of a British parliamentary election, and instead everyone is basically rehashing media fantasy arguments. What concerns me is what happens to maverick candidates under AV. The people I want to see in Parliament. The people who will go right out on a limb for something they believe their constituents need. Precisely the sort of candidates who will be popular with some and unpopular with others. Not the sort of blandly acceptable people who will gain from AV.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 17, 2011)

lords to be elected by PR if av vote is no 

Story doesn't mention a referendum being held about it.   

(20% of seats still not elected, so could still be "rigged")

Question that comes to mind is would the parliament act be amended so that the new "senate" (or whatever they call the new house) can actually block bills or would it only be able to delay them like the lords now ?

Also, doesn't state exactly what method of PR would be used ? (e.g. STV, AMS, AV+, party list, etc) (although that might still be up for negotiation between cameron and clegg)


----------



## magneze (Apr 17, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I'm still not convinced that ANYONE on this thread is talking sense. I don't recall ever having the option to vote for a political party in any parliamentary election. What I've been given is a voting form for a set of individual candidates with their party affiliation marked on it. We do not get to vote on which party governs the country, we get to vote on who is the MP to represent our constituency. So discussing this issue as if all voting was on a party basis alone doesn't make sense.
> 
> There are important issues that are being completely ignored because NOBODY on this thread is discussing the actual process of a British parliamentary election, and instead everyone is basically rehashing media fantasy arguments. What concerns me is what happens to maverick candidates under AV. The people I want to see in Parliament. The people who will go right out on a limb for something they believe their constituents need. Precisely the sort of candidates who will be popular with some and unpopular with others. Not the sort of blandly acceptable people who will gain from AV.


Do you not think that "maverick candidates" are precisely the sort of candidates that might gain from AV due to many people putting them down as second preferences?


----------



## magneze (Apr 17, 2011)

moochedit said:


> lords to be elected by PR if av vote is no
> 
> Story doesn't mention a referendum being held about it.
> 
> Question that comes to mind is would the parliament act be amended so that the new "senate" (or whatever they call the new house) can actually block bills or would it only be able to delay them like the lords now ?


The tories only let us have a referendum on this because they could adjust the question so that the answer would be no which suits their interests.

I would guess that any HoL constitutional amendments will reduce not increase their power, despite any appearances. PR might give the Lords a more representative outlook but I bet they will be neutered.

</cynic>


----------



## moochedit (Apr 17, 2011)

MP's (edit - opps - Reid is a peer)  to speak about AV this week. Will it have any effect ?



> It is understood that Lord Reid, who was a home secretary under Tony Blair, will be among those sharing a platform with Mr Cameron this week.





> Vince Cable will share a platform with Labour leader Ed Miliband



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/labour-is-no-help-for-cameron-2269010.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atform-Ed-Miliband-push-Alternative-Vote.html


----------



## marty21 (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yep - voting No will - whatever your motives - be taken as an endorsement of FPTP.


 
crazy talk - it means you don't endorse AV.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

It mean you prefer to keep FPTP - the first ever opportunity that voters have had to change it, and you say "no, ta will keep it as it is".  Voting Yes doesn't mean you believe AV is the best alternative going.  It means "if that's all that's on offer wer'll have it and demand more"


----------



## marty21 (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It mean you prefer to keep FPTP - the first ever opportunity that voters have had to change it, and you say "no, ta will keep it as it is".  Voting Yes doesn't mean you believe AV is the best alternative going.  It means "if that's all that's on offer wer'll have it and demand more"


 
It means I don't want AV


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 17, 2011)

Loving the double standards...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> It means I don't want AV


 
and you'd rather keep FPTP - if you don't want either spoil your ballot


----------



## marty21 (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> and you'd rather keep FPTP - if you don't want either spoil your ballot


 
it doesn't mean that, as posters have probably told you a zillion times


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

Of course it means that - if you choose not to replace FPTP it means you're voting to keep it in place - at least until there's another opportunity to vote on it (not likely for 20+ years).


----------



## marty21 (Apr 17, 2011)

so people need to vote for something they don't want, just to prove (to you) that they don't want something else ?


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 17, 2011)

magneze said:


> Do you not think that "maverick candidates" are precisely the sort of candidates that might gain from AV due to many people putting them down as second preferences?


 
No. I see them as more likely to get first preferences only, second preferences will go to candidates considered to be inoffensive or to those who are particularly well known.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> so people need to vote for something they don't want, just to prove (to you) that they don't want something else ?


 
what do they want more - to get rid of FPTP or to keep it?


----------



## magneze (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> what do they want more - to get rid of FPTP or to keep it?


That's not the question. The question is whether you want AV or not.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 17, 2011)

FFS, people's answers mean what they want them to mean.  You can't tell somebody what they ACTUALLY meant when they are point blank telling you otherwise.

All this "it will be interpreted like that" is just bullshit.  It will be interpreted according to what people say they meant.  It will be SPUN according to whatever agenda the person doing the spinning wants it to be, but that would be true regardless of both question and answer.


----------



## strung out (Apr 17, 2011)

i don't want AV, i think it will be even worse than FPTP. that's why i and many of the people on this thread will be voting no. why should we fucking abstain because of that?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 17, 2011)

If you think voting to keep FPTP is a lesser evil than voting to move to AV then a No vote is your option.  I think you're profoundly wrong, and you'll also be playing into the hands of the Tories.  But if you don't want your vote to imply any kind of support for FPTP then spoil your ballot.


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> and you'd rather keep FPTP - if you don't want either spoil your ballot


 
So, you'd rather people not vote than vote NO?


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8, all actual details of the argument aside, do you realise how often you avoid answering questions directly (basically every time) and instead offer a bland statement loosely related to the issue at hand?


----------



## strung out (Apr 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But if you don't want your vote to imply any kind of support for FPTP then spoil your ballot.


 
that wouldn't be answering the question on the ballot paper though


----------



## kabbes (Apr 17, 2011)

strung out, would you prefer to use AV rather than FPTP?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 17, 2011)

Just draw an extra box on the ballot form and mark it PR, then put an X in it


----------



## strung out (Apr 17, 2011)

kabbes said:


> strung out, would you prefer to use AV rather than FPTP?


 
NO


----------



## kabbes (Apr 17, 2011)

strung out said:


> NO


 
I interpret from that answer that strung out would not prefer to use AV rather than FPTP.

There, that was easy.


----------



## strung out (Apr 17, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Just draw an extra box on the ballot form and mark it PR, then put an X in it


 
that won't actually mean a vote for PR though. if you don't want to use AV, then vote no. it's a fairly simple question on the ballot paper. i don't know why articul8 is trying to make it so complicated.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2011)

if it annoys the tories, i'm starting to be prepared to vote for av tbh


----------



## strung out (Apr 17, 2011)

a no vote will annoy the (yellow) tories too though


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 18, 2011)

it's all fecking pointless tbf.


----------



## Stardark (Apr 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I'm still not convinced that ANYONE on this thread is talking sense. I don't recall ever having the option to vote for a political party in any parliamentary election. What I've been given is a voting form for a set of individual candidates with their party affiliation marked on it. We do not get to vote on which party governs the country, we get to vote on who is the MP to represent our constituency. So discussing this issue as if all voting was on a party basis alone doesn't make sense.


Well, there's that. A point I've made with people who argued that they 'didn't vote for a coalition'. No, I say to them, you didn't actually vote for _any_ kind of government. But to people who suggest that a better system would be one without parties, I say it clearly wouldn't work. Elect everyone as independents, and alliances will soon be created, even whips. If the party system didn't exist, yadda yadda...

And these are what we vote for. Franchises. Individuals are in second place even when they're in first place.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 18, 2011)

strung out said:


> that won't actually mean a vote for PR though. if you don't want to use AV, then vote no. it's a fairly simple question on the ballot paper. i don't know why articul8 is trying to make it so complicated.


 
"The question says we currently use FPTP, should we use the AV instead" - if you vote NO, you are implicity saying keeping FPTP is not a problem.  If you want PR, cross out AV and write in PR if you can't bring yourself to vote for AV (even though it is clearly better than FPTP).


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "The question says we currently use FPTP, should we use the AV instead" - if you vote NO, you are implicity saying keeping FPTP is not a problem.  If you want PR, cross out AV and write in PR if you can't bring yourself to vote for AV (even though it is clearly better than FPTP).


 
are you getting a totally different ballot paper to everyone else ?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 18, 2011)

A8, I'm going to eviscerate you.  Would you prefer to be hung, drawn and quartered instead?


----------



## Combustible (Apr 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "The question says we currently use FPTP, should we use the AV instead" - if you vote NO, you are implicity saying keeping FPTP is not a problem.  If you want PR, cross out AV and write in PR if you can't bring yourself to vote for AV (even though it is clearly better than FPTP).


 
You don't quite 'get' ballot papers do you? 

Which is odd for someone who campaigns for electoral reform.


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

I would say that if you want a different system then vote no and then write a letter to your MP explaining that your no vote is not a vote for FPTP and that you would prefer PR (for example).

This will be much more effective than writing PR on your ballot paper.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

kabbes said:


> A8, I'm going to eviscerate you.  Would you prefer to be hung, drawn and quartered instead?


 
what did he vote for?


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/andrew-rawnsley-alternative-

Interesting article about the possible effects on the coalition of this AV referendam. 

I've been thinking about this more and am still not convinced that voting no will significantly damage the coalition. Let alone bring it down. How can theLibdems withdrawer when a public vote has denied them AV. What reasonning would lead to them rejecting the public's decision and throwing what would looklike, a strop.

So I'm still minded to vote yes.


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

The libdems won't bring down the coalition because on current polling they would face oblivion. Only the Tories will bring down the coalition.


----------



## strung out (Apr 18, 2011)

even though it's a worse system than FPTP that will provide bigger majorities for the main parties, harm the chances of seats for smaller parties, and end any chance of proper electoral reform for a lifetime?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

strung out said:


> even though it's a worse system than FPTP that will provide bigger majorities for the main parties, harm the chances of seats for smaller parties, and end any chance of proper electoral reform for a lifetime?


 
yep, the big 2 will never vote willingly for PR, and if they have the majority of the seats, are even less likely to


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/andrew-rawnsley-alternative-
> 
> Interesting article about the possible effects on the coalition of this AV referendam.
> 
> ...


 
The Lib Dems could engineer any reason they like to to leave. They could even spin it to look like a matter of principle and clever politics - we got our referendum but now the cuts that this government is making are too hard (in the light of the latest economic data) and so we are withdrawing from the coalition. Or maybe the party will split, with some MPs trying to protect themselves by tacking left (or at least, tacking less right).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/17/andrew-rawnsley-alternative-
> 
> Interesting article about the possible effects on the coalition of this AV referendam.
> 
> ...



Why the hell would that course of action been seen as rejecting the publics opinion on AV? If there is a NO result one of the driving factors behind it will, in fact be, anger at the coalition's existence.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> The Lib Dems could engineer any reason they like to to leave. They could even spin it to look like a matter of principle and clever politics - we got our referendum but now the cuts that this government is making are too hard (in the light of the latest economic data) and so we are withdrawing from the coalition. Or maybe the party will split, with some MPs trying to protect themselves by tacking left (or at least, tacking less right).



I think a minor split is the more likely outcome - lib dems mps who aren't in government and have everything to gain by leaving the party - maybe staying in parliament in the next election - by crossing the floor to Labour - with the promise of a safer seat in the next election


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

Forget PR, no one's asking you what you think about that. A rejection of AV is an implicit endorsement of FPP to those in power. I can't see how peple can see otherwise.


----------



## strung out (Apr 18, 2011)

no-one's asking what you think about FPTP either, apart from whether you'd prefer AV. stats from australia, which uses AV, along with various projections on what AV would mean here show that AV will create an even bigger stitch up between the main parties than FPTP (so i'm led to believe, anyway). no thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> Forget PR, no one's asking you what you think about that. A rejection of AV is an implicit endorsement of FPP to those in power. I can't see how peple can see otherwise.


 
By the same token then, a vote for AV is an explicit vote against PR then. Do you think that it is?

If you want people to answer the question that they're actually asked then i think you need to have another look at it if you're arguing failure to vote YES is an explicit endorsement of AV. 

Why the rush for AV supporters to close down what the question means politically anyway, why the rush to try and impose the states view of what it means - esp on people who have outlined over and over again the reasons for their decision. Why do their work for them?


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

strung out said:


> even though it's a worse system than FPTP that will provide bigger majorities for the main parties, harm the chances of seats for smaller parties, and end any chance of proper electoral reform for a lifetime?


 

But see I think that is just pure conjecture. Peple don't have to use a second preferrence. This may bennefit smaller parties if it's understood. Besides FPP does nothing to fix the above. Here and now, it's AV or nothing. Who knows what will happen 10 - 15 years hence. I don't think keeping the current system is in any way likely to lead to a better one in the future. It seems backwards logic to me.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm going to write "Let's AV itttttt" on my ballot paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> But see I think that is just pure conjecture. Peple don't have to use a second preferrence. This may bennefit smaller parties if it's understood. Besides FPP does nothing to fix the above. Here and now, it's AV or nothing. Who knows what will happen 10 - 15 years hence. I don't think keeping the current system is in any way likely to lead to a better one in the future. It seems backwards logic to me.


 That's because you appear to have established  a mental image of AV as step forwards towards something else, towards something better. I've not seen you argue why though - and any reasons as to put forward as to why it might actually be step backwards are dismissed as conjecture. 

Also, you're reducing the issue down to the actual question - that leaves out the political and social context of this, for many people their vote simply isn't about the apparently free floating question but about a whole range of other connected questions. There's no reason to look at just the formal question whatsoever.


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> Forget PR, no one's asking you what you think about that. A rejection of AV is an implicit endorsement of FPP to those in power. I can't see how peple can see otherwise.


 
If you want to look at it that way, voting for AV is an implicit endorsement of the coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular. "Yes, I think wholesale war on the welfare state is a fair price to pay for a change to a different form of FPTP that will entrench the three main political parties!"


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/18/av-vote-spectacular-results

Jackie Ashley has an interesting analysis, it's probably what I would bet will occur.  

_If the polls are right, the likeliest result is that Cameron will be greatly strengthened by next month's voting. They suggest AV will be defeated and that the SNP will struggle on as a minority administration in Scotland, with some gentle Tory backing. The Lib Dems will be slaughtered at local level but lacking an obvious exit route, will stay unhappily in their Westminster coalition. The big money backing the "No to AV" campaign will quietly chuckle, and complaints about a "rigged" result will mysteriously die away.

Longer term, the smaller Commons elected by first-past-the-post gives the Tories their best chance of coming back with an overall majority next time. The Lib Dems will stagger away to have a nervous breakdown in the comfort of their own telephone box. British politics will return to its familiar and Conservative-biased traditions._


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Odd for a lib-dem supporter to try and pimp a system that boosts the lib-dems.


She's wrong anyway - Cameron is on course to lose a 1000 seats, he's been shown to be weak as regards his political right and desperately tied to Clegg to keep the coalition alive. She give no reasons as to why he'd be strengthened and ignores things that will help undermine him. Typical pluralist attempts to panic people.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> If you want to look at it that way, voting for AV is an implicit endorsement of the coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular. "Yes, I think wholesale war on the welfare state is a fair price to pay for a change to a different form of FPTP that will entrench the three main political parties!"


 
Some people will probably see it like this. I would say they are letting their hatred of the Lib Dems cloud the view of the bigger picture.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd for a lib-dem supporter to try and pimp a system that boosts the lib-dems.


 
Of course I'm going to be inclined to support a system that benefits my party. I do also think there is an objective ethical case to be made for AV that isn't based on the outcome we think it may or may not have arising from the current political situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Some people will probably see it like this. I would say they are letting their hatred of the Lib Dems cloud the view of the bigger picture.


 
Or, you're letting your love of the lib-dems obscure the fact that by voting motivated by factors other than the formal question is the bigger picture - you're the people trying to restrict and reduce it down to the question alone. You're the blind ones demanding that others must lose an eye.


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> The Lib Dems could engineer any reason they like to to leave. They could even spin it to look like a matter of principle and clever politics - we got our referendum but now the cuts that this government is making are too hard (in the light of the latest economic data) and so we are withdrawing from the coalition. Or maybe the party will split, with some MPs trying to protect themselves by tacking left (or at least, tacking less right).


 

But I have difficulty seeing that as at all likely. They've got what they wanted, a referendam. if it's rejected, it's dead. Maybe they'll pull themselves apart, maybe it won't matter. A yes might make the Tories rightwing pull it apart from there end. I just can't bring myself to endorse FPP by voting no on the basis of trying to second guess what the Libdems will do. 

At Butcher's. You think a no will signal to the Libdems they need to break out and fiht against the stuff they've been rubber stamping? I don't find this convincing. Maybe but again, it doesn't feel right to me to vote against AV gambling on such theoretical outcomes.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd for a lib-dem supporter to try and pimp a system that boosts the lib-dems.
> 
> 
> She's wrong anyway - Cameron is on course to lose a 1000 seats, he's been shown to be weak as regards his political right and desperately tied to Clegg to keep the coalition alive. She give no reasons as to why he'd be strengthened and ignores things that will help undermine him. Typical pluralist attempts to panic people.



She might be wrong, certainly Labour NO2AV people smell victory at the next election and don't now see the need to change a system they could win from. Other Labour people in the Yes camp share her view and think that AV could bring about their desired centre-left consensus.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Of course I'm going to be inclined to support a system that benefits my party. I do also think there is an objective ethical case to be made for AV that isn't based on the outcome we think it may or may not have arising from the current political situation.



I didn't mean you ffs.


Is that chart supposed to demonstrate hat AV is a proportional system? You know that it's not don't you? If you don't then you really really should get clued about what it is that you're supporting, if you do then you're being dishonest.

The tactic of saying here is a thing it's a bad thing. You must support me to get rid of the bad thing without any sort of supporting argument, evidence or politics hasn't really gone down too well on this thread, so why are you trying to kick off a new round of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> She might be wrong, certainly Labour NO2AV people smell victory at the next election and don't now see the need to change a system they could win from. Other Labour people in the Yes camp share her view and think that AV could bring about their desired centre-left consensus.


 
Did you read what i wrote? I didn't mention the labour vote or their prospects, i talked about her pathetic transparent analysis of a strengthened Cameron post may elections and referendum - you know, the bit you quoted approvingly but think might be wrong.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> Forget PR, no one's asking you what you think about that. A rejection of AV is an implicit endorsement of FPP to those in power. I can't see how peple can see otherwise.


 
it doesn't, it's like asking people to vote for 2 shit sandwiches, when they currently have 1, not voting for 2 shit sandwiches doesn't mean you like the single shit sandwich, it just means you don't want two shit sandwiches


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or, you're letting your love of the lib-dems obscure the fact that by voting motivated by factors other than the formal question is the bigger picture - you're the people trying to restrict and reduce it down to the question alone. You're the blind ones demanding that others must lose an eye.


 
As a Lib-Dem there probably is an element of bias in my thinking towards wanting to weight up the rational pro and cons of the actual voting system rather than the results it may or may not produce. I have always tended towards deontological  ethical approaches such as Kant's rather than adopting a consequentialist approaching of judging the ethics based on predicted outcome.

The main reason is that life is incredibly complex, and any imagined outcome of a change in the voting system will be affected by laws of unintended consequence, and chaos theory.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> it doesn't, it's like asking people to vote for 2 shit sandwiches, when they currently have 1, not voting for 2 shit sandwiches doesn't mean you like the single shit sandwich, it just means you don't want two shit sandwiches


 
Then stand as a prawn sandwich


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> As a Lib-Dem there probably is an element of bias in my thinking towards wanting to weight up the rational pro and cons of the actual voting system rather than the results it may or may not produce. I have always tended towards deontological  ethical approaches such as Kant's rather than adopting a consequentialist approaching of judging the ethics based on predicted outcome.
> 
> The main reason is that life is incredibly complex, and any imagined outcome of a change in the voting system will be affected by laws of unintended consequence, and chaos theory.



I thought it was because you're a bit simple.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you read what i wrote? I didn't mention the labour vote or their prospects, i talked about her pathetic transparent analysis of a strengthened Cameron post may elections and referendum - you know, the bit you quoted approvingly but think might be wrong.


 
I know you didn't mention Labour voters. I was just trying to say that the Labour NO2AV camp obviously don't think that a NO vote will help Cameron.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Then stand as a prawn sandwich


 
In the referendum? You know how it works right Mr Categorical Imperative?


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the referendum? You know how it works right Mr Categorical Imperative?


 
Yes, if you don't like what is on offer then campaign for something else. Seeing as it's been so difficult just to get AV on the table I wish you the best of luck. 

Still I know ideological purism is more important than actually changing anything for some people. You stay holding out with your virginity waiting for the Mr PR to come along.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Then stand as a prawn sandwich


 
I'd vote for a prawn sandwich over a shit sandwich or 2 shit sandwich tbf


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 18, 2011)

The deadline's passed. You can't. 

And the question on the referendum doesn't mention FPTP


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the referendum? You know how it works right Mr Categorical Imperative?


 
PS I prefer Mr Categorical Imperative to 'Cunt' 'Yellow Tory' etc...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, if you don't like what is on offer then campaign for something else. Seeing as it's been so difficult just to get AV on the table I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> Still I know ideological purism is more important than actually changing anything for some people. You stay holding out with your virginity waiting for the Mr PR to come along.



Amazing truly amazing


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2011)

Can I ask a question, how to people on here imagine voting reform will occur after a no vote? Or is it the case that you don't want any voting reform and are happy with FPTP.


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> By the same token then, a vote for AV is an explicit vote against PR then. Do you think that it is?
> 
> If you want people to answer the question that they're actually asked then i think you need to have another look at it if you're arguing failure to vote YES is an explicit endorsement of AV.
> 
> Why the rush for AV supporters to close down what the question means politically anyway, why the rush to try and impose the states view of what it means - esp on people who have outlined over and over again the reasons for their decision. Why do their work for them?


 

I don't think voting for AV says anything about PR, exactly. Voting against it doesn't either. People will interpret the result how they wish. Which is why I don't htink voting against AV is likely to be seen as anything other than acceptence of FPP. It's what the conservatives want.

Mind you, this is all very much choice of shit sandwhiches as someone said.

As for your second point, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I've largely been avoiding the campaigns. Just reading the odd article and stuff here.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Can I ask a question, how to people on here imagine voting reform will occur after a no vote? Or is it the case that you don't want any voting reform and are happy with FPTP.


 
I don't recall anyone pushing AV before the Tories pulled a fast one on the Lib Dems to sign them up for the coalition, whereas there have been a lot of debate about PR, which would be better for your lot surely - so if the AV vote is lost, it doesn't necessarily follow that the move towards proper PR is lost as well


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 18, 2011)

Dam it they are all fu*king at it, the Evening Standard, News of the World the current crop of MPs... argh... Roll on I will be voting yes, not that I understand it much only just to piss these people off.


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Can I ask a question, how to people on here imagine voting reform will occur after a no vote? Or is it the case that you don't want any voting reform and are happy with FPTP.


 
How do you imagine voting reform occurring after a Yes vote?


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't recall anyone pushing AV before the Tories pulled a fast one on the Lib Dems to sign them up for the coalition, whereas there have been a lot of debate about PR, which would be better for your lot surely - so if the AV vote is lost, it doesn't necessarily follow that the move towards proper PR is lost as well



A referendum on AV and an elected House of Lords was in Labours 2010 election manifesto.  AV whilst a marginally better system than FPTP, is far from ideal, but rejecting it would lead to a lot of gleeful Tories rubbing their hands as the chance of any electoral reform is lost for another 50 years.  That   prospect of happy Tories is one that I simply can't stomach and it's very tangible, and to me this idea that a 'no' vote will irrepairably damage the coalition remains highly speculative.


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> A referendum on AV and an elected House of Lords was in Labours 2010 election manifesto.  AV whilst a marginally better system than FPTP, is far from ideal, but rejecting it would lead to a lot of gleeful Tories rubbing their hands as the chance of any electoral reform is lost for another 50 years.  That   prospect of happy Tories is one that I simply can't stomach and it's very tangible, and to me this idea that a 'no' vote will irrepairably damage the coalition remains highly speculative.


 
This is exactly where I'm coming from too.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> How do you imagine voting reform occurring after a Yes vote?


 
The next stop would be reform of the House of Lords - getting rid of the remaining hereditary aristos who are still hanging about and making it elected.  A yes vote would demonstrate a desire for democratic change and would hopefully speed that up and nudge it towards a more proportional system.

Frustratingly whatever the result of the referendum, there won't be any further change for some years whether we keep FPTP or get AV.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> The next stop would be reform of the House of Lords - getting rid of the remaining hereditary aristos who are still hanging about and making it elected.  A yes vote would demonstrate a desire for democratic change and would hopefully speed that up and nudge it towards a more proportional system.
> 
> Frustratingly whatever the result of the referendum, there won't be any further change for some years whether we keep FPTP or get AV.



Labour fucked up majorly on House of Lords reform - with that huge majority in 97 all they did was keep some heriditary lords (and Bishops ffs) and appoint lords to the chamber - a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is highly unlikey to do anything else


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> This is exactly where I'm coming from too.


So you get to do Nick Clegg's work for him, ensure that the coalition last until 2015 at least and the cuts and attacks are put on firmer basis. For a system that a) isn't much different and b) legitimates the whole stinking system once more. The tories would be laughing their arses off at that too. Once you recognise that the tories are perfectly happy with any outcome - no matter what pathetic obvious PR tricks they pull suggesting otherwise - then this logic annoy the tories melts away. Or if you do insiste on you have to look seriously at the idea that their wider objective today is to maintain the coalition and introduce cuts and re-organisations that will never be overturned, and that to do they need the lib-dems to win. _They need people to vote YES._


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

Again, I'm not convinced voting no changes any of that and just locks in FPP for ever more. And are you discounting entirely the Tory right who are avidly against AV. Do you not think they could damage the coalition if Yes wins. Leading to a general ellection anyway?


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

At present Cameron needs Clegg a lot more than he needs a few disgruntled members of his own party, who have no option other than to grumble a bit.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> what did he vote for?


 
So far, he seems to have abstained.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

xenon said:


> Again, I'm not convinced voting no changes any of that and just locks in FPP for ever more. And are you discounting entirely the Tory right who are avidly against AV. Do you not think they could damage the coalition if Yes wins. Leading to a general ellection anyway?


 
With a YES vote there is no chance whatsoever of the lib-dems doing a damn thing other than clinging onto the tories unto the next election. There is no potential for anything else top happen. Noen at all. With a NO there is at the very least potential for a range of coalition damaging outcomes  -rank and fil lib-dems against the centre, the centre against the top, the lib-dems against their coalition partners, Clegg against all. None of these things exist with a YES vote. 

Can you tell me why you think a NO vote wouldn't heighten these contradictions and conflicts - currently they're being buried on pragmatic grounds - a YES vote would allow them to be buried until the next GE at the earliest and hand Clegg and the extremists the best possible tool for drowning any potential dissent

The tory right is not stupid, they are not going to try and bring down their own government, and certainly not when all the polls indicate a labour majority governement. The tories have run rings around the lib-dems (and that includes the tory right), and they've done that because they're very experienced and adaptable political actors - they don't bring down their own governments, full stop. It's also they've managed to get the myth across that they're *REALLY ANGRY AT THE PROSPECT OF AV.* - that way they get Clegg to think they've given him a present whilst meeting their own plans - that works on the PR level too, selling this idea to the anti-tory public.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> PS I prefer Mr Categorical Imperative to 'Cunt' 'Yellow Tory' etc...


yeah, but the latter two have it nailed oh-so-right


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So you get to do Nick Clegg's work for him, ensure that the coalition last until 2015 at least and the cuts and attacks are put on firmer basis. For a system that a) isn't much different and b) legitimates the whole stinking system once more. The tories would be laughing their arses off at that too. Once you recognise that the tories are perfectly happy with any outcome - no matter what pathetic obvious PR tricks they pull suggesting otherwise - then this logic annoy the tories melts away. Or if you do insiste on you have to look seriously at the idea that their wider objective today is to maintain the coalition and introduce cuts and re-organisations that will never be overturned, and that to do they need the lib-dems to win. _They need people to vote YES._



So you reckon the Tories are putting out PR that they'd dislike a 'yes' vote in order secretly encourage people to vote 'yes' and thereby saving the coalition?
And in order to do this effectively they have banned any Tories from setting up an 'yes to AV' group, even though that's what they really all want.  Whilst at the same time persuading their donors to donate an amount of money (£1.8 milllion) to the 'no' campaign,  that whilst credible sounding is carefully calculated to not actually be enough for the 'no' campaign to win.  Jesus they must be running really scared at Tory party HQ now it looks like the 'no' campaign might be ahead - be sure to look out for the looks of dispair behind the broad smiles if theyh win.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

articul8 said:


> "The question says we currently use FPTP, should we use the AV instead" - if you vote NO, you are implicity saying keeping FPTP is not a problem.  If you want PR, cross out AV and write in PR if you can't bring yourself to vote for AV (even though it is clearly better than FPTP).


which would be a spoilt ballot paper and lost vote. Fantastic!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> So you reckon the Tories are putting out PR that they'd dislike a 'yes' vote in order secretly encourage people to vote 'yes' and thereby saving the coalition?
> And in order to do this effectively they have banned any Tories from setting up an 'yes to AV' group, even though that's what they really all want.  Whilst at the same time persuading their donors to donate an amount of money (£1.8 milllion) to the 'no' campaign,  that whilst credible sounding is carefully calculated to not actually be enough for the 'no' campaign to win.  Jesus they must be running really scared at Tory party HQ now it looks like the 'no' campaign might be ahead - be sure to look out for the looks of dispair behind the broad smiles if theyh win.



No, i reckon, as i've said many times before, that they're happy either way. They're not going be damaged no matter what the outcome - and they'll ceratinly be glad to pick up the lib-dem 2nd preferences next time round if YES wins. The pathetic £1.8 million figure is just more evidence of this - does anyone really think that's how much they'd rustle up if they really felt under threat? Especially the really life-threatening serious threat to them that this argument relies on. £1.8 million?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> With a YES vote there is no chance whatsoever of the lib-dems doing a damn thing other than clinging onto the tories unto the next election. There is no potential for anything else top happen. Noen at all. With a NO there is at the very least potential for a range of coalition damaging outcomes  -rank and fil lib-dems against the centre, the centre against the top, the lib-dems against their coalition partners, Clegg against all. None of these things exist with a YES vote.
> 
> Can you tell me why you think a NO vote wouldn't heighten these contradictions and conflicts - currently they're being buried on pragmatic grounds - a YES vote would allow them to be buried until the next GE at the earliest and hand Clegg and the extremists the best possible tool for drowning any potential dissent
> 
> .


This kinda fits with the argument I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to articulate as to why I don't think the coalition - specifically, it's yellow end - will stay the course. The potential for turmoil within the LDs is massive - and,yes, lopsing the referendum could be a superlative trigger


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'd vote for a prawn sandwich over a shit sandwich or 2 shit sandwich tbf


 
What if you vote for the prawn sandwich, just to find out that actually, it's really just a shit sandwich with good public relations?


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't recall anyone pushing AV before the Tories pulled a fast one on the Lib Dems to sign them up for the coalition, whereas there have been a lot of debate about PR, which would be better for your lot surely - so if the AV vote is lost, it doesn't necessarily follow that the move towards proper PR is lost as well


Exactly. I can in fact see it gaining strength. Whereas a vote for AV potentially stops PR for ages as the voters will have said they want AV.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> .  AV whilst a marginally better system than FPTP, is far from ideal, but rejecting it would lead to a lot of gleeful Tories rubbing their hands as the chance of any electoral reform is lost for another 50 years.


a) the tories win either way with this - why do you thin k they were happy to concede the referendum?
b) no, the chance is NOT lost "for another 50 years" - it simply depends on how hard people are prepared to campaign for it 



> That   prospect of happy Tories is one that I simply can't stomach and it's very tangible, and to me this idea that a 'no' vote will irrepairably damage the coalition remains highly speculative


see above comments, and no the damage notion isn't purely speculative. A 'no' vote leaves Clegg with a huge problem and a growing grassroots rebellion, which is more dangerous in the LDs than the other two main parties


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

This is beautiful:



> The report argues that the influence of minor parties will grow by virtue of the major parties seeking their second preference votes but it shows that extremist parties like the BNP will be penalised by AV and their recycled votes will not influence election outcomes.



From the IPPR's report on why AV is so lovely.

http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=4446


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> This kinda fits with the argument I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to articulate as to why I don't think the coalition - specifically, it's yellow end - will stay the course. The potential for turmoil within the LDs is massive - and,yes, lopsing the referendum could be a superlative trigger


Considering the LibDem polls, don't you think that bringing down the government would be suicide though?


----------



## moochedit (Apr 18, 2011)

.


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> Considering the LibDem polls, don't you think that bringing down the government would be suicide though?


 
I think individual MPs may try to save their own hides and jump ship accordingly. Return to the safe, permanent opposition of 'a plague on both your houses' etc.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What if you vote for the prawn sandwich, just to find out that actually, it's really just a shit sandwich with good public relations?


 
true - but at the moment, all we have is shit sandwiches


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> true - but at the moment, all we have is shit sandwiches


I hope that someone says this on News At Ten.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> Considering the LibDem polls, don't you think that bringing down the government would be suicide though?


not if there's a successful grassroots revolt, followed by an immediate and emphatic disavowal of the whole coalition project (i.e."it wasn't us, honest guv, it was other LDs who aren't in charge any more") - and the longer those poll numbers stay catastrophic, the more the chance there is of all that happening, and the more the membership will lose their bottle. Unlike the tories, they've never been tested in this way. The tories can handle being hated, the LDs...I'm not so sure


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think individual MPs may try to save their own hides and jump ship accordingly. Return to the safe, permanent opposition of 'a plague on both your houses' etc.


Precisely, and equally the membership will eventually reach tipping-point


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> not if there's a successful grassroots revolt, followed by an immediate and emphatic disavowal of the whole coalition project (i.e."it wasn't us, honest guv, it was other LDs who aren't in charge any more")


 
And can you think of a single person who would be convinced by that?


----------



## magneze (Apr 18, 2011)

TBH, just saying no because you don't want AV is a good enough reason. If it causes issues for the LibDems in government that's just a bonus.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> I hope that someone says this on News At Ten.


 
could swing the vote


----------



## Combustible (Apr 18, 2011)

There is another obvious reason why there will not be a serious backlash against Cameron if YES wins.  Apart from the fact that no Tories that matter have any desire to bring down the coalition (and lose any resulting election), it would mean an election without restructured boundaries.  This is something Jackie Ashley admits in the Guardian is far more important for them.  Yet she still thinks that many Tories don't realise the importance of this and will in fact tear into Cameron for losing a referendum despite the fact it would jeopardize something much more important to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> And can you think of a single person who would be convinced by that?


 
That's largely irrelevant isn't it? The lib-dems are hardly known their tactual _nous_ are they?


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's largely irrelevant isn't it? The lib-dems are hardly known their tactual _nous_ are they?


 
Surely even the LDs have an inkling that leaving the coalition and claiming that they didn't really mean to join it, would perhaps be a tad unconvincing.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 18, 2011)

Cameron will be in the shit with some of the party if it is a yes vote, since it will be seen as a Tory Loss, alongside the election he failed to win.


----------



## Santino (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Surely even the LDs have an inkling that leaving the coalition and claiming that they didn't really mean to join it, would perhaps be a tad unconvincing.


 
See previous few posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Surely even the LDs have an inkling that leaving the coalition and claiming that they didn't really mean to join it, would perhaps be a tad unconvincing.


 
Of course they might have an inkling of that but a) the logic of the situation still exists, the need to preserve themselves still exists and this will look like the most likely path to some of them and b) they entered the coalition and killed their party - they do stupid principle free thing things in what they ineptly think is their self-interest. And on top of that you're approaching this as the party as whole leaving en bloc rather than splits and people peeling off individually or in small groups - which of course leaves them the option of crossing to labour or SNP or whatever or standing as the good independent who rejected the lib-dems. It's not necessarily about _the party_ leaving the coalition.


----------



## xenon (Apr 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So you get to do Nick Clegg's work for him, ensure that the coalition last until 2015 at least and the cuts and attacks are put on firmer basis. For a system that a) isn't much different and b) legitimates the whole stinking system once more. The tories would be laughing their arses off at that too. Once you recognise that the tories are perfectly happy with any outcome - no matter what pathetic obvious PR tricks they pull suggesting otherwise - then this logic annoy the tories melts away. Or if you do insiste on you have to look seriously at the idea that their wider objective today is to maintain the coalition and introduce cuts and re-organisations that will never be overturned, and that to do they need the lib-dems to win. _They need people to vote YES._


 


I see what you're saying but I'm not certain a no vote would lead to the Libdems pulling themselves and the coalition apart. Not before the next general election anyway. Instead, individuals may plot escape routes for themselves behind the scenes but hanging on to power through this parliment. Jumping ship to Labour or Conservatives just in time for the next GE. With reforms kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable. i'd need to be convinced the coalition would fall if no were to win, to vote that way I'm afraid. But I'm still not 100% for yes yet.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> And can you think of a single person who would be convinced by that?


yup, a large number of the people who gave us 11 years of Thatcher. This is one sucker, gullible electorate


----------



## moochedit (Apr 18, 2011)

moochedit said:


> the sound bites of cameron and milliband on sky news... (doesn't show reid or cable - edit they've updated this link now so it does show them now)...
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po..._Speeches_In_Bitter_Battle_Over_Voting_Reform
> 
> ...


 
Milliband and Cable speak  for yes to av .. (edit - found longer version now) ... (some of these videos won't embed for some reason but the links work)

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/liarpoliticians#p/u/7/ceGQqC6EyL8[/video]

Cameron and Reid speak for no to av ... (edit found part 1 now)

part 1

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/liarpoliticians#p/u/6/eLX8mcpYHY8[/video]

part 2


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2011)

This poll is carried on the basis that usually returns better results for pro_AV:

Support for AV collapsing, according to Guardian/ICM poll



> Support for a change to the way in which MPs are elected is collapsing, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.
> 
> The figures give the No campaign a 16-point lead, compared with a two-point lead for the Yes campaign in the equivalent Guardian/ICM poll, carried out in February.
> 
> Conducted less than three weeks before the UK votes, the poll suggests opinion against the alternative vote is hardening as both sides squabble over the implications of change.





> ICM posed the same question that will be asked in the referendum: "At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the alternative vote system be used instead?"
> 
> The results will make depressing reading for Yes campaigners, who began the year with high hopes. A December Guardian/ICM poll last year put the Yes vote six points ahead before adjusting for likely turnout.
> 
> In February, the two camps were neck and neck on the same measure, and now – again before turnout is taken into account – the No vote is 11 points ahead.





> Among people who say they are likely to vote and have made up their minds, the No lead is now 16 points, with 42% saying yes and 58% no.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 18, 2011)

For the geeks here is Sky's AV referendum calculator ......

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/avcalculator


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The deadline's passed. You can't.
> 
> And the question on the referendum doesn't mention FPTP


 
yes it does. (see above)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This poll is carried on the basis that usually returns better results for pro_AV:
> 
> Support for AV collapsing, according to Guardian/ICM poll


 
Your glee at this poll is shared by Tory Central Office.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

What a massively unpredictable and unexpected response. I told you right at the start of the thread that if you and your YES campaign decided to adopt the insulting, patronising and belittling tone that you have on here to potential NO voters in the weeks before the vote (when you claimed your campaign would start in earnest) you would be in serious trouble - but you went with that approach anyway (if anything you've aggressively ramped it up over the last 7 days). And now you're paying the price. If you want to try and paint yourselves as the nations only progressives and indulge in despairing finger-wagging and sneering then this is all you lot deserve.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Your glee at this poll is shared by Tory Central Office.


 
Good for them.  It's nice to have some glee.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Your glee at this poll is shared by Tory Central Office.


 
getting desperate


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2011)

How confusing.  I thought that by voting '_No to AV_' then I was voting '_No_' to '_AV_'.  Now apparently it's actually voting Yes to FPTP and and stating in no uncertain terms that I'm 100% happy with the current system and have no desire to ever see it change.  It may include offering to give Cameron a nosh as well.  I must read stuff more carefully; I didn't notice those bits at all.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

Corax said:


> How confusing.  I thought that by voting '_No to AV_' then I was voting '_No_' to '_AV_'.  Now apparently it's actually voting Yes to FPTP and and stating in no uncertain terms that I'm 100% happy with the current system and have no desire to ever see it change.  It may include offering to give Cameron a nosh as well.  I must read stuff more carefully; I didn't notice those bits at all.


 
only a select few have those *special* ballot cards - most of us are either saying yes to AV or no to AV.


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2011)

marty21 said:


> getting desperate


 
Getting?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

It's taking the YES campaign a disappointingly long time to get their dismissal out this time - it's been nearly 16 hours now. We've normally been thrown a _ah but the really important factor is likelihood to vote_ (as this one is and as most of them are in reality), or a _of course Cameron's PR mates who run the agency and the tories who paid for the report would say_ (Can't even do that this time - The guardian is an in the ERS/pluralist camp as it's possible to be) or even a _you can't trust polls_ (except when they support YES).


----------



## kabbes (Apr 19, 2011)

From the article under the poll:



> Three-quarters of Conservatives are planning to vote will vote against, as will a small majority of Labour supporters. Only Lib Dem voters are firmly in favour, with more than two-thirds saying they will vote for the change.



Fuck me, even almost a third of _Lib Dem voters_ aren't intending to vote for it!


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Fuck me, even almost a third of _Lib Dem voters_ aren't intending to vote for it!



That's probably Alan, he's off to Gran Canaria that week.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

kabbes said:


> From the article under the poll:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck me, even almost a third of _Lib Dem voters_ aren't intending to vote for it!



I suspect that there's worse buried in the poll tables -which the Guardian handily doesn't link to this month


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

Here's an interesting document from the Australian Election Commission, illustrating some pros & cons:

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/australia_alternative_vote.pdf

An excerpt:


> The main advantage of the alternative vote system (for single member constituencies) over plurality
> systems is that it requires the winning candidate to secure a majority of the vote. It thus avoids thesituation where a candidate can be elected on a little over one third of the vote, where there are three relatively evenly supported candidates. The system also overcomes the problem of vote splitting. With the alternative vote system voters can exercise a choice between two similar candidates without the fear that a third, unacceptable, candidate may be elected. Thirdly the alternative vote system provides some dampener on the plurality system's characteristics of concentrating party representation on a geographical basis and of providing exaggerated majorities. Although party representation under the alternative vote system is more clearly aligned to voter support than under plurality systems the alternative vote system still produces working majorities and thus provides for stable government. The alternative vote system is relatively easy to understand and can produce relatively speedy results.
> 
> The principle disadvantage of the alternative vote system, and of plurality systems, is that the system does not necessarily reflect the wishes of the electorate. The degree of proportionality (i.e. members elected in proportion to voter support) is greater under alternative vote than under plurality but does not achieve the degree of proportionality of proportional representation systems. The system is still subject to the winning bonus phenomenon and can also result in the party winning the highest number of votes not receiving the largest number of seats. Although this factor is largely dependent upon the geographic spread of party support and on the mix of parties contesting the election.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

The first pro point is wrong - it only ensures a majority for all winning candidates if there compulsory voting on all preferences  -i.e if there's 7 candidates you have to put down 7 preferences. That and it assumes that achieving 50%+1 is a pro in the first place - it doesn't make a case as to why it is.


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

What I was looking for was some statistics on how many people actually use 2nd and 2rd preference votes. There was an anecdote in the Observer at the weekend that said that most Australians just put down one - I was looking for statistics on whether that was true, because if the same thing were to happen here then it really shows how little difference it would make.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

I was watching bbc news about this last night, one 'expert' was claiming the turnout in London was likely to be low, as there aren't other elections on the same day, it is likely to be higher in Scotland and Wales where they have their national elections, and higher in those areas where council elections are also taking place. I think the theory was that Welsh and Scottish voters are more likely to vote yes, as they already have PR-type voting systems in place for Assembly and Parliament elections, whereas most English voters do not (apart from Euro Elections which have a low turnout and in London the Mayoral election)


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

magneze said:


> What I was looking for was some statistics on how many people actually use 2nd and 2rd preference votes. There was an anecdote in the Observer at the weekend that said that most Australians just put down one - I was looking for statistics on whether that was true, because if the same thing were to happen here then it really shows how little difference it would make.


 
If the majority of voters continue just voting for one candidate, AV will be useless, it'll still basically be FPTP


----------



## love detective (Apr 19, 2011)

it's still FPTP regardless, it's just a slightly different post


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's still FPTP regardless, it's just a slightly different post


 
It is, according to a PR anorak mate of mine, a few degrees away from FPTP. Apparently the least proportional of all PR systems....


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm sure in the coalition negotiations when they discussed a referendum on PR, AV was not a Lib Dem choice, but something foisted on them by the canny Tory negotiators


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

magneze said:


> What I was looking for was some statistics on how many people actually use 2nd and 2rd preference votes. There was an anecdote in the Observer at the weekend that said that most Australians just put down one - I was looking for statistics on whether that was true, because if the same thing were to happen here then it really shows how little difference it would make.


 
In the Australian equivalent of elections to the commons you have to put down a preference for every single candidate or your vote is invalid - that has meant listing 22 people in ballot papers i've seen.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's still FPTP regardless, it's just a slightly different post


 
...and the pro-AV types also like to pretend that the post is 50%, this was one of the things they were pushing very strongly at the start of their campaign - unfortunately for them this is simply not true. It's only 50% if all possible preferences are ranked by every voter. Another selling point that just dissolved under closer scrutiny.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It is, according to a PR anorak mate of mine, a few degrees away from FPTP. Apparently the least proportional of all PR systems....


 
It's not a PR system at all fed.


----------



## magneze (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the Australian equivalent of elections to the commons you have to put down a preference for every single candidate or your vote is invalid - that has meant listing 22 people in ballot papers i've seen.


Mental.


----------



## love detective (Apr 19, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It is, according to a PR anorak mate of mine, a few degrees away from FPTP. Apparently the least proportional of all PR systems....



In the same way that capitalism is the least communistic of all the different forms of communism!


----------



## xenon (Apr 19, 2011)

IN Australia you have to rank all the candidates. Is that right? 
At least here, if you vote for a minority party as first choice, for example. You don't have to select a second . Thus giving nothing to any other party.

e2a seen answered above.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Under fptp you mean?


----------



## Combustible (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's taking the YES campaign a disappointingly long time to get their dismissal out this time - it's been nearly 16 hours now. We've normally been thrown a _ah but the really important factor is likelihood to vote_ (as this one is and as most of them are in reality), or a _of course Cameron's PR mates who run the agency and the tories who paid for the report would say_ (Can't even do that this time - The guardian is an in the ERS/pluralist camp as it's possible to be) or even a _you can't trust polls_ (except when they support YES).


 
The only thing that makes me wonder about the size of the lead is that ICM do seem to be getting different voting intention figures to other pollsters.  Their latest is

CON 35%(-2), LAB 37%(+1), LDEM 15%(-1),

This is a larger Lib Dem score and lower Labour score then most pollsters.  Then again there is no obvious reason why this should overestimate the NO vote, if anything it would do the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Those election figures are usually explained as a result of them deciding to transfer _Don't knows _ to whoever the respondent says they voted for last election - hence the lib-dem boost and labour drop - that method doesn't seem to take account of what's happened since May IMO. No one else does it that way apparently.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This poll is carried on the basis that usually returns better results for pro_AV:
> 
> Support for AV collapsing, according to Guardian/ICM poll


Interesting - no lengthy and detailed explanation of the 2 systems preceded/accompanied the question. Looks like people reckon they've got it now


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Your glee at this poll is shared by Tory Central Office.


oh give it a rest, do!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 19, 2011)

Has this been done yet?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 19, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Both formally recognised (by the Electoral Commission) 'lead campaigns' _have_ received tax payers money.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Sorry, but those rebuttals are chock full of assumptions that are just the flip side of the NO claims - never mind the factual errors they contain.

Both official campaigns are shit - the YES one has been the most politically inept i've seen for some time - and it's been run by people who have somehow managed to make political campaigning their career.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

If it is a yes vote, what is to stop the Tories calling a snap general election which would be held under fptp , delaying AV for another 5 years


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2011)

marty21 said:


> If it is a yes vote, what is to stop the Tories calling a snap general election which would be held under fptp , delaying AV for another 5 years


 
FPTP/AV is much less important to the Tories than the redrawn boundaries, which won't take effect until 2015 at the earliest. They'd need to be very sure of a majority to go to the polls again (or wanting to get out of government to avoid an incoming shitstorm, such as, oh, a massive economic crash caused by their own short-sighted spending cuts).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2011)

I doubt they'd do that with the way the polls look at the moment.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> FPTP/AV is much less important to the Tories than the redrawn boundaries, which won't take effect until 2015 at the earliest. They'd need to be very sure of a majority to go to the polls again (or wanting to get out of government to avoid an incoming shitstorm, such as, oh, a massive economic crash caused by their own short-sighted spending cuts).


 
A yes vote could trigger a no confidence vote though, by disgruntled Tories, Labour would vote for the motion I'd say, and enough disgruntled Tories might join them


still voting no, even though the chaos a Yes vote would cause would be delicious.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

They'd have to get a shift on as the Fixed Parliaments Bill is going to be passed pretty soon.

That's on top of the polls indicating a Labour majority.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2011)

marty21 said:


> A yes vote could trigger a no confidence vote though, by disgruntled Tories, Labour would vote for the motion I'd say, and enough disgruntled Tories might join them
> 
> 
> still voting no, even though the chaos a Yes vote would cause would be delicious.



Might get a bit of chaos with a No vote imo, as a horde of lib dem MPs realise they've sold all their policies down the river and got fuck all in return.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 19, 2011)

Corax said:


> Might get a bit of chaos with a No vote imo, as a horde of lib dem MPs realise they've sold all their policies down the river and got fuck all in return.


 
chaos either way, this referendum is a sticking plaster, it has kept the coalition together as the Lib Dems were gagging for it , and couldn't leave if it meant it didn't happen.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 19, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


>



This last one is particularly stupid.  Whilst AV isn't guaranteed to give more hung parliaments,  there is plenty of evidence that AV would give the Lib Dems more seats.  And there is not evidence it would do the same for other smaller parties.  And a result of this is that there would be a greater chance of the Lib Dems being able to choose which party forms a government.  The YES campaign say this quite openly when talking to certain audiences. They say if we had AV for 2010 then the Lib Dems could have chosen Labour instead of the Tories.  Well that's arguing exactly the same as the NO leaflet.

One of the other pages contains a stupid analogy and BNP scaremongering.  Both of which we have also seen from the YES campaign.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a PR system at all fed.



Well aye, in that it is 'more proportional' than the FPTP though, that's the point they're claiming, which is of course dubious. But it's not as proportional as PR.  



love detective said:


> In the same way that capitalism is the least communistic of all the different forms of communism!


 
Well aye.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In the Australian equivalent of elections to the commons you have to put down a preference for every single candidate or your vote is invalid - that has meant listing 22 people in ballot papers i've seen.


I think that if you don't want to do that you can tick a box allowing one party to decide how your vote will be transferred each round.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 19, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> I think that if you don't want to do that you can tick a box allowing one party to decide how your vote will be transferred each round.


 
They can vote "above the line" in STV elections for their upper house (senate), which means the party decides the order, or "below the line" if they want to rank them themselves.











http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm

but they don't do this for lower house..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

Now YouGov show a 16 point NO lead



> Following the big shift towards the NO in yesterday’s ICM poll, the weekly YouGov AV question for the Sun shows an identical picture – adjusted for likelihood to vote and excluding don’t knows, the NO campaign leads by 58% to 42%.
> 
> This pretty much confirms that there has indeed been a sharp shift towards NO over the last few days. There are just over two weeks left till the referendum day, but part of that is the Easter weekend, followed by several days when the news agenda will be swamped by the Royal Wedding. There is increasingly little time for the trend towards NO to reverse.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2011)

corks popping at Milbank as we speak.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> corks popping at Milbank as we speak.


 
Whilst Stephen Fry, Jonathan Ross, Eddie Izzard and Nick Clegg break down and weep


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2011)

articul8 said:


> corks popping at Milbank as we speak.


 
Is this all you have left?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 19, 2011)

Also, Billy Bragg. Lol.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is this all you have left?


 
what have you got to offer?  IWCA mk II but this time people will give a fuck?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2011)

you have to number EVERY box ?? So even if the BNP (or whatever) was listed you would have to give its candidate a number? 

what makes articul8 etc think that after a few years they wouldn't attempt this here?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2011)

nothing particularly evil about that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, if you're FORCED to number ALL candidates in order of preference, how do they know that over 50% of voters approve of the winner? It's the worst kind of manufactured majority - really stinks.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Both official campaigns are shit - the YES one has been the most politically inept i've seen for some time


 
If this is the leaflet they are using i'm not surprised they are losing, it doesn't even explain how it works, so the only explanation people get is from the no leaflet above.

http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/6370/










edit - missed a page which does explain it a bit but not very well..


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well, if you're FORCED to number ALL candidates in order of preference, how do they know that over 50% of voters approve of the winner? It's the worst kind of manufactured majority - really stinks.


 
yep. what if you, articul8, have a situation like this? you have all the parties on the ballot paper,so you have: 

Labour
Tories
BNP
NF

would you really want to vote for any of them and thereby increase the chance that in the event of Labour not winning you could increase the vote of one of the other parties? would you really want to be put in the position where in the event of labour not winning you'd be FORCED to increase the tories' vote against the fash (or vice versa)?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep. what if you, articul8, have a situation like this? you have all the parties on the ballot paper,so you have:
> 
> Labour
> Tories
> ...


 
And it doesn't even need to include the fash. The whole case for AV rests on the idea that MPs have to get support from 50% of the voters. If people are forced to list preferences how do you even know that 50% support them? They probably don't. With compulsory preference voting there is a 100% vote share for every single party hidden somewhere in the preferences - it's a complete nonsense. So we have the two options - compulsory preference voting, which means that you're forced to support every candidate - even the fash as frogwoman rightly points out - in order to manufacture the illusion of majority support - for me that's far worse than FPTP. Or we can make it optional, which it seems would mean that 60% of seats are won on a plurality rather than a majority, compared with 66% as it is today - hardly a radical change, is it?


----------



## moochedit (Apr 19, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So we have the two options - compulsory preference voting, which means that you're forced to support every candidate - even the fash as frogwoman rightly points out - in order to manufacture the illusion of majority support - for me that's far worse than FPTP. Or we can make it optional, which it seems would mean that 60% of seats are won on a plurality rather than a majority, compared with 66% as it is today - hardly a radical change, is it?


 
With the optional version of AV (which is all they are offering us in the referendum) it would in practice depend on whether most supporters of con/lab/lib dem give a second preference for 1 of the other 2 (Whether you number the rest or not is irelevent really - well in england in any case) which would in most cases mean 50% or whether they mostly "just vote 1" in which case it is no different to fptp.

It's all a bit academic now really given the polls.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> corks popping at Milbank as we speak.


you'll never learn how stupid, and how disastrously counterproductive, this tactic of yours has been, will you?


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 20, 2011)

no2Av 16 point lead

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

seems to be a few polls saying no in the lead


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep. what if you, articul8, have a situation like this? you have all the parties on the ballot paper,so you have:
> 
> Labour
> Tories
> ...


 
\i wouldn't advocate compulsory preferences.  But what you'd effectively be saying is that you'd prefer whichever non-fascist party is in the best place to beat the BNP/NF.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you'll never learn how stupid, and how disastrously counterproductive, this tactic of yours has been, will you?


 
It isn't a "tactic" it is an objective description at how the Tory leadership is feeling at this poll trend - which Peter Kellner on the Today programme just now said was a result of the Tory vote hardening behind the NO to a factor of 5 to 1.

Why are you joining them to deliver a key Tory objective?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

And still he's at it, despite the clear evidence of how this chest prodding metropolitan elitist crap is is being received generally. If this is what _the experts_ deliver..

That YES leaflet above is awful, terrible, a brilliant example of how not to do it. It's insulting, patronising and treats the voting public with contempt. Do you lot really think that people can't see what's behind this bung some 'normal' people on it and make them talk like how advertising execs think they should,  that they can't see behind the lack of actual content, can't see that you're attempting to mug them, off by just emphasising 'fairness' (with little on 'fairness' beyond the word itself). You lot really should stay out of politics - you're terrible at it. Clueless. 

Don't worry, i'm already prepared for the frustrated, thwarted pluralist lashing outs to come - i've seen enough of the last few days since these seemingly decisive polls -_ some peple don't deserve the vote, voters will get what they've got coming to them, i'm leaving the plebs in this country_ etc - you're doing exactly the same but seem to have convinced youurself that you have some sort of political reasoning behind the idiocy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Labour
> Tories
> BNP
> NF


I think you'd have to vote:

Labour - 4
Tories - 4
BNP - 4
NF - 4


----------



## love detective (Apr 20, 2011)

can you do minus votes


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well, if you're FORCED to number ALL candidates in order of preference, how do they know that over 50% of voters approve of the winner? It's the worst kind of manufactured majority - really stinks.


... and a huge number of spoilt ballots, which they can safely ignore thus further alienating the electorate.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Got to say Chris Huhne is making the most transparent _me next!_ noises all over the shop this last week - he's barely bothering to hide what he's doing. Shameless careerism off the back of oh such an _important issue_...


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

moochedit said:


> If this is the leaflet they are using i'm not surprised they are losing, it doesn't even explain how it works, so the only explanation people get is from the no leaflet above.
> 
> http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/6370/
> 
> ...


FFS, that is marginally worse than the NO leaflet. They must have made a special effort because the NO leaflet was so bad it made me want to vote yes or kill myself.


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> \i wouldn't advocate compulsory preferences.  But what you'd effectively be saying is that you'd prefer whichever non-fascist party is in the best place to beat the BNP/NF.


Not really. In fact what you are doing is tactical voting to work out which BNP/NF supporters would put down Labour/Tory highest as appropriate. In a close run contest you end up with the mainstream candidates attempting to mop up the supporters of the BNP/NF. That's such a shit system that words fail me tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> \i wouldn't advocate compulsory preferences.  But what you'd effectively be saying is that you'd prefer whichever non-fascist party is in the best place to beat the BNP/NF.


 
I'm not saying that (im not NOT saying it either though). And if you wasn't advocating compulsory preferences then the system wouldn't, in many cases, be much different from FPTP would it? 

and if there were compulsory preferences (and thats how it is in australia) then why should people be forced to choose between what they liked most of all the parties, when they don't like any of them?


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

> As one experienced voter explained, “Nobody wants to improve the fairness of the electoral system more than I do, but the AV system seems to work on the basis that there is a plethora of top quality candidates to choose from, rather than a deeply unpleasant rabble of incompetent dickheads.”


http://newsthump.com/2011/04/18/wer...lone-a-2nd-or-3rd-voters-tell-av-campaigners/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It isn't a "tactic" it is an objective description at how the Tory leadership is feeling at this poll trend - which Peter Kellner on the Today programme just now said was a result of the Tory vote hardening behind the NO to a factor of 5 to 1.
> 
> Why are you joining them to deliver a key Tory objective?



What exactly did he say - because the ICM poll indicated "the haemorrhaging of reformers is most pronounced among 2010 Labour voters".


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2011)

articul8 said:


> \i wouldn't advocate compulsory preferences.  But what you'd effectively be saying is that you'd prefer whichever non-fascist party is in the best place to beat the BNP/NF.


 
the fact is that if you write down your preferences on the ballot paper and if your favourite party doesn't win, then one of the others will, so on the second or third attempt your "vote" for the BNP would be counted. how is this fair? i know you wouldn't advocate compulsory preferences, but a lot of people would think the same and only vote for their favourite party/candidate, making the results not too much different from ftpp. in which case, what was the point of changing it to this system in the first place?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2011)

And does anyone else think it's quite revealing the language that's used on the yes leaflets (ie "end MPs jobs for life" etc)?


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

I think the main reason why the Yes vote is imploding is that most people who wanted AV already knew about it, and all the campaigning (on both sides) has done is alert people who are not interested in it that they can go and vote on it soon.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And does anyone else think it's quite revealing the language that's used on the yes leaflets (ie "end MPs jobs for life" etc)?


 
interesting the jobs for life claim - how many mps left at the last parliament?, a load lost their seats who decided not to run,  the expenses scandal put paid to a lot of mps -


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think the main reason why the Yes vote is imploding is that most people who wanted AV already knew about it, and all the campaigning (on both sides) has done is alert people who are not interested in it that they can go and vote on it soon.



I think the sheer ineptness of the YES campaign has helped too. Right from the start they had a dirty great elephant called Nick Clegg and the lib-dems, they pretended that it didn't exist. Worse, they implicitly connected themselves with the elephant (that doesn't exist). Their holier than thou, we're the new politics progressives instinctively reminded people of the same bilge out of the mouth of the lib-dems before the general election - that approach at this time seems to (for some reason) turn peoples stomachs. 

So they needed to establish a narrative that didn't connect the campaign with lib-dems and their long term strategic advantage - and the thing all these bulging brains and all that money came up with was '_fairness_' - and of course, fairness means the lib-dems being rewarded for their historical level of support and having a central role in govt formation for evermore. To this there is no answer because it's bloody true - they trapped themselves in a box that was plastered with Nick Clegg's face and Vince Cable on the spring when the box is opened. 

Truly inept - and politically embarrassing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> interesting the jobs for life claim - how many mps left at the last parliament?, a load lost their seats who decided not to run,  the expenses scandal put paid to a lot of mps -


 
The biggest entry of new MPs since the war - 1/3 (233) brand new. 

(All the same sort of cunt mind, all MPs are new at one point or another - it doesn't make them any better)


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The biggest entry of new MPs since the war - 1/3 (233) brand new.
> 
> (All the same sort of cunt mind, all MPs are new at one point or another)



well yes, I wasn't saying that fptp gets us decent mps


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> well yes, I wasn't saying that fptp gets us decent mps


 
Didn't mean you! I meant the YES campaigns woefully naive idea that new MPS are good by default - ignoring of course all the careerism and ladder climbing required to get to that position.


----------



## magneze (Apr 20, 2011)

Selling new MPs on their inexperience in the job, brilliant stuff. Inspired.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you'll never learn how stupid, and how disastrously counterproductive, this tactic of yours has been, will you?


 
It strikes me that on top of everything that has already been said about how stupid this tactic was, it also contained an inherent inconsistency.  On the one hand, the campaign relied on a belief in pluralism.  On the other, they were demonising one of the main parties.  The two strands just don't sit well together.

But then, the whole farce has been riddled with inconsistencies from day 1.  Look how many of us started out inclined to be favourable and ended up arguing bitterly against it.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> But then, the whole farce has been riddled with inconsistencies from day 1.  Look how many of us started out inclined to be favourable and ended up arguing bitterly against it.


 
I agree with this, when it was announced, I was in two minds, the more I read about it, the more it was discussed, I ended up in the no camp, the yes campaign has been awful


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

the No campaign hasn't had to do much, just sit back and watch the Yes campaign fuck up


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> the No campaign hasn't had to do much, just sit back and watch the Yes campaign fuck up


 
They're too busy opening champagne and being friends with Nick Griffin to do any actual campaigning.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> But then, the whole farce has been riddled with inconsistencies from day 1.  Look how many of us started out inclined to be favourable and ended up arguing bitterly against it.


tragically, heartbreakingly true - There's us two for starters 
I can't think of any electoral campaign which has left me feeling more down


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Apr 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It strikes me that on top of everything that has already been said about how stupid this tactic was, it also contained an inherent inconsistency.  On the one hand, the campaign relied on a belief in pluralism.  On the other, they were demonising one of the main parties.  The two strands just don't sit well together.
> 
> But then, the whole farce has been riddled with inconsistencies from day 1.  Look how many of us started out inclined to be favourable and ended up arguing bitterly against it.



I know A8 has been doing it on there, but has the 'yes' campaign been demonising the Tory party generally?  Sure you are not conflating this message board with the country at large?  

Clearly as soon as in became obvious that no Tories at all were supporting the 'yes' campaign, and that Cameron was a keen FPTP supporter then all Tory voters were going to vote 'no'.  Where the 'Yes' campaign has really failed, is to get the support of people on the left, and once the idea that a 'no' vote will fuck up the coaltion became established then that was always going to be hard to do.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> the No campaign hasn't had to do much, just sit back and watch the Yes campaign fuck up


 
Basically AV is a daft system that doesn't do anything to help anyone but the Lib Dems and the smarmier end of the Labour Party. Since there are precious few Lib Dems left there hasn't really been much of a need for the no campaign to do much other than let the yes campaign explain AV in all it's utter crapness.

One day we will have a referendum on proper PR and then there will be a proper debate.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> the No campaign hasn't had to do much, just sit back and watch the Yes campaign fuck up


 
I think it would have been the same with a referendum on any other voting system. 
Every voting system has weaknesses that could have been exploited by the no side, and the press and most labour and tory MP's are hostile to any change.

Any system that requires you to number candidates in order can be made to look complicated and confusing (imagine that classroom sketch in the NO PPB describing how the single transferable vote Proportional Representation method works for example)

The french system of a second round run off ballot could be argued against on grounds of the cost of holding 2 ballots ("that money could be spent on hospitals and schools"), longer campaigns and the inconvenience of having to go the the polling station twice.

The party list  PR system can be argued against on the grounds that people at the top of the list are guaranteed to be elected.

etc etc.

And finally any system other then first past the post can be argued against on the grounds of "small party's get too much power" (the "fuck clegg" argument)

Sorry if that upsets some on here. I am not saying the above arguments are "fair" just that negative campaigning can be very effective.

(There is another argument to be had over whether referendums are a good or bad thing but that's off topic)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Nick Clegg calls NO voters 'daft'



> Nick Clegg has insisted people are not "daft" enough to oppose AV on the basis that they do not like him.
> 
> The Liberal Democrat leader's comments came amid fears that his unpopularity will hit support for the alternative vote in the 5 May referendum.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 20, 2011)

I'm daft, Nick.  Daft as a Clegg.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

moochedit said:


> I think it would have been the same with a referendum on any other voting system.
> Every voting system has weaknesses that could have been exploited by the no side, and the press and most labour and tory MP's are hostile to any change.
> 
> Any system that requires you to number candidates in order can be made to look complicated and confusing (imagine that classroom sketch in the NO PPB describing how the single transferable vote Proportional Representation method works for example)
> ...


 
We do have other polling systems for other elections - Euros are PR aren't they, I think the London Mayoral vote might actually be AV or something similar - Welsh and Scottish votes are PR as well, I don't think people are against a change in the voting system for the general election, just not AV.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> We do have other polling systems for other elections - Euros are PR aren't they, I think the London Mayoral vote might actually be AV or something similar - Welsh and Scottish votes are PR as well, I don't think people are against a change in the voting system for the general election, just not AV.


 
yes, but a referendum campain using negative campaining can convince people otherwise. Anyway got to go, my lunch break is over. 

edit - the euros use party list PR and london mayor uses supplementary vote which is simalar to AV but you can only give 2 preferences.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

This sort of thing from Clegg is what the YES campaign manged to get themselves associated with - big brains that they are:



> He said he "flatly" disagreed with the argument put forward by the no campaign that AV was favoured by the Lib Dems because they would be the party most likely to benefit from the system.



They had no anti-lib-dem angle, narrative or argument to offer anyone.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

moochedit said:


> yes, but a referendum campain using negative campaining can convince people otherwise. Anyway got to go, my lunch break is over.


  which is what the Yes Campaign has done tbf


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Clegg calls NO voters 'daft'


 
I saw that this morning on BBC Breakfast, plus his trying to squirm out of the "miserable little compromise" remark he made about AV, oh sorry, he made about _Labour_ and AV.

He just came across as desperate.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I saw that this morning on BBC Breakfast, plus his trying to squirm out of the "miserable little compromise" remark he made about AV, oh sorry, he made about _Labour_ and AV.
> 
> He just came across as desperate.



Even that guff about the miserable little compromise was a total lie

Clegg today - 'i'm a massive liar'



> The deputy prime minister also explained his much-quoted remark before the election that AV was a "miserable little compromise".
> 
> "What I was actually referring to was Gordon Brown's suggestion very late in the day in his government of making changes which everyone knew would not come into effect," he said.
> 
> "I was talking about the Labour party's offer in the latter days of its government which it had no way of implementing."



Original quote:




> "The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party."



No suggestion of anything like what he lied about today. Can the man _not_ lie? Is he missing a gene or something?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I saw that this morning on BBC Breakfast, plus his trying to squirm out of the "miserable little compromise" remark he made about AV, oh sorry, he made about _Labour_ and AV.
> 
> He just came across as desperate.



he has become practiced at blaming every betrayal as in the interest of the country, we had to make sacrifices, etc....


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Even that guff about the miserable little compromise was a total lie
> 
> Clegg today - 'i'm a massive liar'
> 
> ...


 
To quote "Toy Story" he is a 'sad, strange little man'. Though he does not have my pity.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 20, 2011)

(deleted as butchersapron did earlier what I just posted here on Clegg's "daft" comments on AV)

Don't be too sure, Cleggy boy, there's plenty of "daft" people around.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> which is what the Yes Campaign has done tbf


 
true yestoav went negative as well (about the MP's though rather than the first past the post system) and tried unconvincingly to imply that the expenses scandal wouldn't have happened under AV and that lazy MP's would "listen" more and "work harder".

If they had took their own advise and "worked harder"  then they might have got 50% in the referendum   *

* obvious joke and i haven't read the last couple of pages so sorry if someone beat me to it !


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

moochedit said:


> true yestoav went negative as well (about the MP's though rather than the first past the post system) and tried unconvincingly to imply that the expenses scandal wouldn't have happened under AV and that lazy MP's would "listen" more and "work harder".
> 
> If they had took their own advise and "worked harder"  then they might have got 50% in the referendum   *
> 
> * obvious joke and i haven't read the last couple of pages so sorry if someone beat me to it !



which is a nonsense - the expenses scandal was down to lax parlimentary rules, and the nod and a wink system over expenses - if everyone else is doing it , why shouldn't I? I'm surprised they took so few to court - surely if they paid back expenses they had obtained when they shouldn't have claimed them, they were guilty of fraud too.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This sort of thing from Clegg is what the YES campaign manged to get themselves associated with - big brains that they are:


 


> Fears the referendum will be used to send a message to the Lib Dems – who are most strongly associated with it – prompted the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, a supporter of AV, *to urge voters not to use the poll as an opportunity to give the deputy prime minister a "kicking"*.
> 
> "*This referendum is not about Nick Clegg*, it's not about David Cameron, it's not about me," Miliband said. "It is a chance to have a better politics in Britain."



I bet that put the idea in some labour supporters heads that hadn't been following the AV debate 

<tin foil> i wonder if that was a "dog whistle" ? <\tin foil>   or just an own goal for the yes side.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

That's exactly what i'd have NOT been saying


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

a yes vote could threaten the coaliton, as could a no vote , so I don't get the no vote being only about Nick Clegg (although he hasn't helped his cause tbh) a no vote is also about a rejection of AV.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

A yes vote can't marty, that view relies on hardened political warriors losing all sense all together for no gain.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A yes vote can't marty, that view relies on hardened political warriors losing all sense all together for no gain.


 
The hard core Tories are going to be pissed off if it is a yes vote, Cameron could be considered as a two-time loser having not delivered the hoped for election victory - which was a missed open goal -


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> The hard core Tories are going to be pissed off if it is a yes vote, Cameron could be considered as a two-time loser having not delivered the hoped for election victory - which was a missed open goal -


 
They're not going to bring down the thing that's forcing through their wildest dreams, not matter how pissed off they are at one side-issue. (And they'll need 70-90 to do it)


----------



## moochedit (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what i'd have NOT been saying


 
So you sound "progressive" to lib dem voters while sending a "dog whistle" to labour voters


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They're not going to bring down the thing that's forcing through their wildest dreams, not matter how pissed off they are at one side-issue. (And they'll need 70-90 to do it)


 
maybe, it's not in the interests of the cabinet members to do it, but there are plenty miffed at not getting ministerial gigs because dave had to give them to the Lib Dems because he didn't win the election as promised.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> maybe, it's not in the interests of the cabinet members to do it, but there are plenty miffed at not getting ministerial gigs because dave had to give them to the Lib Dems because he didn't win the election as promised.


 
They're disciplined soldiers. They know the larger aim.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> maybe, it's not in the interests of the cabinet members to do it, but there are plenty miffed at not getting ministerial gigs because dave had to give them to the Lib Dems because he didn't win the election as promised.



Nah for them it's redrawing the boundries and getting rid of loads of Labour seats that is the real victory and that's happening anyway - they can swallow a bit of AV for that.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 20, 2011)

marty21 said:


> maybe, it's not in the interests of the cabinet members to do it, but there are plenty miffed at not getting ministerial gigs because dave had to give them to the Lib Dems because he didn't win the election as promised.


 
Even if there are some that feel like that, they will know that acting against Cameron is a guaranteed way of making sure that they won't get ministerial gigs in the future.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They're disciplined soldiers. They know the larger aim.


 


Spanky Longhorn said:


> Nah for them it's redrawing the boundries and getting rid of loads of Labour seats that is the real victory and that's happening anyway - they can swallow a bit of AV for that.


 
it's new territory - we haven't had a coalition since the war, difficult to predict how this one will react to the vote, add in some difficult local election results, the scottish parliament results, the welsh assembly - it will be a difficult few days if the results go against the coalition, could be a major wobble  (the AV result being the exception here)


ETA - forgot the short-lived Lib/Lab pact.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> They're too busy opening champagne and being friends with Nick Griffin to do any actual campaigning.


 
I've been to one of Matthew Elliot's political functions, they do have a shit load of champagne.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

Same shit diff shovel. It means nothing and you, you careerist runt, stink.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I've been to one of Matthew Elliot's political functions


 
Of course you have.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I've been to one of Matthew Elliot's political functions, they do have a shit load of champagne.


 That 16% lead, thats you, that's articul8 added together.


----------



## Santino (Apr 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That 16% lead, thats you, that's articul8 added together.


 
I'm fairly sure articul8 pays moon to post here to make him look good by comparison.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'm fairly sure articul8 pays moon to post here to make him look good by comparison.



I'm actually paid by the Labour party to discredit the Lib Dems.


----------



## Santino (Apr 21, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm actually paid by the Labour party to discredit the Lib Dems.


 
Yes. And?


----------



## moon23 (Apr 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That 16% lead, thats you, that's articul8 added together.


 
Yea nothing to do with the Murcdoch press or the Tory donors funding the no campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea nothing to do with the Murcdoch press or the Tory donors funding the no campaign.


 
You're right, the're all Tory dupes 

What govt did you lie to be in?

Do you really think pretending to hate tories can save you? Dead


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Two weeks to the election and the YES campaign has run out of puff - given up - relying now entirely on their talking head mates in the broadsheets to argue their case. Yeah, history turned.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Game over: Laurie Penny (bomb libya Yes!!!!) comes out for a YES.

She really doesn't do politics does she?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Game over: Laurie Penny (bomb libya Yes!!!!) comes out for a YES.
> 
> She really doesn't do politics does she?


 
Doesn't seem like it. "Radical politics" my arse.

She does careerism quite well, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Even these daft YES voting mugs get it:

The Lib Dem leader is alienating the voters Yes to AV needs to win over.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

How much were advertising agenvies paid for the YES campaign articul8?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 21, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm actually paid by the Labour party to discredit the Lib Dems.


they're certainly getting VFM


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 21, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea nothing to do with the Murcdoch press or the Tory donors funding the no campaign.


careful, your new bezzer tory mates might get hurt feelings!


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm actually paid by the Labour party to discredit the Lib Dems.


 
It would be all too believable except for one thing. Most Lib Dem activists are as bad as you are. If I was paying you to discredit the Lib Dems I'd be demanding you at least act worse than the average. You need to up your game. The endless contradiction and complete failure to argue logically and coherently is good. I'm well impressed by the complete absence of moral values and ethical principles. However you simply aren't anywhere near the extremes when it comes to financial sleaziness, and you haven't really got the hang of the classic Lib Dem covert bigotry. I see no sign of you having undeclared directorships with companies that do business with your local council, and as yet there isn't a single rumour about your carnal relationship with a neighbour's cat.

Must try harder.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 22, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It would be all too believable except for one thing. Most Lib Dem activists are as bad as you are. If I was paying you to discredit the Lib Dems I'd be demanding you at least act worse than the average. You need to up your game. The endless contradiction and complete failure to argue logically and coherently is good. I'm well impressed by the complete absence of moral values and ethical principles. However you simply aren't anywhere near the extremes when it comes to financial sleaziness, and you haven't really got the hang of the classic Lib Dem covert bigotry. I see no sign of you having undeclared directorships with companies that do business with your local council, and as yet there isn't a single rumour about your carnal relationship with a neighbour's cat.
> 
> Must try harder.



Brilliant post eric!


----------



## strung out (Apr 23, 2011)

vince cable admits the strain the NO campaign is putting on the coalition...



> "He [Cameron] may not directly control what his supporters are up to. But he must make it clear that he doesn't condone and will endeavour to stop personal attacks on his deputy for loyally supporting coalition policy.
> 
> "To stand by and let this happen is dangerous and puts considerable strain on the coalition."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13174645


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 23, 2011)

"Progressive coalition" - prick


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 23, 2011)

Only a week and a bit to go.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 23, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> as yet there isn't a single rumour about your carnal relationship with a neighbour's cat.


 
We could always start one, help him along like


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 23, 2011)

Mr Cable said: "We need to make sure the progressive majority wins elections in this century and not the Conservatives as they did, by the back door, for two-thirds of the last century."

Or, indeed, in this century, with your support.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 23, 2011)

Are they living in some sort of parallel world or something?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 23, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Are they living in some sort of parallel world or something?


I think 100% delusional state is essential to their psychological survival, by now


----------



## Corax (Apr 23, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Only a week and a bit to go.


 
The excitement's becoming unbearable.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 23, 2011)

I find it funny that Cable was whinging that the NO to AV campaign were demonising Clegg for being in the coalition but then went onto claim that AV would prevent the Tories gaining power.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2011)

They're still hammering away at this idiocy:

Only “Tories, communists and BNP” oppose alternative vote says Nick Clegg



> Dismissing suggestions that AV would allow minority parties to get elected, he said that the only parties that opposed AV were “the Conservatives, the communists and the BNP”.
> 
> He added: “I would rather be on the side on progressive elements across all parties than side with the old establishment and the lunatic fringe.”


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 23, 2011)

> I would rather be on the side on progressive elements across all parties than side with the old establishment...


 
You mean the old establishment you're in coalition with Nick? That old establishment? No, wouldn't want to be "on side" with them.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 23, 2011)

the same hard-right that you're in coalition eh clegg?


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 23, 2011)

He's probably been reading Onars blog and got confused again.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 23, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> the same hard-right that you're in coalition eh clegg?


 
 Great minds...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 23, 2011)

Clegg:  "I've sold out all of my principles (if indeed I ever had any anyway), am a Tory-supporting quisling, and have no shame in promoting a savage neo-liberalist agenda, but if you don't vote Yes to AV, and allow the Lib Dems the chance to gain a few more seats in a shabby political fix that simply upholds the status quo, then you're no better than the BNP, which makes you a NAZI."


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 23, 2011)

only nazis vote against fairer votes.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 23, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> only nazis vote against fairer votes.


 
Yes, and it's only the Nazis who want PR as the preferred voting option.  Look at the PR system in FASCIST NAZI GERMANY, where the NPD control all the seats, and German socialists are begging on their knees for AV.

You know what they say about AV? - "AV MACHT FREI!"


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 23, 2011)

yeah that's a good point actually - germany has PR - germany, nazis, erm, helloooooo!


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

"Nasty right wing clique"

Clegg is losing the plot


----------



## marty21 (Apr 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> "Nasty right wing clique"
> 
> Clegg is losing the plot


 
lol at Clegg, who is propping up a Tory Government.


----------



## strung out (Apr 24, 2011)

good to see cleggy pouring scorn on cameron, griffin and "whoever leads the communist party", while championing 'progressive thinkers' like nigel farage


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 24, 2011)

lol, he probably needs to make his own mental health a priority.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 24, 2011)

After much deliberation I have decided to vote no to AV.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

I've managed to rouse another no vote in the house- someone who wasn't going to bother but fancies spiting the lib dems.

Must say the 'yes to AV' leaflet was a shoddy affair. A large postcard sized black and white thing on unglossy cardboard. Cheap and half-hearted compared to the three sheets of colour and photos for the 'No to AV' leaflets


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> someone who wasn't going to bother but fancies spiting the lib dems.


Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. I'm voting no out of spite. Clever.



> Must say the 'yes to AV' leaflet was a shoddy affair. A large postcard sized black and white thing on unglossy cardboard. Cheap and half-hearted compared to the three sheets of colour and photos for the 'No to AV' leaflets


Anothet good reason to vote no - the advertising for the No campaign is much smoother.

I had no doubts 6 months ago that the No vote would win, because ultimately the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes. Unfortunately, it's what's causing the UK to stagnate, and is falling right into the hands of the big money interests who have both major parties firmly locked into their agenda.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

'Viable 3rd voice' isn't going to magically happen with AV either.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. I'm voting no out of spite. Clever.
> 
> Anothet good reason to vote no - the advertising for the No campaign is much smoother.
> 
> I had no doubts 6 months ago that the No vote would win, because ultimately the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes. Unfortunately, it's what's causing the UK to stagnate, and is falling right into the hands of the big money interests who have both major parties firmly locked into their agenda.



I well remember your aggressive shilling for the lib-dems before the general election - thanks for that. Turned out well didn't it?


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> 'Viable 3rd voice' isn't going to magically happen with AV either.


 
It's going to be less likely. AV favours compromise candidates. We need a party to emerge on the left of the current mainstream, not another party attempting to slip into the miniscule gap between the blue and red Tories.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I well remember your aggressive shilling for the lib-dems before the general election - thanks for that. Turned out well didn't it?


 


Ah, so doddles '3rd voice' is a really the Lib Dems then lol!


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It's going to be less likely. AV favours compromise candidates. We need a party to emerge on the left of the current mainstream, not another party attempting to slip into the miniscule gap between the blue and red Tories.


 
Yep.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. *I'm voting no out of spite*. Clever.
> 
> Anothet good reason to vote no - the advertising for the No campaign is much smoother.
> 
> I had no doubts 6 months ago that the No vote would win, because ultimately the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes. Unfortunately, it's what's causing the UK to stagnate, and is falling right into the hands of the big money interests who have both major parties firmly locked into their agenda.


 

In this household we generally consider parliamentary democracy to be a pointless sham and this pissing little change another way to still end up with a shit sandwich. Thusly we don't actually care a fucking fig for this 'historic' attempt to slightly re-jig the electoral system Hence the logical choice is the one that cunts off clegg and his ilk.




> the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes.



actually they're likely to savvy to care much but sense an opportunity to wound clegg. Your slip is showing btw.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Thusly we don't actually care a fucking fig for this 'historic' attempt to slightly re-jig the electoral system Hence the logical choice is the one that cunts off clegg and his ilk.


And the one that pleases the two major parties, the banks, Murdoch, Tesco etc etc the most. Strange sense of priority. Maybe you should just stay at home on voting day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

if we vote yes to AV surely the revolution is mere moments away.



> Maybe you should just stay at home on voting day.



clear yellow water


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

"Lib Dems: Deal breakers to the cuts"


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I well remember your aggressive shilling for the lib-dems before the general election - thanks for that. Turned out well didn't it?


Worse than I hoped for, yes, though mainly because Labour didn't get enough votes to form a coalition with the Leb Dems and steadfastly refused to give Gordon Brown the boot. But no worse than a straight Conservative win. I was also hoping that it might prompt Labour to shift a bit leftwards and grow some spine against the banks and big business, but I see no sign of that.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

Eh? You was hoping it might prompt Labour to shift leftwards but voted for Clegg's Orange Book Lib Dems?!


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> 'Viable 3rd voice' isn't going to magically happen with AV either.


I agree it probably won't. But faced with a choice between what we absolutely know doesn't work and what we think probably won't work, I'm inclined to go with the latter. Anything that convinces the change-resistant UK public that change doesn't automatically lead to catastrophe is good IMO. Of course, Clegg and Cable have done more to harm that notion in 1 year than I would ever have predicted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

three types of dogshite include the obvious, stinking nut-studded one right in the centre of the road, the sloppy one that you walk around and then the one hidden in the grass that looks like a bit of mud untill you step on it. I'll just take a different route thanks.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

'Miserable compromise electoral reform over stopping the coalition and its cuts'... that's the Lib Dems 'strange sense of priority'.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> Eh? You was hoping it might prompt Labour to shift leftwards but voted for Clegg's Orange Book Lib Dems?!


 
Like many who voted Lib Dem, I was faced with a choice. Obviously I couldn't vote Tory. Do I then vote for a party that lead to the financial meltdown, lead the UK into Iraq, brought about massive intrusions of government into people's private lives, colluded with the USA to kidnap, lock up and torture people without trial? And showed no remorse or any sign of reversing any of those policies? That wasn't an option for me. So I voted for a different party who's manifesto matched best with my thinking. The fact that they threw the manifesto in the bin as soon as they got a sniff of power means I won't vote for them again. Do I regret not voting Labour? Not one jot, and I won't be voting for them in their current form either. Instead I will vote for pretty much anything or anyone that offers some sort of change to the system, however small or seemingly insignificant it is.

And although I'll readily take shit from people who voted for parties other than Tory or Labour, any Labour voter who tries to lecture me on the foolishness of my vote can get stuffed - they supported a party that's directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, and the erosion of rights that people have battled for over a century to achieve. Your moral ground is quicksand.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

My 'moral ground is quicksand', get over yourself 

I'm anti-capitalist, anti-banks, anti-war.



(I didn't vote for Labour btw - but we're used to that lazy accusation on here from Lib Dems).


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

> rights that people have battled for over a century to achieve.



your bedfellows are sharpening the knives for the NHS and the welfare state. In your intenseley thatcherite me me world civil liberties infringements might rank higher than healthcare and social provision for the sick and unemployed- but not in rational minds. Certainly, civil liberty infringements are a worry and should be kept an eye on. But you're fiddling while rome burns.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

stephj said:


> My 'moral ground is quicksand', get over yourself
> 
> I'm anti-capitalist, anti-banks, anti-war.
> 
> (I didn't vote for Labour btw - but we're used to that lazy accusation on here from Lib Dems).


And so my comment wasn't directed at you, as I clearly stated. And I'll take your comments, DotCommunist's, and any other non-Labour voters' comments on the chin, even if I don't agree with all of them.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 24, 2011)

That would be the rights that the Lib Dems battled hard to achieve - oh wait, they didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2011)

Can you imagine the colossal arrogance required to have got things so spectacularly wrong, so harmfully wrong, for the poorest, for the weakest, less than 12 month ago then to come back not holding your hands up and saying that your analysis at that point was wrong and has been proven to be wrong, but to berate people who are trying to come up with a way to deal with the very real and very immediate consequences of your fuck up?

You sound like Clegg to be honest doddles. The same haughtiness and pride in being wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> And so my comment wasn't directed at you, as I clearly stated. And I'll take your comments, DotCommunist's, and any other non-Labour voters' comments on the chin, even if I don't agree with all of them.


 
my last locals I vote labour, for son of the steelworks Phil Sawford. Ex-union man, member of the Socialist Campaign Group (entryism! oh noes, save us kinnock)- he had no fucking chance round here but he was a vote that could be made in good conscience. Anywhere with a chance had nulab apparatchiks foisted in who wouldn't have had the steam off my piss.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> In your intenseley thatcherite me me world


Me, Thatcherite? Hardly. I don't see why progressive social democracy, as practiced for example in a number of European countries (though under enormous attack from the right) can't co-exist with proper respect for human rights. Labour clearly weren't interested in either. Lib Dems said they were, but lied. 


> But you're fiddling while rome burns.


 Just wished there was an alternative here in the UK. Is there?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 24, 2011)

Jeez, another mewling Lib-Dem whining on about Labour. They just don't get it do they?


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can you imagine the colossal arrogance required to have got things so spectacularly wrong, so harmfully wrong, for the poorest, for the weakest, less than 12 month ago then to come back not holding your hands up and saying that your analysis at that point was wrong and has been proven to be wrong


I thought I had admitted as much. Let me be clear. I was wrong about the Lib Dems - I didn't realise they'd throw their manifesto in the bin.


> but to berate people who are trying to come up with a way to deal with the very real and very immediate consequences of your fuck up?


umm - Labour's fuckup, the Tory's fuck up and the Lib Dem's fuck up. They all fucked up. I'm not berating Labour supporters. Just saying that being berated by them is a bit rich, given their party's recent history.

I'm certainly not berating anyone who's trying to come up with a way to deal with the fuckups of the last 30 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> I thought I had admitted as much. Let me be clear. I was wrong about the Lib Dems - I didn't realise they'd throw their manifesto in the bin.



Well, you've really just said that _they_ lied - not that _your_ analysis of them and what they'd do was wrong - i.e the blame lies entirely with them in your view and not _your_ capacity for weighing up motivations, actions and consequences. Which, of course asks pretty serious questions about your capability to weigh up the same this time round - and frankly, you're getting mugged all over again - and once again, it'll have disastrous consequences. But i expect you'll be back 12 months later on the next big issue berating all and sundry for being ahead of you - i.e being able to basic political analysis.



> umm - Labour's fuckup, the Tory's fuck up and the Lib Dem's fuck up. They all fucked up. I'm not berating Labour supporters. Just saying that being berated by them is a bit rich, given their party's recent history.
> 
> I'm certainly not berating anyone who's trying to come up with a way to deal with the fuckups of the last 30 years.



Yes you are - you're berating people on here who've made clear arguments for voting NO on the basis of it having the only (electoral) potential for accentuating various internal rifts and conflicts within the coalition parties, their membership, their leaders and the coalition - reducing their political arguments down to 'spite' in the process - in the hope of stopping the cuts that your mistaken analysis helped bring into existence. And you pretty much called everyone voting NO for whatever reason a thick reactionary cunt into the bargain. Again, the sort of basic tactical political mistake that has ensured the NO vote is leading going into the final furlongs.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you've really just said that _they_ lied - not that _your_ analysis of them and what they'd do was wrong - i.e the blame lies entirely with them in your view and not _your_ capacity for weighing up motivations, actions and consequences.


Not what I said at all. I said I was wrong, because I didn't realise they'd lie. I didn't realise. That's me - got it? Was it naivity, wishful thinking, lack of historical knowledge, lack of cynicism? Yeah - probably a mix of all of those. One thing though, I never painted the LibDems as the answer to all the problems. I've voted on the assumption that all the major parties are lead by and large by a bunch of self-serving, power hungry arseholes - that it's always the case of the lesser of evils.



> you're berating people on here who've made clear arguments for voting NO on the basis of it having the only (electoral) potential for accentuating various internal rifts and conflicts within the coalition parties, their membership, their leaders and the coalition



I don't think I commented on anyone saying that. 



> And you pretty much called everyone voting NO for whatever reason a thick reactionary cunt into the bargain.


What a load of crap. Show me where I said anything like that.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Not what I said at all. I said I was wrong, because I didn't realise they'd lie. I didn't realise. That's me - got it? Was it naivity, wishful thinking, lack of historical knowledge, lack of cynicism? Yeah - probably a mix of all of those. One thing though, I never painted the LibDems as the answer to all the problems. I've voted on the assumption that all the major parties are lead by and large by a bunch of self-serving, power hungry arseholes - that it's always the case of the lesser of evils.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what have you learnt that means you're getting this one right? Because to em it looks like the exact same approach from you as before - mugged again and looking to mug others.

Well here in this post you dismiss arguments for NO as not being based on consequences but on spite - admittedly it was a fairly crude version of the argument - have you read the thread though?

OK, you didn't say that in so many words, but the tone of your posts is so similar to the desperation from the YES campaign over the last week that did pretty much say that...again, have you read the thread?


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of possible interest to some, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread (not that it matters one way or the other) the mighty SWP have come out against AV.


 
Christ. Clegg or the SWP claiming my vote as vindication. A sickening prospect.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So what have you learnt that means you're getting this one right? Because to em it looks like the exact same approach from you as before - mugged again and looking to mug others.


Maybe I'm not right. Happens all the time. But the only remaining reason I voted LibDem that they haven't about-faced on was voting reform, even if it is a poor alternative to PR.



> Well here in this post you dismiss arguments for NO as not being based on consequences but on spite


Hang on a sec - did you read that post? *I* didn't mention spite - the post I was commenting on mentioned it. 



> OK, you didn't say that in so many words, but the tone of your posts is so similar to the desperation from the YES campaign over the last week that did pretty much say that...again, have you read the thread?


Yep - but if the YES campaign has been desperate (not surprising considering they're going to lose), the NO campaign has been full of straight out lies. I tend to ignore them both.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. I'm voting no out of spite. Clever.
> 
> Anothet good reason to vote no - the advertising for the No campaign is much smoother.
> 
> I had no doubts 6 months ago that the No vote would win, because ultimately the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes. Unfortunately, it's what's causing the UK to stagnate, and is falling right into the hands of the big money interests who have both major parties firmly locked into their agenda.


 
a no vote won't stop campaigning for a better system, face it AV is not what people want, it's a shady deal given to the Lib Dems by their Tory masters to keep their support, if the referendum does not say yes to AV, there will be other chances to change FPTP, they can start with the House of Lords, and actually have an elected second chamber.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Maybe I'm not right. Happens all the time. But the only remaining reason I voted LibDem that they haven't about-faced on was voting reform, even if it is a poor alternative to PR.
> 
> 
> Hang on a sec - did you read that post? *I* didn't mention spite - the post I was commenting on mentioned it.
> ...



Well, that does fill me with confidence.

Yes, i did read it, that's precisely how i know that spite was being used as shorthand for the sort of anti-cuts position that's been developed on here. You turned it into meaning just spite (and without saying how or why the consequences of a vote based on spite are worse than any other).


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles - the Lib Dems had a chance to push for proper PR (which they'd been advocating for years) and have bottled it.  The only thing that AV benefits is maybe an extra few seats to the Lib Dems at the most.  A totally shabby and self-interested sell-out of proportional representation.  And their blackmail is equally shoddy as well.

Simon Hughes is at it now too (this was also covered on Radio 4 earlier on): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13180481


----------



## marty21 (Apr 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> doddles - the Lib Dems had a chance to push for proper PR (which they'd been advocating for years) and have bottled it.  The only thing that AV benefits is maybe an extra few seats to the Lib Dems at the most.  A totally shabby and self-interested sell-out of proportional representation.  And their blackmail is equally shoddy as well.
> 
> Simon Hughes is at it now too (this was also covered on Radio 4 earlier on): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13180481


 
'straight' talking Simon Hughes? another reason to vote no then.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> doddles - the Lib Dems had a chance to push for proper PR (which they'd been advocating for years) and have bottled it.  The only thing that AV benefits is maybe an extra few seats to the Lib Dems at the most.  A totally shabby and self-interested sell-out of proportional representation.  And their blackmail is equally shoddy as well.
> 
> Simon Hughes is at it now too (this was also covered on Radio 4 earlier on): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13180481


 
Heh - true that the deputy leader of the LibDems complaining about others' dishonesty is pretty hilarious.


----------



## doddles (Apr 24, 2011)

marty21 said:


> a no vote won't stop campaigning for a better system, face it AV is not what people want, it's a shady deal given to the Lib Dems by their Tory masters to keep their support, if the referendum does not say yes to AV, there will be other chances to change FPTP, they can start with the House of Lords, and actually have an elected second chamber.


I hope you're right, but fear that any chance of reform will be set back 20 years by the upcoming No victory. Clearly it's not in Labour or Tory interests to support electoral reform.


----------



## Corax (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> Like many who voted Lib Dem, I was faced with a choice. Obviously I couldn't vote Tory. Do I then vote for a party that lead to the financial meltdown, lead the UK into Iraq, brought about massive intrusions of government into people's private lives, colluded with the USA to kidnap, lock up and torture people without trial? And showed no remorse or any sign of reversing any of those policies? That wasn't an option for me.


 
This bit is very close to my own thinking.

The difference appears to be that I realise that I was hopelessly naive.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Apr 24, 2011)

I voted Yes on the referendum and then again for the Green Party because I don't believe in abstaining, and a vote for change is positive considering the shite system already in place.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 24, 2011)

Up with AV! Up with Imperialism!


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 24, 2011)

doddles said:


> I hope you're right, but fear that any chance of reform will be set back 20 years by the upcoming No victory. Clearly it's not in Labour or Tory interests to support electoral reform.


 
Why would anyone think that any party in power will support electoral reform that has any real value in increasing democracy. Of course they won't.

In order to have any sort of electoral reform that's worth having we need to first decide on a system that there is a widespread consensus behind, and then have a sufficiently large scale grass roots campaign that it becomes electoral suicide not to put the change in a manifesto and act on it.

That's not going to happen because there isn't a proposal around for electoral reform that will clearly be a significant improvement, so there is no mass consensus. Ergo anything we will be offered by any government will be something that serves their own interests and not the interests of the electorate as a whole. End of.

Vote no. Decide what we, the British people, actually want. Then campaign to get it. Anything else is a waste of time.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 25, 2011)

Ha ha ha - the Lib Dems are now on Radio 4 crying about being misrepresented by the "No to AV" crowd, and are even threatening legal action!  I do hope they sue "No to AV", and then have their arses handed to them legal-style.  One of the Orange Books is even threatening to resign too (my aching sides).  Here's hoping the neo-liberalist non-Democrats carry on in this manner, and then look like even bigger sell-outs and quislings when they continue to defend the cuts and so-called reforms.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 25, 2011)

Interesting article by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian today. A win for the No vote in the referendum on AV could lead to a majority Tory government in the next year or so. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/24/election-this-year-not-impossible


----------



## Combustible (Apr 25, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Interesting article by Jackie Ashley in the Guardian today. A win for the No vote in the referendum on AV could lead to a majority Tory government in the next year or so.



That is the claim.  The slight problem is that Labour are on average 5% points ahead in the polls and the Tories wouldn't have had time to redraw the boundaries. I don't think the infighting and acrimony of a crumbling coalition would exactly help the Tories improve their poll ratings either.  However that article does (unintentionally) indicate the potential for damage to the coalition from a No vote.  Which may be why she is claiming that the Tory prospects for victory in such an election are good when they really are not.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 25, 2011)

We might get that anyway though.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 25, 2011)

doddles said:


> Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. I'm voting no out of spite. Clever.


Yes, it is clever, actually - clever to suss that the amount of change this brings about is so miniscule as to be not worth having, that the main beneficiaries are the lib dem scumbags YOU voted for, that it needs a whole lot more than AV to create a viable mainstream movement with genuinely Left policies, that the odds are voting 'no' will achieve more by increasing the chances of a civil war in the Lib Dems.
voting Lib dem, on the other hand - now THAT'S stupid


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 25, 2011)

doddles said:


> And the one that pleases the two major parties, the banks, Murdoch, Tesco etc etc the most. Strange sense of priority. Maybe you should just stay at home on voting day.


and pleasing the lib dems and the leader of the party you despise (Labour) is a good idea for what reason, hmm?


----------



## doddles (Apr 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> and pleasing the lib dems and the leader of the party you despise (Labour) is a good idea for what reason, hmm?


 I can accept the logic behind trying to bring down the coalition with a no vote, though the risk is that the Tories would benefit most from that.

BTW - I don't despise the Labour Party, at least not what it's historically stood for. I just despise what it's become: one more big business/big banks/big money lackey (though I realise many Labour members don't fall into that category, but then neither do lots of Lib Dems - they've all just been screwed by the party leadership).


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 25, 2011)

OK fair play, wasn't having a pop at you. So how about answering the question in post #3172?


----------



## doddles (Apr 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> OK fair play, wasn't having a pop at you. So how about answering the question in post #3172?


 I'd love to have an option that pissed off Tory, Labour and LibDems TBF, but I'm not sure what it is. So I guess I still go with trying to piss of the Tories as my safe fall back position, though fuck all good that will ultimately do.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

doddles said:


> I'd love to have an option that pissed off Tory, Labour and LibDems TBF, but I'm not sure what it is. So I guess I still go with trying to piss of the Tories as my safe fall back position, though fuck all good that will ultimately do.


disagree,but fair enough


----------



## Corax (Apr 26, 2011)

Brooker lulz:



> With not long to go until the AV referendum, the waters are muddier than ever. It's confusing. One minute the anti-camp claims a vote for AV would benefit the BNP. Then the pro-camp counters by pointing out the BNP are against AV. Therefore no matter what the outcome, Nick Griffin will both win and lose simultaneously. He'll exist in an uncertain quantum state. Like Schrödinger's cat. I say "cat". I originally used another word starting with c and ending with t, but the Guardian asked me to change it. Suffice to say, Griffin is a massive cat.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/av-campaign-created-stupidity-whirlpool


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 26, 2011)

Alan Johnson and Mandy in the Guardain today. 



> Johnson told the Guardian: "The issue in this referendum is bigger than the Lib Dems or petty tensions in the coalition. People don't care who is going to sue who, but people do want a better politics and what we should be doing is debating just how AV will improve our politics.
> 
> "The no camp love these squabbles because it does their job for them. What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote no most. It's the Tories. They are bankrolling the no campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system."
> 
> In an interview with the Independent, Mandelson said: "Labour people need to question why Cameron is suddenly so desperate for a no vote. Because a yes vote would send the Tories into convulsions and greatly weaken him. Rightwing Tories have already been gravely warning it would make Cameron a 'lost leader'. That is something Labour supporters should bear in mind as they consider their vote."


----------



## strung out (Apr 26, 2011)

evidence of this "fairer voting system"?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2011)

_The tories are against it_ - constantly shocked by how the liberal-left YES voters allow themselves to be mugged so easily - this very often is their only argument, _the tories are against it so it must be good_. Whilst moaning about the ignorance of the NO voters and how they're leaving the country etc


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2011)

Any ideas?

AV campaigner gets gagging order to protect his privacy

I'm presuming he's related to the pic they chose to use somehow?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Any ideas?
> 
> AV campaigner gets gagging order to protect his privacy
> 
> I'm presuming he's related to the pic they chose to use somehow?



He doesn't want anyone to know he's voting yes?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _The tories are against it_ - constantly shocked by how the *liberal-left YES voters* allow themselves to be mugged so easily - this very often is their only argument, the tories are against it so it must be good. Whilst moaning about the ignorance of the NO voters and how they're leaving the country etc



Are you keeping a list? Billy Bragg, Helena Bonham Carter, Colin Firth, Johann Hari, Joanna Lumley, Greg Dyke, Stephen Fry, Rowan Davies, James Palumbo, Art Malik, Dan Snow, Eddie Izzard, Richard Wilson, John O’Farrell, Mehdi Hasan, Polly Toynbee, Jonathan Bartley, Benjamin Zephaniah, John Cleese, Melvyn Bragg, Bonnie Greer, Josie Long, Charlie Brooker, John Harris, George Monbiot, Laurie Penny, Tony Robinson, Jonathan Ross and Jason Cowley.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2011)

Tim Minchin, Dave Gorman...

That looks like a list of liberal-NATO-UN sanctions starvers and bombers doesn't it?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

Reading the Comment Is Free bits on the Graun site re. AV (real sucker for punishment, me), one of the Yes to AV arguments that came up time and again is that Yes to AV would lead inevitably to a Labour majority or a Labour/Lib Dem coalition at the next election, and that simply voting Yes to AV would in due course lead to the halting of the cuts and privatisations.

So this wouldn't be the Labour Party who under Blair & Brown began the mass touting out of government and local services to PFI-ers, who got into bed with every corporate interest going, who themselves followed a Thatcherite neo-liberal agenda, who took us into two criminally-waged wars, and whose own attitude to human rights and policing stank to high heaven?  It's like Ed Milliband (key architect of the Brown neo-liberalist agenda) has suddenly turned into Nye Bevan....and anyone remember the roaring success of the last Lab/Lib coalition in the 70's?

To me, AV is not for even one micro-second going to have any influence on the way that this country is governed under neo-liberalism.  And you can keep the "neo-liberalism with a human face" of current-day Labour too.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 26, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> To me, AV is not for even one micro-second going to have any influence on the way that this country is governed under neo-liberalism.  And you can keep the "neo-liberalism with a human face" of current-day Labour too.


 
This is where you are wrong. AV favours compromise candidates. It works against ANY party that doesn't share the current neo-liberal consensus. Maybe right now that means it only works against the BNP, UKIP, and the SWP. However it means in the long term that it will be far harder to establish any genuine challenge to the current choice between blue, yellow, and red Tories.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2011)

That is a contention with no basis in fact.  There is every reason to believe that candidates who stand on a independent "community against the cuts" would draw in preferences from across the party spectrum, and potentially to gain from AV.  Look at Dr Richard Taylor in Wyre Valley - he lost his seat to the Tories when it is almost certain he'd have saved it under AV.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

ericjarvis - just to get it clear in my head, are you referring to FPTP when you say that "in the long term that it will be far harder to establish any genuine challenge to the current choice between blue, yellow, and red Tories."? (I'm assuming you're coming from a yes to AV view).


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> "_the tories are against it so it must be good_"



Better than that, the Tax Dodgers' Alliance is fervently and expensively against it.


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> This is where you are wrong. AV favours compromise candidates. It works against ANY party that doesn't share the current neo-liberal consensus. Maybe right now that means it only works against the BNP, UKIP, and the SWP. However it means in the long term that it will be far harder to establish any genuine challenge to the current choice between blue, yellow, and red Tories.


 


articul8 said:


> That is a contention with no basis in fact.  There is every reason to believe that candidates who stand on a independent "community against the cuts" would draw in preferences from across the party spectrum, and potentially to gain from AV.  Look at Dr Richard Taylor in Wyre Valley - he lost his seat to the Tories when it is almost certain he'd have saved it under AV.


 
I think it is a sensisble point THAT IS DISMISSED WITH NO BASIS WITH WHAT WAS SAID. His contention is that he would never have won the seat in the first place. One I agree with. Curious how you think your  super panacea would have played in Tatton over the years


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2011)

You might "agree with his contention" but your opinion has no basis in fact.  Where have i described AV as a super-panacea?  Nowhere.   It is nothing of the sort - but it is a step forward from FPTP despite its limitations.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Look at Dr Richard Taylor in Wyre Valley - he lost his seat to the Tories when it is almost certain he'd have saved it under AV.


substantiate this with numbers, evidence etc., please. 
After all, given that you can't have much by way of an inside line to the thought processes of the good folk of the Wyre Valley, to me that sounds like it's just a guess


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> ericjarvis - just to get it clear in my head, are you referring to FPTP when you say that "in the long term that it will be far harder to establish any genuine challenge to the current choice between blue, yellow, and red Tories."? (I'm assuming you're coming from a yes to AV view).


no, eric means that under AV it will be far harder to etc.. And he's right; AV funnels votes to the 'big 3' - or perhaps I should say "big 2.5" now!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> substantiate this with numbers, evidence etc., please.
> After all, given that you can't have much by way of an inside line to the thought processes of the good folk of the Wyre Valley, to me that sounds like it's just a guess


 
You only need to look at the result  under FPTP


Candidates
Name 	Party 	Votes 	% 	+/-
Mark Garnier 	Conservative 	18,793 	36.9 	+7.8
Richard Taylor 	Independent Community and Health Concern 	16,150 	31.7 	-6.9
Nigel Knowles 	Labour 	7,298 	14.3 	-8.2
Neville Farmer 	Liberal Democrat 	6,040 	11.9 	+10.6
Michael Wrench 	UK Independence Party 	1,498 	2.9 	+0.6
Gordon Howells 	British National Party 	1,120 	2.2 	+2.2
Majority 	2,643 	5.2 	
Turnout 	50,899 	66.8 	+2.9

Is it realistic to think that 13k Labour/or pre-coalition LD voters would really not have a preference between a Tory and a pro-local hospital guy?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no, eric means that under AV it will be far harder to etc.. And he's right; AV funnels votes to the 'big 3' - or perhaps I should say "big 2.5" now!



Ah, gotcha!  Thanks Streathamite   That kinda goes with my view of things as well.

articul8 - re your post 3187 - I'll have a look at the Wyre Forest thing later on, interesting example you've brought up there.


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2011)

pretty sure his contention is that he would never have elected to seat in the first place. You are not in a postion to judge if my opinion on that is a fact.

Step forward, presumably to another round of public consultation  towards further refrom, at the same time (i'm guessing here 80 odd pages on a dull topic) banging on about NO lies about cost. What I have read of this thread you want it always under the sun. 

PR would be a step forward, this isn't PR, and it isn't even a step towards PR, there is fuck all enthusiasm about *this* referendum let alone lets do it all again.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2011)

There should ideally have been a two-stage referendum like in New Zealand.

1) Should we keep FPTP or propose a change?
- voters panel established to consider merits and drawbacks of all systems and recommend one to go forward to,
2) Ought we move to they system as recommended by the voters panel (AMS in that case)?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You only need to look at the result  under FPTP
> 
> 
> Candidates
> ...


on balance, no, but it's still conjecture, espesh as if it had been fought under AV all candidates may have tailored their campaign strategy accordingly


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> on balance, no, but it's still conjecture, espesh as if it had been fought under AV all candidates may have tailored their campaign strategy accordingly


e2a: it's Wyre_ Forest_, not Wyre Valley, btw


----------



## articul8 (Apr 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> on balance, no, but it's still conjecture, espesh as if it had been fought under AV all candidates may have tailored their campaign strategy accordingly


 
True, but it seems like a reasonable inference to draw, and does suggest that candidates can only win from the political centre under AV is not necessarily true.  They would need to draw significant support from across the community, true.  But don't confuse that with soggy centrist politics.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That is a contention with no basis in fact.  There is every reason to believe that candidates who stand on a independent "community against the cuts" would draw in preferences from across the party spectrum, and potentially to gain from AV.  Look at Dr Richard Taylor in Wyre Valley - he lost his seat to the Tories when it is almost certain he'd have saved it under AV.


 
However they are still compromise candidates. Standing for a single issue and otherwise accepting the status quo isn't going to lead to any major changes. What I'm referring to is the possibility of a party that doesn't accept the same basic neo-liberal agenda as the blue, yellow, and red Tory Parties. Something that might make a long term difference, not just the odd independent MP here and there just pissing in the wind.

The simple fact is that we have three major parties all positioned somewhere well to the right of centre. AV is only going to make it harder for any movement away from that consensus to happen. Because with AV the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will generally go to the least controversial candidates.

If you want decades more of choosing between three parties with near identical policies then vote for AV. If you want any serious and constructive change beyond just tinkering with the voting system you have to oppose it.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 26, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Must say the 'yes to AV' leaflet was a shoddy affair. A large postcard sized black and white thing on unglossy cardboard. Cheap and half-hearted compared to the three sheets of colour and photos for the 'No to AV' leaflets


 
sounds like the one i received today. it not the same as the one i posted images of earlier, which is odd, but its still a crap leaflet (or postcard). 
it just says yes is "change" and no is "more of the same" without explaining why.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> True, but it seems like a reasonable inference to draw, and does suggest that candidates can only win from the political centre under AV is not necessarily true.  They would need to draw significant support from across the community, true.  But don't confuse that with soggy centrist politics.


OK, but Wyre forest - like Tatton, and like Galloway, involved such highly unusual circumstances that one could hardly take it as a template for the whole country.
I've NEVER known an electoral campaign like tatton


----------



## Santino (Apr 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm presuming he's related to the pic they chose to use somehow?


 
Please please let this be true.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 26, 2011)

Another poll shows a 16 point no lead.



> The three most recent polls (from, in chronological order, ICM, YouGov and Angus Reid) have all shown identical results of YES 42%, NO 58%



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 26, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If you want decades more of choosing between three parties with near identical policies then vote for AV. If you want any serious and constructive change beyond just tinkering with the voting system you have to oppose it.


 
Oppose all change to change the system. Good slogan.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 26, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Oppose all change to change the system. Good slogan.


 
What about 'No to AV yes to PR'; it's what the ERS and the LDs used to say.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 26, 2011)

Bogof. Now, that's an abbreviated slogan.


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2011)

articul8 said:


> True, but it seems like a reasonable inference to draw, and does suggest that candidates can only win from the political centre under AV is not necessarily true.  They would need to draw significant support from across the community, true.  But don't confuse that with soggy centrist politics.


 
So now the panacea that isn't a panacea tackles the jobs for life culture at Westminster as well as helping incumbants at Westminster keep their job


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

Dunno if anyone else picked up on this.  You know how Clegg and Co in the Yes camp have been shouting about the No camp bringing up the BNP to throw at them?  Well, Clegg has a piece in the Evening Standard this evening, where he.....throws the BNP at the No camp.  Online version of comment piece here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23944417-av-got-the-mayor-elected---now-hes-voting-against-it.do


----------



## doddles (Apr 26, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If you want decades more of choosing between three parties with near identical policies then vote for AV. If you want any serious and constructive change beyond just tinkering with the voting system you have to oppose it.


And do what to bring about real, effective change?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2011)

AV supporters were hanging around the train station today handing out leaflets. There was one lonely guy with a placard saying "FIRST PAST THE POST IS MINORITY RULE." One of them tried to give me a leaflet but quickly gave up arguing with me when I mentioned the lib dems ..


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 26, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Dunno if anyone else picked up on this.  You know how Clegg and Co in the Yes camp have been shouting about the No camp bringing up the BNP to throw at them?  Well, Clegg has a piece in the Evening Standard this evening, where he.....throws the BNP at the No camp.  Online version of comment piece here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23944417-av-got-the-mayor-elected---now-hes-voting-against-it.do


 
which is nonsense as the BNP are in the no camp


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> which is nonsense as the BNP are in the no camp



Indeedy, and I wasn't impressed by Clegg's thinly-veiled line basically inferring that if you vote No, you're no better than the BNP i.e. a racist.  Cheap shot and pathetic to boot.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 26, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Indeedy, and I wasn't impressed by Clegg's thinly-veiled line basically inferring that if you vote No, you're no better than the BNP i.e. a racist.  Cheap shot and pathetic to boot.


 
In many ways it actually does the BNP good to be the bogey men of politics, merely proves their point about the old gang


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 26, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> In many ways it actually does the BNP good to be the bogey men of politics, merely proves their point about the old gang


 
Yes, the radical alternative, so to say.  They could also say what a waste of time the referendum is, if they were in charge they wouldn't fiddle around with this frippery, firm but steady hand needed, look at our economic programme etc., whilst the old gang do an impression of three bald men fighting over a comb.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm strangely turned on by Clegg dancing in a dress. Think I need to put the Orange book down for 5 min.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 26, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> AV supporters were hanging around the train station today handing out leaflets. There was one lonely guy with a placard saying "FIRST PAST THE POST IS MINORITY RULE." One of them tried to give me a leaflet but quickly gave up arguing with me when I mentioned the lib dems ..


 
Yea fuck em for trying to change the political system. Socialism gets more radical day by day with it's endorsement of the status quo.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea fuck em for trying to change the political system. Socialism gets more radical day by day with it's endorsement of the status quo.


 
Q: Why did moon23 come back to Urban75?

A: Because he said he wouldn't.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea fuck em for trying to change the political system. Socialism gets more radical day by day with it's endorsement of the status quo.



As opposed to the "radical" neo-liberalism the Lib Dems are fully on board with, which, er, endorses the status quo?

D-.  The isolation block for you, moon23, with bonus detention.


----------



## Shevek (Apr 27, 2011)

I am thinking of voting for AV as I think it will shake the political system up a bit. It might mean that there is more of a Lib Dem and Labour adversarial system than the current Conservative Labour one. I think George Galloway said in parliament a few months ago that with a better voting system progressive parties would dominate in the British parliament.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2011)

The unholy trinity is complete. The prophecy is fulfilled.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> However they are still compromise candidates. Standing for a single issue and otherwise accepting the status quo isn't going to lead to any major changes. What I'm referring to is the possibility of a party that doesn't accept the same basic neo-liberal agenda as the blue, yellow, and red Tory Parties. Something that might make a long term difference, not just the odd independent MP here and there just pissing in the wind.
> 
> The simple fact is that we have three major parties all positioned somewhere well to the right of centre. AV is only going to make it harder for any movement away from that consensus to happen. Because with AV the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will generally go to the least controversial candidates.
> 
> If you want decades more of choosing between three parties with near identical policies then vote for AV. If you want any serious and constructive change beyond just tinkering with the voting system you have to oppose it.


 
The convergence on the centre happened under FPTP, and is locked into that system because the only votes that really count are swing voters in (Middle England) marginals.  Voting to keep FPTP is a vote to keep this in place.

I've always accepted that AV is not the system most advantageous to smaller left parties.  But it at least allows people to give a first preference for this kind of candidate - rather getting squeezed out of existence altogether as at present.  

But AV might also challenge the left to get out of its ghetto and think more imaginatively about how to make itself relevant to a broader section of society.   The fact you seem to assume that this can only be done by advancing neoliberal arguments is very telling.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

Shevek said:


> I think George Galloway said in parliament a few months ago that with a better voting system progressive parties would dominate in the British parliament.


I don't know what George said.  However, AV is not a better voting system.  It isn't proportional, for example.  It will narrow selection down to the two big parties, and squeeze out these "progressive" parties to which you refer. The Jenkins Commission concluded that AV can be ‘less proportional than FPTP’ and ‘unacceptably unfair’.  It isn't a step in the right direction; it's a roadblock to further change.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

Shevek said:


> I am thinking of voting for AV as I think it will shake the political system up a bit. It might mean that there is more of a Lib Dem and Labour adversarial system than the current Conservative Labour one. I think George Galloway said in parliament a few months ago that with a better voting system progressive parties would dominate in the British parliament.


 
That's George Galloway who is not an MP. Who said that in Parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

These clowns are determined to kill themselves and the YES vote (i actually expect people like a8 to turn on them afterwards) - their whole thing has been so inept it's almost like this is their first time in politics:

Lib Dems could demand AV re-run



> Supporters of electoral reform say they will demand another referendum – if the result is a narrow “No” win.
> 
> Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes says the poll on May 5 should not bury the issue for another 50 years and there would be a case for a re-run.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea fuck em for trying to change the political system. Socialism gets more radical day by day with it's endorsement of the status quo.


 
change the political system


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

YG now have NO with an 18% lead: - that a 16%, 16%, 16% and now 18% lead for NO in the latest polling - with a level one in-between but whose fieldwork was done well before the current swing to NO.



> The poll also asked about AV. Adjusted for likelihood to vote and excluding don’t knows and won’t votes, NO now has a 18 point lead, 59% to 41%. The change from YouGov’s previous AV poll is only minor, but it suggests the NO campaign are consolidating that big lead that opened up last week. Conservative voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to AV (by 82% to 18%), Lib Dem supporters remain overwhelmingly supportive (84% to 16%) and Labour voters remain split almost straight down the middle (49% pro, 51% anti).


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

I vaguely caught this on Radio 4 this morn re. number of Labour MPs advocating "no" - the latest figures I can see is 125 against, out of a total of 258 Labour MPs - so 48% of Lab MPs are going for no.  I didn't realise it was that many.  Sure, there are the New Labour headbangers like John Reid, but there's yer more reasonable types like Jeremy Corbyn too (not to mention the Beast of Bolsolver himself).  It'd be interesting to find out how many Labour MPs support full PR.  I wonder too how many Labour MPs find the idea of being on the same side as the Lib Dems to much to swallow?


----------



## marty21 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't know what George said.  However, AV is not a better voting system.  It isn't proportional, for example.  It will narrow selection down to the two big parties, and squeeze out these "progressive" parties to which you refer. The Jenkins Commission concluded that AV can be ‘less proportional than FPTP’ and ‘unacceptably unfair’.  It isn't a step in the right direction; it's a roadblock to further change.



this ^^^


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I vaguely caught this on Radio 4 this morn re. number of Labour MPs advocating "no" - the latest figures I can see is 125 against, out of a total of 258 Labour MPs - so 48% of Lab MPs are going for no.  I didn't realise it was that many.  Sure, there are the New Labour headbangers like John Reid, but there's yer more reasonable types like Jeremy Corbyn too (not to mention the Beast of Bolsolver himself).  It'd be interesting to find out how many Labour MPs support full PR.  I wonder too how many Labour MPs find the idea of being on the same side as the Lib Dems to much to swallow?


 
I would imagine that the remaining few left wing Labour MPs will pretty much all be voting no. That's because they are hoping for a Labour Party that isn't looking to be a safe centre ground 2nd choice for Lib Dems and Tories.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Oppose all change to change the system. Good slogan.


 
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I object to is the moronic assumption that any change must inevitably be positive. When you have a political system that is thoroughly screwed up because all the main parties have pretty much the same financial backers and all have a determination to stake out the centre ground, then a change that favours compromise isn't going to help, it's going to make it far more difficult to ever get out of this infernal mess.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What about 'No to AV yes to PR'; it's what the ERS and the LDs used to say.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Actually I'm even more strongly against any form of PR that allows a national party organisation any say in which candidates are elected locally. Show me a proposal for PR that allows for locally led democracy in the same way as FPTP or AV and I'll be wholly in favour of it. I just don't see any likelihood of such a system being condoned by the central organisations that run all the three main parties, so I don't see it as possible unless it comes from a large scale grass roots campaign. Unfortunately the level of debate about voting systems doesn't lead me to think that the British public are up to demanding anything that isn't fed to them on a plate by the control freaks at the centre of British politics who are the real problem that needs to be dealt with.

There are many forms of PR, and one that cements the power of the main parties' internal fixers is going to be even worse than what we have now. We vote and somebody in party HQ decides who has licked enough arses to represent us? I'm not keen on that thanks.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> which is nonsense as the BNP are in the no camp


tbf, that was his point - that the BNP and - gasp! - those _extremists_ of the CPGB are voting 'no'. He just put it so very, very badly


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> And do what to bring about real, effective change?


 
What we need is any one of the following.

Serious, well supported, well funded campaigns by independent candidates.

Heavy infiltration of the Green Party intended to turn it into a genuinely democratic grass roots up party.

The same for any other reasonably large party.

Strict rules on national political party spending to sway the balance of power from large and corporate donors towards the needs of the British people.

A mass party on the left that has a structure based on strict mandated representative democracy.

Without any of those I don't see tinkering with the voting system is going to make a positive difference. The only change to the voting system that might is full on PR with the electorate able to vote on the specific candidates. So on a single form, a PR vote by party, and an AV vote on each list of party candidates. We won't get that offered by the existing political establishment as it would work against faceless party hacks.


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> What we need is any one of the following.
> Serious, well supported, well funded campaigns by independent candidates.
> Heavy infiltration of the Green Party intended to turn it into a genuinely democratic grass roots up party.
> The same for any other reasonably large party.
> ...


Yes - but how to achieve those changes? Under the current voting system, such changes would seem to be impossible. Under AV quite possibly too, but you never know until you give it a go. At least AV might stir the system up a little bit (it might not, but sticking with FPTP certainly won't).



> full on PR with the electorate able to vote on the specific candidates. So on a single form, a PR vote by party, and an AV vote on each list of party candidates.


This sounds similar to the Dutch system I think. I like the idea, though I'd be more inclined for a mixed system, with some overall national PR-based representation, as well as some regional candidates. And an elected upper house of course.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I would imagine that the remaining few left wing Labour MPs will pretty much all be voting no. That's because they are hoping for a Labour Party that isn't looking to be a safe centre ground 2nd choice for Lib Dems and Tories.


surprisingly, Corbyn and McDonnell are both 'yes', even though they have been sharply critical of the 'yes' campaign. Tony Benn is also a 'yes'


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> At least AV might stir the system up a little bit (it might not, but sticking with FPTP certainly won't).


No it won't - it will entrench the 'big 3' in the ir grip on parliament ever more firmly


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These clowns are determined to kill themselves and the YES vote (i actually expect people like a8 to turn on them afterwards) - their whole thing has been so inept it's almost like this is their first time in politics:
> 
> Lib Dems could demand AV re-run



Good grief, this all sounds like political chancer/Man of Socialism (delete where applicable) Slobodan Milosevic going on about losing to the oppostion in the Yugoslav 2000 election ("Comrades!  I urge you to return to your constituencies for the 2nd round and prepare the stuffed ballot boxes, er, er...").  It's like the Orange Books have given up on fighting the local elections (penny for the neo-Liberal guy, guv'nor?), and instead are putting all their eggs into the Yes basket, because a Yes vote would suddenly transform them into steely-eyed progressives who are definitely not pro-cuts at all, causing a wave of popularity unrivalled since Lloyd George.  So are the Lib Dems a) deluded, b) supremely arrogant, c) both or d) hatstand?


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No it won't - it will entrench the 'big 3' in the ir grip on parliament ever more firmly


As I said, AV might not stir the system up. Sticking with FPTP certainly won't. What's your alternative solution for how to get the system changed?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> surprisingly, Corbyn and McDonnell are both 'yes', even though they have been sharply critical of the 'yes' campaign. Tony Benn is also a 'yes'



Re. Corbyn - this is confusing.  He's listed on the No to AV site as one of their advocates, he was at a Worker's Liberty debate on the Yes side, and on a recent BBC interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13082549) he says he's neither/nor.  Argh!  His official site doesn't make things much clearer either.  Wot a palaver.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> As I said, AV might not stir the system up. Sticking with FPTP certainly won't. What's your alternative solution for how to get the system changed?


dig in for a long term campaign for TRUE PR, rather than this 'miserable little compromise' (TM, N Clegg esq.), and vote 'no' this time to fuck the LDs up


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> surprisingly, Corbyn and McDonnell are both 'yes', even though they have been sharply critical of the 'yes' campaign. Tony Benn is also a 'yes'



That's not surprising at all, I'd have been surprised if they weren't.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Re. Corbyn - this is confusing.  He's listed on the No to AV site as one of their advocates, he was at a Worker's Liberty debate on the Yes side, and on a recent BBC interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13082549) he says he's neither/nor.  Argh!  His official site doesn't make things much clearer either.  Wot a palaver.


I know, I should say he 'seems' to be a 'yes'.


----------



## Combustible (Apr 27, 2011)

Although the LRC are against AV

http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/lrc-says-no-to-av/


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> dig in for a long term campaign for TRUE PR, rather than this 'miserable little compromise' (TM, N Clegg esq.), and vote 'no' this time to fuck the LDs up



Yep, the Yes campaign have deluded themselves into thinking that AV is some sort of step on the road to PR. It isn't and they have no way of proving that it is. Their claim that if the country votes "No", then PR will be off the agenda for a generation is just another way to scare people into voting their way. The choice between AV and FPTP is not a real choice at all and this is something that the Yes campaign refuses to acknowledge. If they want PR, then why are they voting for a system that doesn't offer it?


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep, the Yes campaign have deluded themselves into thinking that AV is some sort of step on the road to PR. It isn't and they have no way of proving that it is.


If proof was required before any change, then there would never be any change at all. 



> Their claim that if the country votes "No", then PR will be off the agenda for a generation is just another way to scare people into voting their way.


Both sides in the debate are using scare tactics, though I think on the balance the "No" campaign has been more guilty of that. The "Yes" campaign is doing their best to catch up in the scare game though.



> The choice between AV and FPTP is not a real choice at all and this is something that the Yes campaign refuses to acknowledge. If they want PR, then why are they voting for a system that doesn't offer it?


Because the system we want is not on offer, despite campaigning for >20 years, and despite the Labour Party's broken 1997 promises to have a referendum on it.

I fully expect AV to lose. But I don't want it to get thrashed, because that would play too much into the hands of the "no change" crowd. A narrow victory for "No" would probably be the best outcome, because it would give more ammunition to those of us seeking true PR.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> If proof was required before any change, then there would never be any change at all.



Nonetheless, the Yes camp portray it as _fait accompli._




> Both sides in the debate are using scare tactics, though I think on the balance the "No" campaign has been more guilty of that. The "Yes" campaign is doing their best to catch up in the scare game though.



Yes I would agree but neither side is doing themselves any favours.




> Because the system we want is not on offer, despite campaigning for >20 years, and despite the Labour Party's broken 1997 promises to have a referendum on it.



Then why should I or anyone else vote "Yes" for something that none of us wants?  AV is not a halfway house or a staging post on the way to PR. It is portrayed as such but this claim is fallacious.




> I fully expect AV to lose. But I don't want it to get thrashed, because that would play too much into the hands of the "no change" crowd. A narrow victory for "No" would probably be the best outcome, because it would give more ammunition to those of us seeking true PR.



Voting "No" doesn't necessarily mean that one is voting for "no change". I'm voting "no", because there isn't much of a choice. I won't vote "Yes" simply because AV appears _prima facie _to be a 'better' system or a stage on the road to PR. Clearly that cannot be proven.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 27, 2011)

82% of Tory voters are voting No. I wonder why that is. Is a No vote going to benefit them in any way?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 27, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> 82% of Tory voters are voting No. I wonder why that is. Is a No vote going to benefit them in any way?


 
1. That isn't true...just think about it for a minute.
2. What is the other name for the Tories? It might explain the mind set of some of their supporters re. any change what so ever.
3. Do you think all the people who voted Tory made a good choice when they did so as to whether it would benefit them or not?
4. Is judging the worth of a policy on the basis of the past political allegiance of a fraction of that policy's supporters a better or worse approach then looking at the policy's own merits and disadvantages?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Combustible (Apr 27, 2011)

Not sure if it has been posted yet but this is a far better set of arguments against AV than the official 'No' campaign.

http://av2011.co.uk/index.html


----------



## strung out (Apr 27, 2011)

that's a pretty good site as far as i can tell


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 27, 2011)

Yeah, like it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

Is this some sort of sick liberal joke?
Do you want the alternative vote? Take the quiz

Can they not help themselves driving people into a NO vote?



> You appear to have doubts about first past the post but are unsure, or maybe lukewarm, when it comes to the alternative vote.



No, i was quite clear.


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

Maybe, but still filled with unsupported assertions and wishful thinking.

e.g. It mentions real scenarios of landslide results under AV, without presenting what would have happened under FPTP. In Australia for example, the overall primary vote doesn't map onto number of seats for 2 reasons - one is the AV system, but the other which is not mentioned is the huge disparity in population of each electorate. It would have been easy for them to present that information, so that the reader could make an informed decision (their stated aim), but they didn't.

Another example: "Third, and most importantly, if the electoral pact is successful the smaller party may be able to pressure the MP or party on specific policies in return for continued support at the next election. Like a lobbyist, the smaller party has power but no democratic accountability."
wrong! they are democratically accountable - they have votes to transfer, without which they'd have no say at all.

Finally, their plan for implementation of PR calls for it to be adopted first in all local elections, which they base on the presumption of getting cross-party support. Where is that going to come from? Hopelessly wishful thinking if you ask me.


----------



## strung out (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is this some sort of sick liberal joke?
> Do you want the alternative vote? Take the quiz
> 
> Can they not help themselves driving people into a NO vote?
> ...


 
i got... 


> You scored 79 out of a possible 85
> 
> You want electoral reform but your answers suggest that the alternative vote doesn't go far enough for you. Maybe proportional representation is what you really want. But that's not on offer. You've got to pick between the choices on offer.


yeah, thanks for that, i'll vote NO then


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> Maybe, but still filled with unsupported assertions and wishful thinking.



Your whole vote YES position is based on wishful thinking (thinking that's been torn apart IMO on this thread). Don't you dare wag your finger at others about wishful thinking.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 27, 2011)

strung out said:


> i got...
> 
> yeah, thanks for that, i'll vote NO then


 
Same here.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Combustible (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> e.g. It mentions real scenarios of landslide results under AV, without presenting what would have happened under FPTP. In Australia for example, the overall primary vote doesn't map onto number of seats for 2 reasons - one is the AV system, but the other which is not mentioned is the huge disparity in population of each electorate. It would have been easy for them to present that information, so that the reader could make an informed decision (their stated aim), but they didn't.


 
You are selectively quoting.  The same page also makes comparisons of elections under AV and FPTP in this country which show that elections are often less proportional under AV and that in cases where there have been landslides under FPTP, AV would make the landslides much more severe.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

Combustible said:


> You are selectively quoting.  The same page also makes comparisons of elections under AV and FPTP in this country which show that elections are often less proportional under AV and that in cases where there have been landslides under FPTP, AV would make the landslides much more severe.


 
That's a bit naughty doddles. Insulting even. Do you think we're not worthy of proper evidenced debate or something?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is this some sort of sick liberal joke?
> Do you want the alternative vote? Take the quiz
> 
> Can they not help themselves driving people into a NO vote?
> ...


Hah, those questions are based on assumptions I wouldn't make, and didn't give the right options.  

I got: 





> You scored 53 out of a possible 85
> 
> A tactical voter or frustrated voter perhaps? You appear to want a different electoral system, and maybe the alternative vote is the one for you.


 Despite answering: 

9. What determines your vote: who you want in, or who you want to keep out?
_ I just vote for who I want regardless _

(Although, actually I usually don't vote, but that wasn't an option).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

There's no way to vote NO. I tried everything.


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

Combustible said:


> You are selectively quoting.  The same page also makes comparisons of elections under AV and FPTP in this country which show that elections are often less proportional under AV and that in cases where there have been landslides under FPTP, AV would make the landslides much more severe.


 
I am indeed selectively quoting, that's why is used "e.g."
I can't find the bit where they show landslides under FPTP would have been much more severe under AV - can you show me the link?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's no way to vote NO. I tried everything.


 I managed it!



> You scored 12 out of a possible 85
> 
> You seem more or less happy with the way things are. In a choice between first past the post and the alternative vote, first past the post seems to suit you fine.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> e.g. It mentions real scenarios of landslide results under AV, without presenting what would have happened under FPTP. In Australia for example, the overall primary vote doesn't map onto number of seats for 2 reasons - one is the AV system, but the other which is not mentioned is the huge disparity in population of each electorate. It would have been easy for them to present that information, so that the reader could make an informed decision (their stated aim), but they didn't.


that's a duff point - the 'yes' camp claims that AV overcomes such huge disparities, and will do the same re; town and country over here.




> Finally, their plan for implementation of PR calls for it to be adopted first in all local elections, which they base on the presumption of getting cross-party support. Where is that going to come from?


It doesn't need cross-party consensus at all, it justn needs either a party with a majority, or a 'yes' in a referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> I am indeed selectively quoting, that's why is used "e.g."
> I can't find the bit where they show landslides under FPTP would have been much more severe under AV - can you show me the link?


 
It's been well accepted that 97 would have been an even bigger landslide,  by all sides - it was a point of argumentation earlier. Are you after the exact research or arguing that it would not have been?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I managed it!


 
And you still got 12

12 and under is the target. (not a lib-dem manifesto)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

It's amazing, there's nothing left for AV people other than it's a change, it's different. No positive arguments - nothing for people to vote FOR.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

I tried sooo  hard to get FPTP-lover on that quiz. 
Twenty-fucking-six, and "you seem unsure..."


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 27, 2011)

Don't get me started.  I'm sick of having to correct that mutual back-patting handwavy "aren't we doing good" shit in the workplace and on facebook


----------



## Combustible (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> I am indeed selectively quoting, that's why is used "e.g."
> I can't find the bit where they show landslides under FPTP would have been much more severe under AV - can you show me the link?



They cite the Centre For Research Into Elections on the same page that they discuss AV landslides in other countries.  As far as I can tell they are talking about a simulation of a fictional election.  They also discuss elsewhere comparisons between AV and FPTP for the 1997 GE but for some reason they put this on the page of the spoof article.  The fact that AV would probably have made the 1997 election more disproportionate and result in a larger landslide is not really disputed.  Of course it is not possible to show that landslides under FPTP will necessarily be more severe under AV.

http://av2011.co.uk/Q5.html
http://av2011.co.uk/av2029.html


----------



## doddles (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that's a duff point - the 'yes' camp claims that AV overcomes such huge disparities, and will do the same re; town and country over here.
> It doesn't need cross-party consensus at all, it justn needs either a party with a majority, or a 'yes' in a referendum.






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> It's been well accepted that 97 would have been an even bigger landslide, by all sides - it was a point of argumentation earlier. Are you after the exact research or arguing that it would not have been?



My point with reference to that site is that it's not as objective in giving people the data to make an informed choice as they say they are. They, too, are highly selective and lopsided in what they present. I've already said a few times that both mainstream Yes and No camps have been scaremongering, so I'm not about to defend either of them. This site is somewhat better, but still hardly a bastion of impartial advice.


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2011)

doddles said:


> And do what to bring about real, effective change?




Assuming the YES campaign is running on the campaign that its focus groups most resonated with, and the change people want harder working MPs not on the fiddle, whilst still being accountable to electorate. 

This can be achieved by one bill which 
(a) Gets rid of the expense scheme voted in by the previous discredited parliament, (actually because their reaction was too stern and MP's are now, I gather finding so hard to claim expenses that it is impacting on their ability to do their jobs) [generates good will among MP's for B&C]
(b) All MP's to publish their audited unredacted accounts annually.
(c) Setting a quorum threshold at which constituents can force a bi election.


----------



## Corax (Apr 27, 2011)

> Does your vote only 'count' if your preferred candidate wins?
> 
> 
> Yes
> ...



Does Goldacre know about this?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

This is the lie at the heart of the whining YES campaign - they don't care about your vote if your candidate wins. Those votes don't count to them. Only  votes in swing seats count for them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

No, I am critical of FPTP for - amongst other things - the fact that votes in safe Labour seats are effectively taken for granted.  AV does little to change this, but at least widens expands slightly the number of seats where there will be an effective contest.

For those who think PR would be a significant step forward - how are you going to get it?  Seriously - I'd love to hear it.  The Liberals argued what you're arguing now way back in 1931 - AV doesn't go far enough..yadayada - but the net result was no change at all.  

There is no PR system that keeps the one-MP-per-constituency link that people seem to value in FPTP.  There is no way of bringing in PR that doesn't end the sense of propietorial ownership that MPs have over "their" patch.   They will move heaven and earth to stop it, but only a minority of "geeks" (like myself) will be worked up enough to try to campaign on it.  

V much agree with Jonathan Freedland today.   The Yes campaign has sometimes tried to over-sell the merits of AV.  But the gains over FPTP are real
1) fewer safe seats
2) every vote can cast a vote for the party of their choice without surrending the ability to influence the outcome
3) avoids the split vote syndrome which allowed the Tories to dominate the 20th C.

quite apart from the taking the wind out of Cameron's sails, it estabishes distatisfaction with the political system exists etc.

Tories and half the PLP plan to use a NO vote as evidence that people do trust the British political system, and that voting systems are a massive turn-off.  People who want PR are shooting themselves in the foot if they vote NO.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

> V much agree with Jonathan Freedland today



That's why you lost. Can't do politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

> 2) every vote can cast a vote for the party of their choice without surrending the ability to influence the outcome



A bad thing, not a good thing. You never argued once why this was a good.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

why is Freedland wrong?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A bad thing, not a good thing.


 
why?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> why is Freedland wrong?


 
I didn't say he was - that's the point, the spectacle of you smug cunts all agreeing with each other swung it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> why?


 
Because it produces a game of whose least offensive.

Your argument?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 27, 2011)

Could someone tell me what to vote, please? Half the Blairites I identify with have gone one way and half t'other.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because it produces a game of whose least offensive.
> 
> Your argument?


 
why do assume that only by occupying the "centre" ground can you appeal to a broad spectrum of the voting public?  that sees like a classically Blairite assumption


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> why do assume that only by occupying the "centre" ground can you appeal to a broad spectrum of the voting public?  that sees like a classically Blairite assumption


 
I didn't say any such thing. It produces votes for the existing parties.

No answer as ever. Want another go?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

votes *already* go to the existing parties.  AV disaggregates them.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/av-yes-or-no/

Debate on AV in Red Pepper.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> votes *already* go to the existing parties.  AV disaggregates them.


 
_AV makes them count_


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> For those who think PR would be a significant step forward - how are you going to get it?  Seriously - I'd love to hear it.  The Liberals argued what you're arguing now way back in 1931 - AV doesn't go far enough..yadayada - but the net result was no change at all.


dodgy point; from 1929 till, well, 2010, the libs were too weak and isolated to push for anything much, and they were the only PR-junky party, with Labour traditionally massively opposed. 
That (the LP) bit is now changing; a lot of the current sdhadow cabinet and PLP (especially it's newer members) are enthusiastically pro-reform, whereas the Labour 'no' campaigners all seem like yesterdays (blairite) men - boateng, blunkett, beckett,Hutton.
Also, virtually everyonbe voted for a 'big 3[' candidate' then, and for a long time after; last election, 13% of the vote went to 'other'
In other words, the common points of reference between the two aren't that great - we are a vastly different country


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

No, but it shows more accurately how many votes don't get to count - and so benefits the case for PR.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

Make your vote for the lib-dems tories or labour count. Vote YES. 

Accurately.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> dodgy poin t; from 1929 till, well, 2010, the libs were too weak and isolated to push for anything much, and they were the only PR-junky party, with Labour traditionally massively opposed.



Not so fast - Labour was originally in favour of PR (Hardie joined the forerunner of ERS).  They tried to put through AV in the 1930s.  From 45 through to the early 70s it wasn't much of an issue, but Labour was committed to a referednum on an alternative PR voting system in 97 - people like Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam backed it.   If anything support for PR for the Commons has gone backwards since Jenkins reported - although they've been forced to recognise its merits for other bodies.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make your vote for the lib-dems tories or labour count. Vote YES.
> 
> Accurately.


 
Instead of voting Labour or Lib Dem as the only way of keeping something even worse, show you support an anti-cuts candidate, a socialist, a green or whatever and are only transferring out of tactical considerations.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

Which means vote for one of the other three to keep out the other one.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Which means vote for one of the other three to keep out the other one.


 
people do that now.  AV allows them to show that it's not because they really support a main party.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> For those who think PR would be a significant step forward - how are you going to get it?  Seriously - I'd love to hear it.  The Liberals argued what you're arguing now way back in 1931 - AV doesn't go far enough..yadayada - but the net result was no change at all.


And that's it?  It's no good, but at least it's change.  Sorry, but that gets a No vote from me.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

It will extend that - hooray for showing!

Problem is, you attack that as tactical voting.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> And that's it?  It's no good, but at least it's change.  Sorry, but that gets a No vote from me.


 
It's a small step forward, that opens up a space for further - more substantial - change.  The hardcore FPTPers in Labour are opposing AV because they see it as a step to PR.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It will extend that - hooray for showing!
> 
> Problem is, you attack that as tactical voting.


 
I have no problem with tactical voting per se.  I have a problem when it means voters can't indicate their real preferences in order to do it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's a small step forward, that opens up a space for further - more substantial - change.  The hardcore FPTPers in Labour are opposing AV because they see it as a step to PR.


They're wrong; it isn't.  It's a step back.  The Jenkins Commission thought so, and I agree.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's a small step forward, that opens up a space for further - more substantial - change.  The hardcore FPTPers in Labour are opposing AV because they see it as a step to PR.


This late, no is buying. Ask why you chose to sell that way.

Double mug


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I have no problem with tactical voting per se.  I have a problem when it means voters can't indicate their real preferences in order to do it.


 
Why? Say why. Don't tell me what you hope people might do.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> They're wrong; it isn't.  It's a step back.  The Jenkins Commission thought so, and I agree.


 
If Jenkins thought FPTP was better than AV he'd have recommended the Additional Member System (ie FPTP in the constituencies) rather than AV+.  Jenkins was clear AV - though imperfect - was better than FPTP


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why? Say why. Don't tell me what you hope people might do.


 
I remember when my mum and dad - both Labour supporters - had a vote in the Ribble Valley by-election at the height of the poll-tax.  They voted Lib Dem, not because they liked the liberals or had any illusions in them.  But because of what message it would send to the Tories.  They were right, IMO.  But a better voting system would also have let them show they weren't liberals at the same time.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

They would vote labour then liberal. And you get to tell a story.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> If Jenkins thought FPTP was better than AV he'd have recommended the Additional Member System (ie FPTP in the constituencies) rather than AV+.  Jenkins was clear AV - though imperfect - was better than FPTP


AV Plus _is_ an AMS.  He was quite clear that AV can be ‘less proportional than FPTP’ and ‘unacceptably unfair’. http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

but on a national scale thousands who show up as "Lib dem" voters under FPTP do this only because they are anti-Tory.  Labour gets the benefit of tactical votes too.  Why flatter them?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> AV Plus _is_ an AMS.  He was quite clear that AV can be ‘less proportional than FPTP’ and ‘unacceptably unfair’. http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a


 
AMS - as in Scotland/Wales/London uses FPTP in the constituencies.  Jenkins did NOT recommend this.  Why?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Labour was committed to a referednum on an alternative PR voting system in 97 - people like Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam backed it.


bit disingenuous there. Blair threw that in as he thought before the election that he could well need LD support after the election. What's more relevant is how quickly Labour dropped it once they'd got that 179 majority


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AMS - as in Scotland/Wales/London uses FPTP in the constituencies.  Jenkins did NOT recommend this.  Why?


He didn't recommend straight AV at all.  Not at all.  And that's what we're being offered.  If the LibDems had held out for AV Plus, then we could be discussing the merits now, but we're not.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> but on a national scale thousands who show up as "Lib dem" voters under FPTP do this only because they are anti-Tory.  Labour gets the benefit of tactical votes too.  Why flatter them?


 
They'll return to labour then.

Do you not get this?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> bit disingenuous there. Blair threw that in as he thought before the election that he could well need LD support after the election. What's more relevant is how quickly Labour dropped it once they'd got that 179 majority


Think Blair may have inherited that from Smith (like he did Scottish Devolution).  Kinnock set up the Plant Commission to establish what Labour ought to recommend, and there was no consensus (although it recommended SV, a truncated version of AV).  After 92 there was an even greater mood for PR inside the party, as people feared the Tories would be in for ever more otherwise.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They'll return to labour then.
> 
> Do you not get this?


 
But how is it better to show up only as Labour, rather than "Labour only under sufferance"?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> but Labour was committed to a referednum on an alternative PR voting system in 97 - people like Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam backed it.



Were they? Committed how?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But how is it better to show up only as Labour, rather than "Labour only under sufferance"?


 I think you need to ask yourself that.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> He didn't recommend straight AV at all.  Not at all.  And that's what we're being offered.  If the LibDems had held out for AV Plus, then we could be discussing the merits now, but we're not.


 
But given the options of keeping FPTP or moving to AV, there is no basis for suggesting Jenkins would have plumped for the status quo (leaving aside the politics of Jenkins of course).


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Think Blair may have inherited that from Smith (like he did Scottish Devolution).  Kinnock set up the Plant Commission to establish what Labour ought to recommend, and there was no consensus (although it recommended SV, a truncated version of AV).  After 92 there was an even greater mood for PR inside the party, as people feared the Tories would be in for ever more otherwise.


right so at every point in the future when the Labour leadership think they'll struggle to get a working majority, PR comes back on the table, and fast.
Like, for instance, at future elections held after the tories forthcoming bit of gerrymandering


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Were they? Committed how?


 
well formally committed, in the manifesto.  Not actually committed.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But given the options of keeping FPTP or moving to AV, there is no basis for suggesting Jenkins would have plumped for the status quo (leaving aside the politics of Jenkins of course).


 Or for AV


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But given the options of keeping FPTP or moving to AV, there is no basis for suggesting Jenkins would have plumped for the status quo (leaving aside the politics of Jenkins of course).


but those weren't the options he had, or we should have.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> right so at every point in the future when the Labour leadership think they'll struggle to get a working majority, PR comes back on the table, and fast.
> Like, for instance, at future elections held after the tories forthcoming bit of gerrymandering


 
No it took nearly 20 years to get a commitment to a referendum (not a commitment to endorsing change).  Many Labour MPs (as opposed to Labour voters) would happily sit in opposition for years if it meant they had an exclusive grip on the reins occasionally.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> well formally committed, in the manifesto.  Not actually committed.


 
No they're weren't. Get, at least, this, right.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> but those weren't the options he had, or we should have.


 
I agree.  But they are the options we *do have* concretely in this referendum.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No it took nearly 20 years to get a commitment to a referendum (not a commitment to endorsing change).  Many Labour MPs (as opposed to Labour voters) would happily sit in opposition for years if it meant they had an exclusive grip on the reins occasionally.


 
And many lib-dems. Do you even know what damage you've done?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No they're weren't. Get, at least, this, right.


 
yes they were - the 97 manifesto promised a referendum on PR


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And many lib-dems. Do you even know what damage you've done?


 
what damage who has done?!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I agree.  But they are the options we *do have* concretely in this referendum.


 
So why lie that a NO vote is a vote for FPTP?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But given the options of keeping FPTP or moving to AV, there is no basis for suggesting Jenkins would have plumped for the status quo (leaving aside the politics of Jenkins of course).


Well, he did say it could be less proportional and less fair than FPTP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yes they were - the 97 manifesto promised a referendum on PR


 
No it didn't.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

Because the effect of not vote to move to AV is to vote for keeping FPTP.  Given the terms in which the choice is presented.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Because the effect of not vote to move to AV is to vote for keeping FPTP.  Given the terms in which the choice is presented.


 
And the tory bnp like it!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Because the effect of not vote to move to AV is to vote for keeping FPTP.  Given the terms in which the choice is presented.


The effect is to not replace it with AV, and since I don't want to replace it with AV, I will vote No.  As, I think, will the majority of those voting.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it didn't.


 
The specific pledge read:


> We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.



The clear implication is that the referendum would counterpose FPTP to a "proportional alternative".


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> The effect is to not replace it with AV, and since I don't want to replace it with AV, I will vote No.  As, I think, will the majority of those voting.


 
You are perfectly entitled to vote that way.  Cameron would warmly applaud you.  But don't cite Jenkins as your justification, because he found that given the constraints of single member constituencies AV was superior to FPTP.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And the tory bnp like it!


 
I wish there was a "boom tish" smiley thing for ^^^  Zat ees all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You are perfectly entitled to vote that way.  Cameron would warmly applaud you.


  That's your best shot?



> But don't cite Jenkins as your justification, because he found that given the constraints of single member constituencies AV was superior to FPTP.


You know very well this is mendacious.  We aren't being offered regional lists, just plain AV, which Jenkins didn't like.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The specific pledge read:
> 
> 
> The clear implication is that the referendum would counterpose FPTP to a "proportional alternative".



So they weren't. Off you fuck. Why lie?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So they weren't. Off you fuck. Why lie?


 
They were committed to a referendum on the voting system, and they were committed to setting up a commission to recommend a proportional alternative to FPTP.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> They were committed to a referendum on the voting system, and they were committed to setting up a commission to recommend a proportional alternative to FPTP.


 
Which, er, ain't happening though, is it?  Commision anywhere?  Hello?  I said, Hello?

We have what we have as choices - FPTP (meh) or AV (hang on a minute, this is crappier than FPTP!).  So again, meine Damen und Herren, waehlen sie "Nein!"


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 27, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Many Labour MPs (as opposed to Labour voters) would happily sit in opposition for years if it meant they had an exclusive grip on the reins occasionally.


yes, but leaders and frontbenchers wouldn't. You don't fight that hard to reach the top just to be marooned in opposition


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 27, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Could someone tell me what to vote, please? Half the Blairites I identify with have gone one way and half t'other.


 
Vote for setting a pack of dogs on them, then you can get the blighters whichever way they go.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 28, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Which, er, ain't happening though, is it?  Commision anywhere?  Hello?  I said, Hello?
> 
> We have what we have as choices - FPTP (meh) or AV (hang on a minute, this is crappier than FPTP!).


 
AV is the least unfair system given the constraint of single member constituencies.  Even Jenkins found that.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV is the least unfair system given the constraint of single member constituencies.  Even Jenkins found that.



Hmm, not too sure about this one - just looked over the Jenkins report, and from his conclusions on AV, he seems to say otherwise:



> 85.   The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. *We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence.*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV is the least unfair system given the constraint of single member constituencies.  Even Jenkins found that.


 
So why didn't they recommend it? Let's have the exact reference please.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 28, 2011)

articul8 said:


> AV is the least unfair system given the constraint of single member constituencies.  Even Jenkins found that.


Jenkins said "AV is the least unfair system"?  Is that your claim?  No, he didn't.  Will you stop making things up.  You want AV, fine.  That's up to you, but stop the fabrication, it's patronising.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

This is AV:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

So is this:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

For attention of labour YES voters:



> What have the Labour Yes campaign got to say to Labour voters in Oldham East and Saddleworth? Just look at the figures in the recent by-election. Labour beat the Lib Dems by about 3,500 votes. Meanwhile, the Tories and other right-wing anti-Labour parties attracted over 8,000 votes. Had these 8,000 had the option, which the Alternative Vote (AV) would allow, of casting an additional second preference vote, it is hardly fanciful to assume that Labour would have lost. Instead of Debbie Abrahams, Oldham would have sent another supporter of the Con-Dem cuts to parliament.



(The piece is shit mind)


----------



## sim667 (Apr 28, 2011)

I cant find my fucking polling card now


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

sim667 said:


> I cant find my fucking polling card now


 
You don't need it.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't need it.


 
Wicked. Ill go down after work then


----------



## Santino (Apr 28, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Wicked. Ill go down after work then


 
After work... NEXT Thursday.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> After work... NEXT Thursday.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2011)

No to AV has 14 point lead in NS poll.



> The public are set to reject the Alternative Vote (AV) in next week's referendum as support for the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system remains robust, according to a New Statesman/ICD poll.
> 
> With just a week to go until the vote, the survey gives the No camp a 14-point lead, suggesting that the Yes campaign is running out of time to convince the public to back reform. Among those who say they are certain to vote in the referendum, the poll shows 53 per cent saying No and 39 saying Yes, with 8.7 per cent still undecided. Among all respondents, the No campaign leads by 46 per cent to 34 per cent, with 17 per cent saying they don't know.



Ask what you did wrong a8.


----------



## Corax (Apr 28, 2011)

So.  Result looks like a foregone conclusion.  Good.

But how to stop it being spun as "everyone's perfectly happy with FPTP"?


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 28, 2011)

What we need is to stop the spin that tinkering with the voting system will do anything to fix the malaise at the heart of British politics.


----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2011)

I'd agree with that, but until the media start adding "in accordance with EU directive..." or "as compelled by UN treaty...", the public isn't going to grasp how much stuff that should be politic has been removed from public accountability and sovereignty. Main reason why we have 3 shades of the same.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 28, 2011)

I don't think it's a forgone conclusion at all.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 28, 2011)

I get the feeling there's a lot of guilty consciences out there fuelling this large percentage of potential No voters.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm voting no cuz a Welshman told me too. Let's go shopping!


----------



## doddles (Apr 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> So.  Result looks like a foregone conclusion.  Good.
> 
> But how to stop it being spun as "everyone's perfectly happy with FPTP"?


 
Exactly. From Butchersapron's linked NewStatesman article:


> as support for the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system remains robust



Bullshit of course, but say the same bullshit enough times and the public will believe it.


----------



## moochedit (Apr 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> So.  Result looks like a foregone conclusion.  Good.
> 
> But how to stop it being spun as "everyone's perfectly happy with FPTP"?


 
you gov asked for people for their reasons for voting no and yes. 
(people were asked to choose 2 or 3 from the list so percentages don't add up to 100) 

no voters reasons:

It keeps elections simple: the candidate with the most votes wins   72
It is a tried-and-tested system that has served Britain well   56
It normally produces a clearcut government, rather than coalition rule  31
It is clearer and more straightforward than alternative systems  31
It means we won't have to waste public money on a more expensive system  28
It encourages parties to present clear policies and not to fudge or compromise 16
It means candidates won't have to pander to extremists to secure their second or third preference votes 12
It will reduce the chance of the Liberal Democrats having a say in who governs Britain in future  6
It leaves open the opportunity to have a more proportional system in the future  5
It helps the party I normally support 3
None of these   1
Don't know    1

yes voters reasons:

It will make the overall result of the election across Britain fairer   57
It will end the system that allows candidates to be elected with less than half the local vote  39
It will force MPs to work harder to win and then keep their seats  35
It will be a stepping stone to a more proportional system in the future  25
It will force parties to broaden their appeal beyond their 'core' vote  24
It will take away the need for tactical voting  16
It will make it harder for extremists to win seats at Westminster 10
It will help the party I normally support  8
It will make it harder for the Conservatives to win future elections outright  7
It will lead to more coalition governments at Westminster  6
None of these  6
Don't know  4

yougov tables pdf


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm not sure which set of reasons is more depressing to be honest. Most of the no voters are voting no for what I'd consider to be the wrong reasons (though as long as they vote no and no wins I don't mind too much ) and the reasons for voting yes all appear to be based either on fantasies (eg. "It will end the system that allows candidates to be elected with less than half the local vote" - will it?) or wrong headedness - take for instance the idea that a party "broadening its appeal beyond it's core vote" is a good thing - do we really want New Labour on steroids?


----------



## Santino (Apr 28, 2011)

Vote YES to stop former Labour PMs being left out of royal weddings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/vote-yes-to-av-conservatives-fear


----------



## Corax (Apr 28, 2011)

WTF's with the 5 people voting but without any idea *why*?


----------



## Santino (Apr 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> WTF's with the 5 people voting but without any idea *why*?


 
'I thought this survey would only take a couple of minutes.'


----------



## moochedit (Apr 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> 'I thought this survey would only take a couple of minutes.'


 
I've been doing yougov surveys for a while and I must admit if it's a long survey about a subject i'm not interested in, i start ticking at random. 

 I've never yet had a political one though. They are always commercial ones about supermarkets, banks, etc.


----------



## Corax (Apr 28, 2011)

moochedit said:


> I've been doing yougov surveys for a while and I must admit if it's a long survey about a subject i'm not interested in,


 
How long do they generally take?  It says 25p a survey plus - can you earn enough to buy a couple of rounds by doing a few in your spare time?


----------



## moochedit (Apr 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> How long do they generally take?  It says 25p a survey plus - can you earn enough to buy a couple of rounds by doing a few in your spare time?


 
Most take about 5 mins. some are longer than others. They send me an email and i just click on the link and answer then online.
Not had any money so far. 5000 points gets you a £50 cheque. I have 600 points so far after 15 survey's.  some survey's worth 50 points and some 100 points.

Never yet been asked about AV or the lib dems though. It's usually what i think of tesco or sainsburys.


----------



## Corax (Apr 28, 2011)

moochedit said:


> Most take about 5 mins. some are longer than others. They send me an email and i just click on the link and answer then online.
> Not had any money so far. 5000 points gets you a £50 cheque. I have 600 points so far after 15 survey's.  some survey's worth 50 points and some 100 points.
> 
> Never yet been asked about AV or the lib dems though. It's usually what i think of tesco or sainsburys.


 
Might give that a go. Earn a small amount of extra cash by answering some questions whilst watching the tv in the evenings - sounds fairly painless.  Ta.


----------



## Corax (Apr 29, 2011)

There we go, 100 points.  I've earned a quid!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2011)

20 points lead for NO now. according to Comres.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 20 points lead for NO now. according to Comres.


 
i'm voting yes. i want to annoy cameron more than i want to annoy clegg.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm voting yes. i want to annoy cameron more than i want to annoy clegg.


 
It won't though. It'll just mean that the coalition continues with its cuts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 29, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Wicked. Ill go down after work then


 
They ask you for name and adress and then cross you off the list. If you were bored enough and had willing/disinterested participants you could go to other wards, use the non-interested persons details and commit minor electoral fraud for lols


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2011)

stephj said:


> It won't though. It'll just mean that the coalition continues with its cuts.


 
i don't think i posted 'if i vote no it will halt the coalition in its tracks'


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think i posted 'if i vote no it will halt the coalition in its tracks'


 
You didn't no. Just saying I don't think it'll upset Cameron that much tbh, despite all the political posturing from the Tories. Certainly not as much as a no vote will Clegg et al.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2011)

Cameron will get the tons of flack for his backbenchers - half of whom think Cameron screwed up the last election.  They'll go apoplectic if he loses this too.


----------



## Santino (Apr 30, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Cameron will get the tons of flack for his backbenchers - half of whom think Cameron screwed up the last election.  They'll go apoplectic if he loses this too.


 
And then do what? Resign en masse? Go to the country without the 8 or 9 point lead they need to secure a majority?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2011)

Exactly - does a8 really think that the tories are so politically naive, stupid and inept that they'll bring down the coalition if there's a YES vote? If he does he's wrong, and if he doesn't it's a transparent attempt to stampede liberals/lefts into the YES pen. 

More to the point, following his own arguments and logic, he should be pushing for a NO vote as he earlier argued that a NO vote could lead to the tories bringing down the coalition resulting in a tory majority govt after the resultant GE - something which apparently means you must cast a vote against this happening. That he also simultaneously argued that a NO vote has no chance of leading to a coalition break up only further demonstrates how confused and desperate his contradictory posts and arguments have been.


----------



## Corax (Apr 30, 2011)

Cameron doesn't give a toss about the result.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2011)

BPIX have an 18% lead for NO.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 30, 2011)

Corax said:


> Cameron doesn't give a toss about the result.


 
You could well be right ,I am voting no in the hope that will hurt the lib dems most ,because not having Av is no hardship,it's a bit like being promised a jaquar and ending up with  a pair of roller skates


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Sunday Times stuff



> A final chunk of polling from the weekend – the YouGov tables should be up on the website shortly, but looking at what is available on the Sunday Times website the latest YouGov AV polling has YES on 45%, NO on 55%. This is tighter than the recently polling we’ve seen, which has tended to show the NO lead in the high teens, but I’ll repeat the caveat I added to my Scottish post a few minutes ago that we should always be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single poll (besides, there are four days to go, and the polls are showing NO leads between 10 points and 20+ points – the game appears to be over).


----------



## moon23 (May 1, 2011)

*The Conservatives are determined to win the referendum. And too many on the left unwisely agree with them*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/01/will-hutton-vote-yes-for-av

A top piece.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Still, not as unwise as forming a coalition government with them and then pushing through 'their' right wing wickedness eh?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *The Conservatives are determined to form the next government. And too many liberals unwisely agree with them*
> .


----------



## moon23 (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Still, not as unwise as forming a coalition government with them and then pushing through 'their' right wing wickedness eh?


 
No we could have had a Tory minority government for 6mths then another general election that the Tories would have won.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *The Conservatives are determined to win the referendum. And too many on the left unwisely agree with them*
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/01/will-hutton-vote-yes-for-av
> 
> A top piece.


 
please just fuck off


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *The Conservatives are determined to win the referendum. And too many on the left unwisely agree with them*
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/01/will-hutton-vote-yes-for-av
> 
> A top piece.



Indeed. It's a shame so many people are playing right into the Tories hands.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

no, not really.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

the lib dems are the tories.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

its well written but the 'fear the tories' card only has impact if they aren't already warming he front benches and cunting of the public sector. The hook into the piece- that the tories understand power politics better than any other party- is neither revelatory nor does it have bearing on the referendum


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> No we could have had a Tory minority government for 6mths then another general election that the Tories would have won.


 
No, you could have blocked a tory minority govt. The tories would not have won a general election  - have you not been following the polls at all? But no, you chose to support the tories and aggressively push through your shared agenda of wickedness. That's why you've lost this vote. 

Also, we have just had a tory govt for 12 months in case you hadn't noticed - because of you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Indeed. It's a shame so many people are playing right into the Tories hands.


Jesus christ - i know you're not very political but even you need to ask what's gone wrong when you're forced into allying with moon23 and his brand of right-wing extremism against a long list of arguments from the left for voting NO - arguments you've not gone anywhere near i note.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

So...the main (only?) reason to vote no to AV is because it will destabilise the current coalition, resulting in a General Election being called?


----------



## Combustible (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> So...the main (only?) reason to vote no to AV is because it will destabilise the current coalition, resulting in a General Election being called?


 
It's also a worse electoral system and makes change to a better one less likely.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> So...the main (only?) reason to vote no to AV is because it will destabilise the current coalition, resulting in a General Election being called?


 
Of course it's not the only reason - a whole host of other arguments have been offered throughout this thread. That AV is crap and funnels votes towards the 'centre' and large parties, that it blocks the electoral development of mainstream challengers as a result, that it effectively puts an end to hopes for proper PR,. that it benefits the lib-dems and benefiting the lib-dems from now on essentially means benefiting extremist tory/lib-dem coalition govts, that a YES vote stabilises the coalition until 2015 at least and so ensures the cuts will take place, that any positive vote for Av legitimises the electoral system and by extension the whole rotten system that it rests upon, that the people leading the charge towards AV are the same people who were mugged by the lib-dems 12 months ago and so on.

What's wrong with a political vote to bring down the coalition anyway?


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's wrong with a political vote to bring down the coalition anyway?


Only that we don't know what the result of the inevitable General Election would be.  It's entirely possible the Tories could get an overall majority this time, and we'd still be stuck with FPTP - surely the worst of both worlds?


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

being stuck with a worse system than fptp would be the worst of both worlds.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

> I'm so sick of this casting the AV referendum in terms of short-term party political knockabout. Maybe consider which you think is the more democratic electoral system, best for the whole country and future generations, and vote on that basis? You know, like a responsible democratic citizen would.



Nice to see a jesus posting in CiF. What a hero.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Only that we don't know what the result of the inevitable General Election would be.  It's entirely possible the Tories could get an overall majority this time, and we'd still be stuck with FPTP - surely the worst of both worlds?


 
Well the polls indicate nothing of the sort - and how worse could a tory majority be than now? MY priority is to stop the cuts, the only possible way to do that electorally is to bring down this coalition and make whoever comes in shit scared of being brought down as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Nice to see a jesus posting in CiF. What a hero.


 
And they're wrong - stopping the cuts, saving the NHS, saving the welfare system, saving education and so on are the longest term aims anyone can have. It's lib-dem bleaters like that fool looking at the short term - i.e benefits to their shithouse party.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well the polls indicate nothing of the sort - and how worse could a tory majority be than now? MY priority is to stop the cuts, the only possible way to do that electorally is to bring down this coalition and make whoever comes in shit scared of being brought down as well.


Polls change, and Labour aren't that far ahead.  A Tory party with a majority would be a turbo-charged version of the current coalition, able to take decisions without tedious 'consultation' with its coalition partners.  And if the Tories did get a majority, what would they have to be scared of?

I'm also wondering, if there was a 'yes to AV' vote, what's to stop the Lib Dems reversing out of the coalition and triggering a General Election, only this time under AV?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

The polls have shown substantial labour leads for months now, added to hefty disapproval figures. These are both based on the cuts, the cuts that are not only going to start biting soon but actually deepen. Them polls ain't changing. 

This is the turbo charged version, the lib-dems have enabled them to move at breakneck speed because the Tories knew they could be used as human shields to soak up the anti-cuts and anti-coalition sentiment. 

Lastly, the lib-dems do not want to bring the coalition down because of the above, they know they'd be in serious trouble even under AV. A No vote though might leave them with little choice du to the various pressures a defeat would bring.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

Hmmm.  Only one source from many, I'm sure, but whilst Labour have made substantial gains since May last year I'm not sure I'd be betting the farm on a Labour majority:










I'm not sure I agree with your point about the Lib Dems not wanting to pull out of the coalition in the event of a 'yes to AV' vote.  It's their main political objective and really the only reason for their unholy alliance with the Tories - an alliance which seems to sit very uncomfortably with many natural Lib Dem supporters.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

I didn't mention a labour majority - i said a tory majority is not going to happen. They've lost support on the basis of the cuts, cuts which are only going to get worse, the dynamic is against them. This is a graph showing the average of all the polls:






The lib-dems only concern is power not AV - AV is part of that concern. They share the tories neo-liberalism, in fact they've been the hard right of the coalition. Why do you think they'd _want_ to bring down the coalition and destroy their work towards achieving that concern? t will only happen when they need to do so to save themselves.


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Only that we don't know what the result of the inevitable General Election would be.  It's entirely possible the Tories could get an overall majority this time, and we'd still be stuck with FPTP - surely the worst of both worlds?


 
The Tories couldn't get an overall majority with an economy in recession and one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in living memory. What makes you think they'll suddenly attract millions of new voters in the next few weeks?


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'm also wondering, if there was a 'yes to AV' vote, what's to stop the Lib Dems reversing out of the coalition and triggering a General Election, only this time under AV?


 
Because AV won't be introduced until the constituency boundaries have been altered (to favour the Tories) in 2015. That was a part of the dirty little deal the coalition parties did.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

We'll have to agree to disagree in that case.  It will be interesting indeed to see what happens if the expected 'no to AV' vote materialises.  I suspect the coalition will limp on, with the Lib Dems a thoroughly busted flush.  Better to withdraw from a coalition in a position of strength (having achieved AV) than on the back of a humiliating and extremely symbolic defeat.

We shall know soon enough!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

gerrymandering. The mark of political shites everywhere.


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree in that case.  It will be interesting indeed to see what happens if the expected 'no to AV' vote materialises.  I suspect the coalition will limp on, with the Lib Dems a thoroughly busted flush.  Better to withdraw from a coalition in a position of strength (having achieved AV) than on the back of a humiliating and extremely symbolic defeat.
> 
> We shall know soon enough!


 
We've already seen Cable and Huhne jockeying for position to be a more "progressive" Lib Dem leader. They're not doing that with a view to a leadership election in 4 years time, are they?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> gerrymandering. The mark of political shites everywhere.


 
Dame Shirley Porter, anyone?  Looks like Disco Dave can't expel non-Tories from their homes in key constituences, so he'll just fiddle wihth the boundaries.  What a cnut.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> The Tories couldn't get an overall majority with an economy in recession and one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in living memory. What makes you think they'll suddenly attract millions of new voters in the next few weeks?


What makes you certain they can't?


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> What makes you certain they can't?


 
What have they done recently to attract new voters? Are you basing your arguments on polling data, political analysis or are you just arguing the toss?


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> What have they done recently to attract new voters? Are you basing your arguments on polling data, political analysis or are you just arguing the toss?


I don't think the opposition to the Tories is as strong as some would like to believe.  Labour doesn't seem to be getting its message across, and the Lib Dems are tainted by the coalition.  Consciously employing tactics to trigger a general election in these circumstances seems a bit risky.  I'd rather bank AV, imperfect though it may be, and then worry about short term political goals.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Dame Shirley Porter, anyone?  Looks like Disco Dave can't expel non-Tories from their homes in key constituences, so he'll just fiddle wihth the boundaries.  What a cnut.


 
by christ that one passed me by. For fucks sake, these people don't even warrant a trial.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I don't think the opposition to the Tories is as strong as some would like to believe.  Labour doesn't seem to be getting its message across, and the Lib Dems are tainted by the coalition.  Consciously employing tactics to trigger a general election in these circumstances seems a bit risky.  I'd rather bank AV, imperfect though it may be, and then worry about short term political goals.


 
Are your views based on anything other then a 'feeling'? 

The argument that the tories wont win a majority is based on several facts - they have been consistantly in the low 30s poll wise for months, they couldn't win a majotiy agasint gordan browns labour party (an electrol open goal if ever their was one) and we now have an economy thats flatlining, thousands losing their jobs and viscous cuts just starting to bite. The lib dems are losing voters directly to labour.
Where are all these extra tory voters going to materalise from? Why are people more likely to vote for them now rather than a year ago?
Your argument is - frankly- delusional. It flies in the face of all the evidence.

The lib-tory plan is to push through all the nasty shit now, and bank on being able to sweeten up enough of the electorte in time for an election in four years time - not now. 

The cuts and priavataisation have to be resisted now before its too late and using every effective weapon at our disposal.
Its not 'playing politics' out of tribalism, its protecting peoples jobs, lives, comunities agasint damage that will be moslty ireversable.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

No-one can definitively predict the result of a General Election.  And the Tories in both the graphs above are in the mid to high thirties.  And polls can and do get it wrong.

The point being it is possible that we both lose an opportunity for electoral reform and end up with a Tory government.  What a result that would be!


----------



## Open Sauce (May 1, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The simple fact is that we have three major parties all positioned somewhere well to the right of centre. AV is only going to make it harder for any movement away from that consensus to happen. Because with AV the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will generally go to the least controversial candidates.
> 
> If you want decades more of choosing between three parties with near identical policies then vote for AV. If you want any serious and constructive change beyond just tinkering with the voting system you have to oppose it.


 
Hang on, It is not simple, nor is it fact. 

Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected. I am sure this forum is aware the left is fractured, left leaning voter will tend to Labour not wanting to split the vote - under AV, there can be alternative brands of the left getting elected. 

It matters less so on the right (Tory) as they tend to be less suicidal than the left.

I shall be voting for AV as I it is a better system than FPTP and I don't buy that a no vote will have any effect on the cuts.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



Spot the non-fact.

Eric's fact ('we have three major parties all positioned somewhere well to the right of centre') is defensible - this naivety is not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Hang on, It is not simple, nor is it fact.
> 
> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected. I am sure this forum is aware the left is fractured, left leaning voter will tend to Labour not wanting to split the vote - under AV, there can be alternative brands of the left getting elected.
> 
> ...


 

Also, make some arguments as to why you believe as you do. Ta.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> The point being it is possible that we both lose an opportunity for electoral reform and end up with a Tory government.  What a result that would be!


 
The point being that AV is electoral reform that tightens the stranglehold of the three mainstream neo-liberal political parties and reduces the chances of any party that isn't part of the general political consensus. A disaster when we have a situation in which the political establishment are working almost entirely on the basis of convenient fictions. That's why it's being offered, and it's also precisely why we must refuse to take the bait.

Would you be saying we must take any opportunity of electoral reform if what was being offered was voting weighted according to income? How about if it was PR on a party basis with the representatives only being selected after the poll and solely by their national party executives? What if it was raising the deposit to stand for Parliament to £250,000?

Just because the current system is rubbish doesn't mean that any change is inevitably a good thing. I'm voting no because I see AV as a step in completely the wrong direction.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> The point being it is possible that we both lose an opportunity for electoral reform and end up with a Tory government.  What a result that would be!



We already have a Tory government in all but name though, don't we?  I don't see any evidence of how the Lib Dems have tempered them - as butchersapron, Kaka Tim and many others have rightly pointed out, the neo-liberal agenda is in full swing right now.  And even _if_ the AV vote won, Cameron's plans to change constituency boundaries (thus favouring the Tories) could well do over any changes AV may have made anyway (if any would have arised in the first place, which I personally think it won't).  Add this, and the fact that Cameron & Co are currently trying to stuff as many hand-picked peers in the House of Lords as quickly as possible (so having a negative impact on scrutiny of the HoC, bills etc), and we'd still end up with the same old stuff come the next official election date alnyway, even if AV was in place.


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Also, make some arguments as to why you believe as you do. Ta.


 
They don't need arguments or evidence, because AV is FAIRER! Can't you see that?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 1, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Hang on, It is not simple, nor is it fact.
> 
> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected. I am sure this forum is aware the left is fractured, left leaning voter will tend to Labour not wanting to split the vote - under AV, there can be alternative brands of the left getting elected.
> 
> ...


 
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. How is AV going to help a candidate to the left of the Labour Party? They aren't going to be picking up second preferences from Tories and Lib Dems, so they will do worse, since their second preferences will most likely go to Nu-Labour.

AV works against any candidate from outside of the centre ground. The yes to AV campaign know this. Which is why they have been using the "BNP don't want AV" scare tactic. However the simple fact is that it doesn't work solely against the far right. AV works in the same way to make it more difficult to be elected for any party outside of the mainstream blue/yellow/red Tory consensus.

PR would work to make it easier to get representation from outside the "centre ground" (or the right wing of the Tory Party as we'd have described them all 30 years ago). Unfortunately it can also lead to party central offices pretty much having complete control over who actually gets elected, unless it is a very carefully constructed system. We are not being offered a choice of any form of PR. We are being offered a choice of FPTP and the modified FPTP known as AV.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> They don't need arguments or evidence, because AV is FAIRER! Can't you see that?


 
No. What I see is a load of people who don't like how things are, and rather than making the effort to actually think about how things could be improved, are instead grabbing at the first option for change and then by a combination of wishful thinking and naive acceptance of propaganda ascribing to it the potential to miraculously do eveything they want.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

What I see are people perversely rejecting the reform on offer, in the risky belief that a no vote will somehow derail the current government's programme and anyway, we'll all get a chance to vote for PR shortly anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

What's perverse about that political decision? In fact, wtf are on you on about?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Are there really no normal YES voters?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> What I see are people perversely rejecting the reform on offer, in the risky belief that a no vote will somehow derail the current government's programme and anyway, we'll all get a chance to vote for PR shortly anyway.



The "PR" stuff is a bit straw man, and besides, voting Yes to AV isn't going to lead to a PR vote either.  And is a Yes to AV suddenly going to transform the Lib Dems into progressive anti-cuts types?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> What I see are people perversely rejecting the reform on offer, in the risky belief that a no vote will somehow derail the current government's programme and anyway, we'll all get a chance to vote for PR shortly anyway.


 
So what you are basically saying is that you would vote for any change whatsoever in the hope that it can't possibly make things worse.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> What I see are people perversely rejecting the reform on offer, in the risky belief that a no vote will somehow derail the current government's programme and anyway, we'll all get a chance to vote for PR shortly anyway.


 
the 'reform on offer' is tinkering slightly with a broken toilet anyway. The turds won't flush either way. 'Perverse' 'spiteful' and 'apathy' are all words that political parties employ in place of honest terms like 'fuck clegg' 'the government will get in' and 'bollocks'

I don't think the AV lot understand why they are set to lose. It is a reaction to clegg aiding the nasties to cut us all. Another time and another place might have seen a populace willing to consider the merits of one system over the other- here and now the majority want to make clegg cry.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

Of course not, but with AV delivered there is far less reason for them to cosy up to the Tories as they have been doing.

- edit in response to mellysingsdoom


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So what you are basically saying is that you would vote for any change whatsoever in the hope that it can't possibly make things worse.


 
No, that's not what i've said


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Of course not, but with AV delivered there is far less reason for them to cosy up to the Tories as they have been doing.
> 
> - edit in response to mellysingsdoom



They will get destroyed under any form of GE. Av gives them more reason to say _the coalition works - we've got what we wanted_. Have you been away for the last 6 months or something?


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> the majority want to make clegg cry.


I understand that.  I just think it's a little shortsighted and simplistic.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

^^^ what butchersapron says, plus if the Lib Dems had any principles, they'd have walked out already.  They haven't, Clegg, Alexander et al are confirmed neo-liberalists, they'll do nothing to disrupt their positions of power, and the same old game continues.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

For the anti-AV people, I'd be interested to hear your predictions for how things will turn out politically in the event of a no to AV vote.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Spot the non-fact.
> 
> Eric's fact ('we have three major parties all positioned somewhere well to the right of centre') is defensible - this naivety is not.


 
Spot the typical lack of coherent argument.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2011)

Typical of what?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Spot the typical lack of coherent argument.


 
No. You claimed eric's fact was either true nor simple - the claim is easily defensible. Your claim that 



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected



Is not. It's fucking mental in fact. Pretty coherent.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> For the anti-AV people, I'd be interested to hear your predictions for how things will turn out politically in the event of a no to AV vote.



Cameron publically crows, Clegg bites his tongue but cuddles up to the Tories anyway, and mutterings amongst the rest of the MPs.  What will really do for the Orange Books is the hammering they're gonna get at the local elections as well - much of their vaunted SW England councils will go Tory, and this'll have the rank and filers up in arms, blaming the leadership for both their neo-liberal ways and the AV distraction fiasco.  Cuts really bite, mass unrest and pissed-offness with the coalition publically, more demonstrations, beginning of many strikes etc, NHS and welfare assaults - leading to inevitable internal warfare in the Lib Dems.  Lib Dems under pressure to stand up to Tories,  a polls-resurgent Labour assert themselves.  Early general election?  A fucked-up coalition staggers on with increased loathing from the public?  Lib-Dems now seen as toxic and knowing they've lost the "progressive" tag they once boasted of?  We shall see...


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> No-one can definitively predict the result of a General Election.  And the Tories in both the graphs above are in the mid to high thirties.  And polls can and do get it wrong.



The tories fialed to win a majority at the general election. Why on earth do you think they have since increased their popularity based on no evidence whatsoever? The evidence we do have - by election results and the opinion polls  - solidly show them losing support. 

But this doesn't support your argument so you just ignore it. 

Way to go idiot.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I understand that.  I just think it's a little shortsighted and simplistic.


 

It really isn't, unless you consider the pernicious dog shit at the end of your road as more important than the fire in your kitchen.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Also, make some arguments as to why you believe as you do. Ta.



Just like you did 




butchersapron said:


> Of course it's not the only reason - a whole host of other arguments have been offered throughout this thread. That AV is crap and funnels votes towards the 'centre' and large parties, that it blocks the electoral development of mainstream challengers as a result, that it effectively puts an end to hopes for proper PR,. that it benefits the lib-dems and benefiting the lib-dems from now on essentially means benefiting extremist tory/lib-dem coalition govts, that a YES vote stabilises the coalition until 2015 at least and so ensures the cuts will take place, that any positive vote for Av legitimises the electoral system and by extension the whole rotten system that it rests upon, that the people leading the charge towards AV are the same people who were mugged by the lib-dems 12 months ago and so on.



Oh, no, non-arguments, just a host of unfounded assertions, the same as you criticise others for doing so. 

AV is crap is a reason why AV is crap?
Why does it funnel votes towards the centre in a safe labour seat.
It does not block the development of challengers, it encourages them, FPTP discourages them sue to fear of splitting the vote.
Means an end to hopes for PR? No reasons given.
Benefits lib-dems? It may have before last year, irrelevant now.
Stabilises the coalition? Plenty or arguments against that in this thread.
Prevents cuts? The libdems are not going to bring down this coalition at this time.

Even the posts about how Jenkins rejected AV deliberately ignore the fact the the Jenkin's commission was set up to propose a proportional system, you pretend that the Yes vote is naively voting for a more proportional system, i.e. you have resort to an argument that deliberately misrepresents.

The reason I believe it is a better system than FPTP is because it means I can vote for my first choice and it is registered. The left will never unite, there will always be factions, under AV they can all stand without fear of splitting the left vote. 

Why is FPTP better than AV?

We'll know soon enough if a no vote means an end to the cuts as it is clear the no has won. Do you actually believe that?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

I've made 800 posts on this thread explaining each one of these points. Repeatedly, and at great length, explaining the mechanisms, the motivations, the dynamics and so on. Disagree with me all you like - don't pretend that i haven't though - and at the very least do the same. The above is a disgrace.


----------



## lighterthief (May 1, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Way to go idiot.



"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Cicero


----------



## Open Sauce (May 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> They don't need arguments or evidence, because AV is FAIRER! Can't you see that?


 
Evidence and arguments somewhat lacking from you, but THE YES CAMPAIGN IS SUPPORTED BY LIBDEMS. 




ericjarvis said:


> Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. How is AV going to help a candidate to the left of the Labour Party? They aren't going to be picking up second preferences from Tories and Lib Dems, so they will do worse, since their second preferences will most likely go to Nu-Labour.



Only nonsense if you start from the false assumption that a different (IMO better) system will have a zero effect on turnout. Something I suspect you deliberately ignored.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No. You claimed eric's fact was either true nor simple - the claim is easily defensible. Your claim that
> 
> 
> 
> Is not. It's fucking mental in fact. Pretty coherent.



In your opinion. As an example 2001 in Hartlepool, how many Labour voter would have put Mandelson first under AV over Scargill? Maybe not enough to change that seat, but can you at least understand why NuLabour will get more of the left under FPTP? Maybe, even why some no-shows may turnout.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> In your opinion. As an example 2001 in Hartlepool, how many Labour voter would have put Mandelson first under AV over Scargill? Maybe not enough to change that seat, but can you at least understand why NuLabour will get more of the left under FPTP? Maybe, even why some no-shows may turnout.


 
You're arguing that any non nu-lablour candidate has a good chance of winning. They don't. The figures don't support that in any way whatsoever. The example you use is of a constituency that is not typical and one that also destroys your mad argument and any argument for AV letting in non-mainstream candidates.

Bring on the non-mental YES voters.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're arguing that any non nu-lablour candidate has a good chance of winning. They don't. The figures don't support that in any way whatsoever. The example you use is of a constituency that is not typical and one that also destroys your mad argument and any argument for AV letting in non-mainstream candidates.
> 
> Bring on the non-mental YES voters.


 
Your 800 posts you misrepresent as arguments are nothing but assertions of your opinion, assertions how opponents are wrong and occasional insults. 800 arrogant post.

You are saying that no non NuLabour left candidate stands a chance of beating a NuLabour candidate parachuted into a safe seat, you even state there are figures the back you up. Nothing ever materialises.

You are driven by your fantasy the a "no" vote will end the cuts - based on how the Libdems will break off from the coalition - that is, to use your language, mental if you think it is likely.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Your 800 posts you misrepresent as arguments are nothing but assertions of your opinion, assertions how opponents are wrong and occasional insults. 800 arrogant post.
> 
> You are saying that no non NuLabour left candidate stands a chance of beating a NuLabour candidate parachuted into a safe seat, you even state there are figures the back you up. Nothing ever materialises.
> 
> You are driven by your fantasy the a "no" vote will end the cuts - based on how the Libdems will break off from the coalition - that is, to use your language, mental if you think it is likely.


 
What madness. What's worse is that you argue that I must disprove your madness. You make a mad claim and offer a mad example (scargills 900 votes turning into 23 000 second prefs) I had hoped you were just drunk and lazy last night, would sober up and come back with something substantial. Terrible.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

No he(?)'s got a sound basic point - which is that the current set-up flatters the official Labour candidate because people don't want to take the risk of splitting the anti-Tory vote.

FPTP has kept the lid on a viable alternative emerging.  OK, AV will not open the floodgates.  But it will begin to shake things up.  Beyond a smug "i told you so", your argument has nothing whatsoever to offer.  Internal LD dissent might be more open, as though that could be suppressed in any case...


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No he(?)'s got a sound basic point - which is that the current set-up flatters the official Labour candidate because people don't want to take the risk of splitting the anti-Tory vote.
> 
> FPTP has kept the lid on a viable alternative emerging.  OK, AV will not open the floodgates.  But it will begin to shake things up.  Beyond a smug "i told you so", your argument has nothing whatsoever to offer.  Internal LD dissent might be more open, as though that could be suppressed in any case...


 
Tell me that scargill would have won in 2001 from his 900 votes under av and tell me this mad example is what would be happening all over the country as per the mad mans claim. 

Just to remind you, that's that left wing candidates would sweep past labour candidates under AV. Only desperation would lead you to agree with this. 

How you must have wished for a sane pal on this thread.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

haha - I'm not saying it's remotely likely, but tell me that Scargill wouldn't have demonstrably received more support in 1st prefs under AV?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

*AV is crap is a reason why AV is crap?*
- rejected by the Jenkins Commission: Jenkins described it as often "less proportional than FPTP" and "unacceptably unfair". (Jenkins Commission)  See also: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Alternative_Vote_-_Oct_10.pdf

*Why does it funnel votes towards the centre in a safe labour seat.*
It funnels votes to the big two.  That's what it was designed to do, and why it was introduced in Australia. Jenkins said "So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, AV is capable of substantially adding to it."  This happens because as the minor parties are eliminated, their votes are allocated to other parties.  Take the Greens, for example, in Australia the Green Party gets a far higher share of the popular vote than here - 12% as compared with our 1% national average.  Yet here they have one MP.  Do they have 12 times that number in Australia?  No, they also have one.  (See: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au).

*Means an end to hopes for PR? No reasons given.*
AV would be a roadblock to PR: first of all, it is not proportional, and in fact can be less proportional than FPTP (see above), so it is a step away not a step in the right direction.  Secondly, no country has ever moved to AV then onto PR.  That's why the Tories allowed a referendum on AV.  And the LibDems took it because they wanted power, not PR.

*Benefits lib-dems? It may have before last year, irrelevant now.*
It is argued that the LibDems will benefit as a natural "second choice".  I'm actually not too convinced by those arguments myself.  It's certainly what they _think_, though.

*Stabilises the coalition? Plenty or arguments against that in this thread.*
Yes, in that a win for AV will satisfy the LibDems grass roots, who will therefore be happy that the "coalition is delivering".  The coalition is about the LibDems maintaining Tory power. Not about the Tory Party shoring up a Lib Dem government.  The Tories being happy or unhappy with the outcome is therefore irrelevant. Unhappy Lib Dems, however, will mean cracks in the coalition.

*Prevents cuts? The libdems are not going to bring down this coalition at this time.*
- Not the leadership, who are the most vicious of the pro-cut faction in government.  But the grass roots turning sour will be a preblem for the top.

*Even the posts about how Jenkins rejected AV deliberately ignore the fact the the Jenkin's commission was set up to propose a proportional system, you pretend that the Yes vote is naively voting for a more proportional system, i.e. you have resort to an argument that deliberately misrepresents.*
- If people think AV is an _improvement_ on FPTP, they have to say how.  Jenkins didn't think so.  In fact, he said it was worse.  We have been given the option of choosing a system which is worse or rejecting it.  Guess which I'm going to do?

*The reason I believe it is a better system than FPTP is because it means I can vote for my first choice and it is registered. The left will never unite, there will always be factions, under AV they can all stand without fear of splitting the left vote. *Tell me how your first choice vote is not registered under FPTP?

*Why is FPTP better than AV?*
- It's not AV.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> haha - I'm not saying it's remotely likely, but tell me that Scargill wouldn't have demonstrably received more support in 1st prefs under AV?


 
So you're laughing at the mad mans point but think he had a point?

Big deal Scargill possibly gets 1200 first prefs rather than 900 - and that's well open to debate given his 900 votes came in the safest of safe seats where voting for him did not pit labour under any threat of losing.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What madness. What's worse is that you argue that I must disprove your madness. You make a mad claim and offer a mad example (scargills 900 votes turning into 23 000 second prefs) I had hoped you were just drunk and lazy last night, would sober up and come back with something substantial. Terrible.


 
You posted that you have made 800 posts arguing your assertions, you have not, most of them are arrogant on liners, very little argument comes from you. You 800 claim misrepresents yourself - it is dishonest.

Then you go on to misrepresent me, where do I state you must disprove what I say? More lies. 

I state that all you do is assert your opinion as correct, assert others as incorrect, you throw in the odd insult. It you want to disagree with me fine, but don't pretend that in doing so that you have done anything more and at least attempt to be honest and not misleading.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> You posted that you have made 800 posts arguing your assertions, you have not, most of them are arrogant on liners, very little argument comes from you. You 800 claim misrepresents yourself - it is dishonest.
> 
> Then you go on to misrepresent me, where do I state you must disprove what I say? More lies.
> 
> I state that all you do is assert your opinion as correct, assert others as incorrect, you throw in the odd insult. It you want to disagree with me fine, but don't pretend that in doing so that you have done anything more and at least attempt to be honest and not misleading.



Sorry, you're just wrong. I've argued my case at great length. You can read the thread later and see that this is true. Maybe you could have done so _before_ your intervention though - you'd be on safer ground then. 

Nothing else to respond to here - even the most rabid pro-AVer is laughing at your claim that Scargill would have turned his 900 votes into 23 000 plus 2nd prefs and that this would be normal under AV. What does that tell you?


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> *AV is crap is a reason why AV is crap?*
> - rejected by the Jenkins Commission: Jenkins described it as often "less proportional than FPTP" and "unacceptably unfair". (Jenkins Commission)  See also: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Alternative_Vote_-_Oct_10.pdf



Jenkins was tasked with providing a proportional solution, AV is not proportional,   so of course Jenkins would reject it.




danny la rouge said:


> *Why does it funnel votes towards the centre in a safe labour seat.*
> It funnels votes to the big two.  That's what it was designed to do, and why it was introduced in Australia. Jenkins said "So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, AV is capable of substantially adding to it."  This happens because as the minor parties are eliminated, their votes are allocated to other parties.  Take the Greens, for example, in Australia the Green Party gets a far higher share of the popular vote than here - 12% as compared with our 1% national average.  Yet here they have one MP.  Do they have 12 times that number in Australia?  No, they also have one.  (See: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au).



Australia also has far less seats than Westminster, less seats funnels votes towards the centre, you cannot state this is down to AV.



danny la rouge said:


> *Means an end to hopes for PR? No reasons given.*
> AV would be a roadblock to PR: first of all, it is not proportional, and in fact can be less proportional than FPTP (see above), so it is a step away not a step in the right direction.  Secondly, no country has ever moved to AV then onto PR.  That's why the Tories allowed a referendum on AV.  And the LibDems took it because they wanted power, not PR.



It is statistically irrelevant to remark that no country has ever gone from AV to a proportion system. Note also, no country has ever had an FPTP vs AV referendum that chose the status quo and later chose a proportional system, also equally irrelevant.




danny la rouge said:


> *Benefits lib-dems? It may have before last year, irrelevant now.*
> It is argued that the LibDems will benefit as a natural "second choice".  I'm actually not too convinced by those arguments myself.  It's certainly what they _think_, though.
> 
> *Stabilises the coalition? Plenty or arguments against that in this thread.*
> ...



You have to take all three together. If a no vote would prevent cuts, I'd vote no. Given "no" has pretty much won, then we shall soon see. But for a no vote to prevent cuts, it would require some form of destabilisation of the coalition. There is nothing to suggest that a no vote will trigger anything other than dissatisfaction but it won't lead to the grass roots taking any action that would lead to a disaster at the polls. An election now would probably see the libdems split.



danny la rouge said:


> *Even the posts about how Jenkins rejected AV deliberately ignore the fact the the Jenkin's commission was set up to propose a proportional system, you pretend that the Yes vote is naively voting for a more proportional system, i.e. you have resort to an argument that deliberately misrepresents.*
> - If people think AV is an _improvement_ on FPTP, they have to say how.  Jenkins didn't think so.  In fact, he said it was worse.  We have been given the option of choosing a system which is worse or rejecting it.  Guess which I'm going to do?



Of course you will reject it, you believe it is worse. I just disagree with you.



danny la rouge said:


> *The reason I believe it is a better system than FPTP is because it means I can vote for my first choice and it is registered. The left will never unite, there will always be factions, under AV they can all stand without fear of splitting the left vote. *Tell me how your first choice vote is not registered under FPTP?



If I were to vote today, I'd vote labour under FPTP, under AV I'd vote Green then Labour (sod all other choices in F&GG). Under FPTP my first preference is not recorded under AV it is.

How many other voters face the same choice, ever heard or tactical voting?

How many candidates do not stand because they don't want to split the vote? Do you think a left candidate somewhere between Scargill and Mandelson could take Mandelson's votes from him. Would more than 55% people turnout if there was a genuine choice? The people of Hartlepool have had no real choice under FPTP with Mandelson as their MP.




danny la rouge said:


> *Why is FPTP better than AV?*
> - It's not AV.



That is not a reason why FPTP is better.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, you're just wrong. I've argued my case at great length. You can read the thread later and see that this is true. Maybe you could have done so _before_ your intervention though - you'd be on safer ground then.



You may believe that, you claim you have made 800 posts in this thread arguing your reasons, you most of your posts are one line responses with zero argument. 




butchersapron said:


> Nothing else to respond to here - even the most rabid pro-AVer is laughing at your claim that Scargill would have turned his 900 votes into 23 000 plus 2nd prefs and that this would be normal under AV. What does that tell you?



Nowhere did I claim Scargill would have over turned Mandelsons' majority. What does it tell me that you need to resort to lies and misrepresentation? Nothing new, it is just what you do on this forum.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Jenkins was tasked with providing a proportional solution, AV is not proportional,   so of course Jenkins would reject it.
> 
> 
> Australia also has far less seats than Westminster, less seats funnels votes towards the centre, you cannot state this is down to AV.
> ...



Jenkins rejection of AV is not the important bit, it's the analysis of how it operates and how it's likely to operate that led to that rejection that's important. And you don't deal with that analysis and those potential outcomes by simply saying that Jenkins was tasked with coming up with a proportional system. That's facile and shallow.

How and why does less seats lead to more funneling of votes into the centre? You may have missed that part of the AV deal is less seats as well.

A NO vote at the very least has the potential to destabilise the coalition - we have seen the cracks and conflicts appearing as the vote gains steam - from the pretend cracks to the real cracks. A YES vote has no potential to do anything similar - but plenty of potential to do the opposite, to cement the coalition and paper over the underlying tensions. If your priority is, as you say, stopping the cuts by destabilising the coalition then only a NO vote makes sense. 

Not bothering with your Scargill weirdness - you couldn't have picked a more laughable and counter-productive example if the NO campaign paid you to.


----------



## Combustible (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> How many candidates do not stand because they don't want to split the vote? Do you think a left candidate somewhere between Scargill and Mandelson could take Mandelson's votes from him. Would more than 55% people turnout if there was a genuine choice? The people of Hartlepool have had no real choice under FPTP with Mandelson as their MP.



AV might allow a small number of people to vote for a smaller party as first preference whilst keeping Labour as a second preference.  That doesn't mean that AV would make it any more likely for them to actually win.  Nor would it cause someone like Mandelson (or any Labour candidate) any concern.  They'd have no incentive to appeal to the Scargillite voters as they would know full well they would still be likely to receive the 2nd preference votes from them.  Furthermore in seats where small parties are competitive AV raises the bar for victory. For example Labour would only have to do slightly better among 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences in Brighton Pavilion to beat the Greens.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> You may believe that, you claim you have made 800 posts in this thread arguing your reasons, you most of your posts are one line responses with zero argument.
> 
> 
> Nowhere did I claim Scargill would have over turned Mandelsons' majority. What does it tell me that you need to resort to lies and misrepresentation? Nothing new, it is just what you do on this forum.



I know that i have - as does everyone else whose been following the thread. Evidently you haven't been. As above, you might have come better armed if you'd read the thread.

Evidently you can't follow your own posts or logic either. Let me remind you, you claimed last night that:



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



then you used, when pushed, Scargills 900 votes somehow being in a position to possibly defeat Mandleson's 23 000 thousand as an example of the benefits of AV. Now you're backing away from the claim. Take ownership of your points. If you no longer have confidence in them say so, and say why.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Combustible said:


> AV might allow a small number of people to vote for a smaller party as first preference whilst keeping Labour as a second preference.  That doesn't mean that AV would make it any more likely for them to actually win.  Nor would it cause someone like Mandelson (or any Labour candidate) any concern.  They'd have no incentive to appeal to the Scargillite voters as they would know full well they would still be likely to receive the 2nd preference votes from them.  Furthermore in seats where small parties are competitive AV raises the bar for victory. For example Labour would only have to do slightly better among 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences in Brighton Pavilion to beat the Greens.


 
Yes, see also Galloway. And the Greens can wave goodbye to any hopes they may have had in Norwich.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know that i have - as does everyone else whose been following the thread. Evidently you haven't been. As above, you might have come better armed if you'd read the thread.



You have made 800 posts, you have not made 800 posts arguing your points, most of your posts are without any argument - I don't like that dishonesty



butchersapron said:


> Evidently you can't follow your own posts or logic either. Let me remind you, you claimed last night that:
> 
> 
> then you used, when pushed, Scargills 900 votes somehow being in a position to possibly defeat Mandleson's 23 000 thousand as an example of the benefits of AV. Now you're backing away from the claim. Take ownership of your points. If you no longer have confidence in them say so, and say why.


 
I used  Hartlepool as an example of where a Left candidate would benefit under AV, I never stated Scargill would defeat Mandelson. That you choose to mis-represent what I said speaks more volumes.

What I did suggest was he would get more votes than his current 900. In your typically arrogant manner, you stated the number to be 1200, a number which has now probably become a fact in your head. Between Scargill and Mandelson are many shades, there could be several candidates standing without fear of splitting their vote.

But your agenda is "I am right, you are wrong, you are mad" or that you are just generally dishonest is not something I care about. You don't even grasp the simple concept that turnout is low in seats such as Hartlepool. Under AV some of the 23,000 would not have voted for Mandelson and some of the 30,000 that did not turn out would vote if they felt they had a choice.

Or do you think the people of Hartlepool will just vote for any official Labour candidate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1965569.stm


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Odd that you choose to just forget what you was using Scargills 900 votes as an example of - let me remind you:




			
				you said:
			
		

> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, *under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected*.


----------



## lighterthief (May 2, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Cameron publically crows, Clegg bites his tongue but cuddles up to the Tories anyway, and mutterings amongst the rest of the MPs.  What will really do for the Orange Books is the hammering they're gonna get at the local elections as well - much of their vaunted SW England councils will go Tory, and this'll have the rank and filers up in arms, blaming the leadership for both their neo-liberal ways and the AV distraction fiasco.  Cuts really bite, mass unrest and pissed-offness with the coalition publically, more demonstrations, beginning of many strikes etc, NHS and welfare assaults - leading to inevitable internal warfare in the Lib Dems.  Lib Dems under pressure to stand up to Tories,  a polls-resurgent Labour assert themselves.  Early general election?  A fucked-up coalition staggers on with increased loathing from the public?  Lib-Dems now seen as toxic and knowing they've lost the "progressive" tag they once boasted of?  We shall see...


"Early general election?"
"A fucked-up coalition staggers on"?

I'd want a little bit more than that before chucking my hat in with the Tories and voting no to AV.

What do other 'no to AV' supporters think will happen politically in the event of the probable 'no' vote?


----------



## nino_savatte (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> You have made 800 posts, you have not made 800 posts arguing your points, most of your posts are without any argument - I don't like that dishonesty
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Low turnouts will not be cured by AV. If that is what you think, you need to tell us why you think so.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> If I were to vote today, I'd vote labour under FPTP, under AV I'd vote Green then Labour (sod all other choices in F&GG). Under FPTP my first preference is not recorded under AV it is.


 
This is PRECISELY the point. Under FPTP, if you voted Green, it would be a vote for the Green candidate, end of. Under AV your vote for the Green candidate will most likely be discarded and your second preference for Labour will then go towards the huge heap of second preferences for the mainstream "middle ground" parties. Meanwhile the second preferences from the BNP and UKIP will largely go to the Tories, from both the Tories and Labour to the Lib Dems, and from the various left parties to Labour. What isn't going to be happening is a huge batch of second preferences for a party of the left added after one of the mainstream parties is eliminated.

With FPTP there is a possibility of a bandwagon behind a candidate from a minor party. It doesn't happen often, but it can. Such parties will do better under FPTP as tactical voters switch to them as they become seen as genuine contenders. Under AV they will be swamped by the second preferences for something bland as soon as any of the major parties is eliminated.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> This is PRECISELY the point. Under FPTP, if you voted Green, it would be a vote for the Green candidate, end of. Under AV your vote for the Green candidate will most likely be discarded and your second preference for Labour will then go towards the huge heap of second preferences for the mainstream "middle ground" parties. Meanwhile the second preferences from the BNP and UKIP will largely go to the Tories, from both the Tories and Labour to the Lib Dems, and from the various left parties to Labour. What isn't going to be happening is a huge batch of second preferences for a party of the left added after one of the mainstream parties is eliminated.
> 
> With FPTP there is a possibility of a bandwagon behind a candidate from a minor party. It doesn't happen often, but it can. Such parties will do better under FPTP as tactical voters switch to them as they become seen as genuine contenders. Under AV they will be swamped by the second preferences for something bland as soon as any of the major parties is eliminated.



Yes, the chances of a non-mainstream candidates winning are significantly reduced by requiring that they win over or around 50% of the vote. Far better chance for candidates outside of the mainstream is a split electorate under fptp and allowing them to get in on around 35% (or even lower if the cards fall the right way).


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> What do other 'no to AV' supporters think will happen politically in the event of the probable 'no' vote?


 
Nothing much. I think we've been offered the choice of AV because it doesn't make much difference to the major parties. It's slightly better for them than FPTP, but not enough that any of them really see it as important.

It might weaken Clegg's position a little, but that's about it. Whereas I don't think a yes vote makes a blind bit of difference to Cameron. If it did we'd never have been offered the referendum at all.

So I'm voting purely on the merits of the actual question. Which means voting no since AV will favour the entrenched neo-liberal consensus of the blue, yellow, and red Tories.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Only nonsense if you start from the false assumption that a different (IMO better) system will have a zero effect on turnout. Something I suspect you deliberately ignored.


 
I don't see why it would make any significant difference to turnout. Even if it did I still don't see how that makes any difference.

Has the yes campaign been claiming that AV will reduce the potential of the BNP winning council seats, or not? Please explain how AV can work against parties to the right of the mainstream and not against parties to the left of the mainstream.

As I see it, if you support the current neo-liberal blue/yellow/red Tory consensus then vote yes, and those of us who want real change that genuinely affects people's lives (and not just some tinkering with the voting system) will vote no.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that you choose to just forget what you was using Scargills 900 votes as an example of - let me remind you:



Nowhere in that quote does it state Scargill would have turned over Mandelson in Hartlepool. Are you really that deranged? Clearly you are not, you are just dishonest you are the disgrace.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Nowhere in that quote does it state Scargill would have turned over Mandelson in Hartlepool. Are you really that deranged? Clearly you are not, you are just dishonest you are the disgrace.



Jesus wept, what the hell is your problem - you made a claim that:



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



to back it up and show the benefits of AV you asked me to look at a particular election - presumably chosen because it afforded the best example of your scenario actually taking place - now you want to step away from your example, and say oh no i wasn't really using it as an example of what i was talking about (handy, because it was a terrible  terrible example) and at the same time ignore your utterly loony suggestion that 



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



Defend this statement - with reference to Scargill or not. The rest is just waffle.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> This is PRECISELY the point. Under FPTP, if you voted Green, it would be a vote for the Green candidate, end of. Under AV your vote for the Green candidate will most likely be discarded and your second preference for Labour will then go towards the huge heap of second preferences for the mainstream "middle ground" parties. Meanwhile the second preferences from the BNP and UKIP will largely go to the Tories, from both the Tories and Labour to the Lib Dems, and from the various left parties to Labour. What isn't going to be happening is a huge batch of second preferences for a party of the left added after one of the mainstream parties is eliminated.
> 
> With FPTP there is a possibility of a bandwagon behind a candidate from a minor party. It doesn't happen often, but it can. Such parties will do better under FPTP as tactical voters switch to them as they become seen as genuine contenders. Under AV they will be swamped by the second preferences for something bland as soon as any of the major parties is eliminated.


 
Your scenario for a minor party gaining under FPTP is no less likely than under AV, arguably more so, e.g. if there is a local issue at stake, voters of the mainstream parties can safely vote for the local single issue campaigner while knowing that if unsuccessful, they are not giving a lead to their rival mainstream party.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

...whilst making the threshold for that non-mainstream candidate to be successfully elected significantly higher than it currently is. Even under your own half-logic you should be opposed to AV.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus wept, what the hell is your problem -



Fuck you. You wrote the following




butchersapron said:


> Nothing else to respond to here - even the most rabid pro-AVer is laughing at *your claim that Scargill would have turned his 900 votes into 23 000 *plus 2nd prefs and that this would be normal under AV. What does that tell you?



Lies, drunkens lies I don't know nor care. 

You've have more that you deserve already, you are just a deluded headcase that uses lies and volumes of substance free claims. We'll see after a "no" vote what happens to the cuts.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Fuck you. You wrote the following
> 
> 
> Lies, drunkens lies I don't know nor care.
> ...



Lord, what a headbanger. A big fat content free headbanger at that. 

You used an example to illustrate your mad claim, your strong reason for voting YES to AV. It turns out to be shit, even laughed at by your own side - and you now realise that, and are having a hissy fit to cover up your utter failure to defend that claim. Back it up. Back this up:



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



Because if you can't then your whole 'argument' falls.

You can see why you lot changed no ones mind can't you?

(Btw are you a communist correspondent?)


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...whilst making the threshold for that non-mainstream candidate to be successfully elected significantly higher than it currently is. Even under your own half-logic you should be opposed to AV.


 
Utter tosh (assuming you are responding to post 3478). AV makes it easier for people to vote for a single issue candidate than under FPTP. The mainstream votes can vote for the single issue without making it more likely that a party the oppose gets in.

Do you even understand AV? 

I get it, you are promoting the "too complicated" part for the "no" campaign.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (Btw are you a communist correspondent?)



Sorry, just seen this 

Err, no.


----------



## Open Sauce (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lord, what a headbanger. A big fat content free headbanger at that.
> 
> You used an example to illustrate your mad claim, your strong reason for voting YES to AV. It turns out to be shit, even laughed at by your own side - and you now realise that, and are having a hissy fit to cover up your utter failure to defend that claim. Back it up. Back this up:
> 
> ...


 
Which whole argument are you deluding yourself fails - the one in which you fabricated my starting Scargill would win under AV? The one I never made, what is bizarrely deranged world you live in where you have to make up something too argue with.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Utter tosh (assuming you are responding to post 3478). AV makes it easier for people to vote for a single issue candidate than under FPTP. The mainstream votes can vote for the single issue without making it more likely that a party the oppose gets in.
> 
> Do you even understand AV?
> 
> I get it, you are promoting the "too complicated" part for the "no" campaign.



It's quite simple. The YES to AV campaign have as one of the benefits of AV that all candidates would need to achieve over 50% of the vote to be successfully elected (this turned out to be untrue but has rather been hidden by the whining of the same campaign about lies and untruths from others). Under FPTP these non-mainstream candidates have been elected on 35% of the vote. I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but surely 50 is a higher number than 35 there?

AV doesn't make it any easier to vote for a non-mainstream candidate. The ease is exactly the same in both FPTP and AV - what AV does is let you vote for one of the mainstream parties as well. This is the funneling of the vote towards the mainstream that AV produces. That you deny happens because there's more seat here than in Australia or something weak like that - i'm not sure because you chose to ignore my response to that part of your posts. As you ignored the fact that part of the deal with AV is that there will be fewer seats next time round - substantially fewer.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Which whole argument are you deluding yourself fails - the one in which you fabricated my starting Scargill would win under AV? The one I never made, what is bizarrely deranged world you live in where you have to make up something too argue with.


 
Can you really not keep track of your own posts? Of your own arguments? Of the reasons you've so forcefully put forward for voting YES to AV? OK, try this one for starters:



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.



I've been trying to get you to defend it for over 12 hours now. All i've got is an example that you have now disowned. Give it a go.


----------



## marty21 (May 2, 2011)

Been reading a fair bit about how the last election would have turned out had it been under AV, it's impossible to answer that, since people would have voted differently as it would have been under AV, they didn't put candidates in number order, so seems pointless to speculate on what they might have done had it been under AV, it proves nothing.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Utter tosh (assuming you are responding to post 3478). AV makes it easier for people to vote for a single issue candidate than under FPTP. The mainstream votes can vote for the single issue without making it more likely that a party the oppose gets in.



It makes NO DIFFERENCE in how easy it is to vote for a single issue candidate. You just vote for them, tick the box or mark a one by their name, it's simple either way. The difference is that under AV you also have a vote that goes usually to a mainstream compromise choice too.

What matters is what happens in the second round. At that point it's down to who is eliminated. It's only if a major party is eliminated very early that a single issue or non-mainstream candidate can possibly get any advantage over FPTP. That isn't going to happen at all often.



Open Sauce said:


> Do you even understand AV?
> 
> I get it, you are promoting the "too complicated" part for the "no" campaign.


 
I not only understand AV, I've run elections and election campaigns under FPTP, AV and other forms of STV. I've been doing this stuff since 1977, in student politics, council elections, community groups, and general elections. I've learned that the most important thing is how the voting system actually works and not what people claim for it. FPTP is rubbish. AV is worse. It's possible to put together a form of PR that would be an improvement, but most forms of PR would make things worse.

Of course you may want to lock British politics into an endless choice between three Tory parties that differ only in name. In which case AV is the best system to use. Otherwise it's a complete crock.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

*Jenkins was tasked with providing a proportional solution, AV is not proportional,   so of course Jenkins would reject it.*
- What a strange argument.  Yes, Jenkins was looking for a workable system of PR.  AV isn't PR.  But it was also - he found - capable of being _less proportional_ and _less fair_ than FPTP.  That is the criticism: _less proportional_ and _less fair_ than FPTP.

*Australia also has far less seats than Westminster, less seats funnels votes towards the centre, you cannot state this is down to AV.*
- The effect I was describing needs only one seat.  It's really very simple: candidate with the least votes gets eliminated every round until the front-runner gets more than 50% or there are no more votes to redistribute.  One seat or 360.  Same applies.

*It is statistically irrelevant to remark that no country has ever gone from AV to a proportion system. Note also, no country has ever had an FPTP vs AV referendum that chose the status quo and later chose a proportional system, also equally irrelevant.*
- The point is that it is introduced to _prevent_ voting reform, not to _be_ it.  That's why it was introduced in all 3 of the national legislatures it exists in.  It isn't a trend, but a tactic.

*You have to take all three together. If a no vote would prevent cuts, I'd vote no. Given "no" has pretty much won, then we shall soon see. But for a no vote to prevent cuts, it would require some form of destabilisation of the coalition. There is nothing to suggest that a no vote will trigger anything other than dissatisfaction but it won't lead to the grass roots taking any action that would lead to a disaster at the polls. An election now would probably see the libdems split.*
- Dissatisfaction in the Libdem grassroots looks like a good result to me.


*If I were to vote today, I'd vote labour under FPTP, under AV I'd vote Green then Labour (sod all other choices in F&GG). Under FPTP my first preference is not recorded under AV it is.*
- So your Green vote will be counted towards Labour.  (See above).

*How many other voters face the same choice, ever heard or tactical voting?*
- Tactical voting will happen under AV.  Voters aren't stupid.  (See here).

*How many candidates do not stand because they don't want to split the vote? Do you think a left candidate somewhere between Scargill and Mandelson could take Mandelson's votes from him. Would more than 55% people turnout if there was a genuine choice? The people of Hartlepool have had no real choice under FPTP with Mandelson as their MP.*
- AV will not affect choice.  If anything it may make choice narrower because of the 50% hurdle.

*That is not a reason why FPTP is better.*
- I'm not defending FPTP; I'm refusing to endorse a worse alternative.  (See above).


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

DP.  System slow.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2011)

Here's a short speculative on piece on what AV is likely to do to non-mainstream candidates using the example of Brighton Pavillion - pushes them and others to the centre basically.


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> You are driven by your fantasy the a "no" vote will end the cuts - based on how the Libdems will break off from the coalition - that is, to use your language, mental if you think it is likely.


if you do not think a "no" vote massively increases the chances of internal civil war within the LDs, or that it makes the leadership's hold on the party, then with all due respect you do not understand that much about the philosophical composition of the Lds, their rulebook - or where the grassroots are at, right now.  
There is furious unhappiness down below, that will increase exponentially after the May 5th drubbing - and, unlike with the other two main parties, their grassroots can do something about forcing their leadership to listen and take their anger onboard


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

unhappy liberals sleep furiously


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> unhappy liberals sleep furiously


more importantly, unhappy liberal ex-councillors plot furiously, with all that bitterness, and all that extra spare time on their hands


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's a short speculative on piece on what AV is likely to do to non-mainstream candidates using the example of Brighton Pavillion - pushes them and others to the centre basically.


 
Andy Newman?  Not the sharpest tool in the box bless him...


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> more importantly, unhappy liberal ex-councillors plot furiously, with all that bitterness, and all that extra spare time on their hands



They'd do that anyway.


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> They'd do that anyway.


Yes, but if they'd won the AV referendum, that'd be a whole lot less petrol to chuck on the flames. AV was/is Clegg's big win from the coalition deal; without that, he's very much more hard pushed to justify it, especially with carnage at the locals next year still to come. And - whilst MPs may want to hang on to the last minute in the hope of an upturn, such councillors have no new motivation to


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 2, 2011)

This is a laff:



> David Cameron using AV to trash us, say Lib Dems
> 
> Huhne expressed anger over widely circulated no campaign leaflets that focus on Clegg's alleged broken pledges. He told the Guardian: "David Cameron has had the power to stop these no campaign leaflets saying Nick Clegg has broken promises and told lies. He has done nothing about it.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/01/david-cameron-av-lib-dems

Worra laff. The scum and vermin and lice and cancer and maggots that infest the libdem vichy scab party have been stabbed in the back after having been fucked up the arse by their tory vermin puppet masters. Serves them right, the thick fucking retarded scum. They will be wiped of the face of the earth soon, completely liquidated as a political force.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 2, 2011)

^^^ and then there's this:



> Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Cameron said he would not be giving his coalition partners any consolation prizes if they were defeated in the referendum. "I don't believe that a successful coalition is based around trying to endlessly sort of trade off each other's policies."



You hear that, Orange Books?  You also think Yes To AV would have led to Disco doing deals with you?  Nah, just sit back an be content that Disco's the organ grinder, Clegg's the monkey, and the rest of you will get a stray peanut or two droppd by Clegg if you're lucky.

"Feel the pain/The pleasure/You like that, don't you?"


----------



## binka (May 2, 2011)

im voting no to av because im too thick to understand it


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 2, 2011)

My mum and dad are both voting yes. This is despite still having egg on their faces for flirting with the Lib Dems over the past decade. Their reasons are that 'it is a step to PR' and 'if the Tories are voting no then I am voting yes'. I despair.


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2011)

> Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, told The Independent that votes would still be counted manually if the public vote Yes to AV. He said: "It's time to put to bed the No campaign's baseless claim that AV will require expensive new voting machines. I should know. I am the person in Government with direct say over our policy on how elections are run. There will be no electronic voting machines. It will not happen. We do not need them."



As long as he hasn't got a reputation for saying one thing and doing another, thats that sorted


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

binka said:


> im voting no to av because im too thick to understand it


Good outcome, but you're not too thick.


----------



## Random (May 2, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Good outcome, but you're not too thick.


 
He's just playing the wise fool. Sort of like a drunken master, iirc.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

Random said:


> He's just playing the wise fool. Sort of like a drunken master, iirc.


Ah.  I shee, shenshi.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 2, 2011)

Nick Clegg said:
			
		

> I am the person in Government with direct say over our policy on how elections are run



You are until your boss over-rules you.  Don't you know anything about the history of Deputy PM's?

Calm down, dear!


----------



## strung out (May 2, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> My mum and dad are both voting yes. This is despite still having egg on their faces for flirting with the Lib Dems over the past decade. Their reasons are that 'it is a step to PR' and 'if the Tories are voting no then I am voting yes'. I despair.


 
my mum and dad are both tories and still voting yes.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> My mum and dad are both voting yes. This is despite still having egg on their faces for flirting with the Lib Dems over the past decade. Their reasons are that 'it is a step to PR' and 'if the Tories are voting no then I am voting yes'.


 
Good.  Well said.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Good.  Well said.


 
This is your target audience. Confused old politically naive Lib Dem dupes.


----------



## articul8 (May 2, 2011)

You have their genes


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You have their genes


 
You have their vote.

Bear in mind my mum backed the SDP. And my dad, one time union & LP militant (small m), has been henpecked into submission over decades. The proof of his political degeneration is his occasional claim to be an anarchist. Whilst voting Lib Dem. I rest my case.


----------



## strung out (May 2, 2011)

is your dad shevek?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 2, 2011)

strung out said:


> is your dad shevek?


 
Basically.

Actually, no, that would be too harsh. He does, bless him, have a class understanding, which is more than can be said for my mum. He's just bitter and defeated. And his entire understanding of anarchism appears to rest on that Ken Loach film about the Spanish civil war.

And neither of them will ever be voting Lib Dem again. Thank fuck.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 2, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> his entire understanding of anarchism appears to rest on that Ken Loach film about the Spanish civil war.


Which is more than some.  (It's a good film).


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's a short speculative on piece on what AV is likely to do to non-mainstream candidates using the example of Brighton Pavillion - pushes them and others to the centre basically.


 
Incidentally an argument the yes campaign has been happy to claim as its own when applied to the BNP, but which they rather oddly seem to disagree with when it's applied to any other party outside of the mainstream.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Fuck, I'm back in the country.  Isn't this bullshit over yet?


----------



## Pingu (May 3, 2011)




----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Incidentally an argument the yes campaign has been happy to claim as its own when applied to the BNP, but which they rather oddly seem to disagree with when it's applied to any other party outside of the mainstream.


be fair - they also demonised the CPGB's as well!


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Actually, I'd rather have a coffee.


----------



## Pingu (May 3, 2011)

for balance  note its just an image i do not necessarily agree with the text on it


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 3, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

Pingu said:


>


 

Another shockingly dishonest piece from the YES campaign - they don't know where the 2nd prefs from the removed candidates would go. Some people would prefer to have a coffee than go to a particular pub for starters.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 3, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


>



And vice versa.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 3, 2011)

And while we're at it, don't confuse something old with something new: Australia has used AV since 1918.


----------



## Zachor (May 3, 2011)

I'll be voting no to AV on Thursday as imo the alternative vote allows voters to vote once sensibily and once for an extremist or a joke party.  If enough people have these extremists or jokes as their alternative then it could be that this throwaway second choice could become your MP.  I understand that some Yes to AV campaigners are saying that in Austrailia many people do not make a second choice of candidate and in this respect the AV system behaves similiar to FPTP.  However the danger of an extremist or joke group picking up alternative votes is still very strong.

I think that there are ways to make FPTP better, different sized consituencies for example or compulsory voting (to reduce the adverse impacts of low turnouts) are just two that I can think of at the moment.

As  a Tory I'm pleased to see the back of Gordon Brown's incompetent administration but less pleased to see the immense influence the Lib Dems appear to have in Government especially in areas such as reducing the size and intrusiivness of the state.  

Also as an observer of politics in the State of Israel it worries me to see that Israel's proportional system has given undue influence to the Charadi religious parties and other smaller parties.

It's horrific to think that under a future AV election for Parliament the major parties could be held to ransom by extremists such as the BNP and the Greens who may only have won a few seats but will have immense power to decide who gets to govern.

The uncertainty of the result (fptp has only delivered a couple of Coalitions in decades) and the prospect of permanent coalitions that give undue influence to some pretty unsavoury characthers makes me want to retain our current voting system.

No to AV on Thursday.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 3, 2011)

Zachor said:


> As  a Tory I'm [...]


Voting for an extremist party anyway.


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2011)

eurgh.


----------



## Zachor (May 3, 2011)

LOL!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 3, 2011)

Kinnock's written a piece on AV in the Indie today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/neil-kinnock-av-will-bring-a-new-vitality-to-our-democracy-2278255.html

Very simplistic and misleading, I think - as if opponents to the AV being offered are all singing from the same hymn sheet.  And how exactly is a vote for AV going to have a deep and substantial effect on what are current day Labour idealogy and policies?  I really don't buy this at all.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Don't tell me that Kinnock may not have all his ducks in a row!


----------



## lighterthief (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Another shockingly dishonest piece from the YES campaign - they don't know where the 2nd prefs from the removed candidates would go. Some people would prefer to have a coffee than go to a particular pub for starters.


 
And some people wouldn't.  But under FPTP we wouldn't even get that far: coffee it is!


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Kinnock's written a piece on AV in the Indie today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/neil-kinnock-av-will-bring-a-new-vitality-to-our-democracy-2278255.html
> 
> Very simplistic and misleading, I think - as if opponents to the AV being offered are all singing from the same hymn sheet.  And how exactly is a vote for AV going to have a deep and substantial effect on what are current day Labour idealogy and policies?  I really don't buy this at all.


great! If that losers in ther 'YES' camp a win for 'no' is as good as delivered


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> And some people wouldn't.  But under FPTP we wouldn't even get that far: coffee it is!


 
You think the general election is equivalent to a choice between coffee or five different types of beer?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> And some people wouldn't.  But under FPTP we wouldn't even get that far: coffee it is!


 
Can you point me to any contest in the general election that looked anything like the one that appears on that poster?


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

It is a simple heuristic device not a perfect analogy ("All comparisons are odious", Hegel)

But not too far from reality - eg, Hendon constituency - where Tories squeaked through because the anti-Tory vote split between Labour. and (some of) LD and Greens.  Under AV there's no way they would have won the seat.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It is a simple heuristic device not a perfect analogy ("All comparisons are odious", Hegel)
> 
> But not too far from reality - eg, Hendon constituency - where Tories squeaked through because the anti-Tory vote split between Labour. and (some of) LD and Greens.  Under AV there's no way they would have won the seat.


still got f-all to do wi' either a pint or a cuppa.
also - tory v lib dem...there's a difference?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

It's not a heuristic device - it's a flat out lie. No amount of pomposity can hide it. The NO campaign was full of these same heuristic devices wasn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

Which ad agency is pocketing the YES campaigns money for these heuristic devices btw?


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Clegg doesn't lie, he just employs heuristic devices.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

How is any lie involved? - it's an illustration of the distortions of FPTP.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 3, 2011)

I'd prefer a coffee shop.  Not that this means anything in regard to AV.  It's just my personal preference.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is any lie involved? - it's an illustration of the distortions of FPTP.


 
It has long since been mathematically proven that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system, so long as there are multiple success criteria.  As such, constructing a highly artificial example that has no application or relevance to the real world and employing it as an argument for why you should reject any particular system is at _best_ highly misleading and, more realistically, a clear attempt to deceive people into thinking that, by implication, your alternative lacks such flaws.  I.e., a lie.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is any lie involved? - it's an illustration of the distortions of FPTP.


 
Someone talking about heuristic devices should be clued up enough not to use the term 'distortions' in this sort of example. 

Why is it a lie? Because it invents a model or situation that doesn't bear any relation to the question you claim that it's _illustrating_ - and it does so deliberately in order to make people think that is an accurate depiction of reality. That you dare defend it _on the grounds that it's inaccurate_ demonstrates quite clearly that you've been hanging around with too many lib-dems for too long.


----------



## audiotech (May 3, 2011)

The director of the group 'No to AV' campaign claims it has received "100% help" from the Conservative party.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/03/av-electoralreform


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

That's rubbish.  Even shitty X-Factor constestants are able to muster efforts in excess of 150%.  And sometimes these efforts are supported by others by percentages running into 6 figures.


----------



## creak (May 3, 2011)

Fucks sake re: that image. In which constituency would you find four candidates standing for the same party?


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Someone talking about heuristic devices should be clued up enough not to use the term 'distortions' in this sort of example.
> 
> Why is it a lie? Because it invents a model or situation that doesn't bear any relation to the question you claim that it's _illustrating_ - and it does so deliberately in order to make people think that is an accurate depiction of reality. That you dare defend it _on the grounds that it's inaccurate_ demonstrates quite clearly that you've been hanging around with too many lib-dems for too long.



It doesn't pretend to replicate the exact pattern of party political vote distribution.  It is simplifying to point to the underlying inadequacies of FPTP.  I haven't agreed with everything the Yes campaign has done by a long chalk.  I'm not sure this is a particularly effective use of a broadcast.  But it is not a lie.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

creak said:


> Fucks sake re: that image. In which constituency would you find four candidates standing for the same party?


 
four candidates along a spectrum of possibilities?  Nothing unlikely about that


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It doesn't pretend to replicate the exact pattern of party political vote distribution.  It is simplifying to point to the underlying inadequacies of FPTP.  I haven't agreed with everything the Yes campaign has done by a long chalk.  I'm not sure this is a particularly effective use of a broadcast.  But it is not a lie.


 
It is an attempt to mislead.  How do you categorise that as anything other than a lie?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> four candidates along a spectrum of possibilities?  Nothing unlikely about that


Is that a heuristic way of saying four different parties then? _Spectrum of possibilities_ - ffs 

What you're essentially saying there is that the poster is misleading.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> four candidates along a spectrum of possibilities?  Nothing unlikely about that


 
Four beers versus a coffee is not "a spectrum of possibilities".  It's four things in the same fucking category.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It doesn't pretend to replicate the exact pattern of party political vote distribution.



That's exactly what it does. 

Did the ex-saatchi boss/adviser to Nick Clegg campaign director dream that one up?


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It doesn't pretend to replicate the exact pattern of party political vote distribution.


yes it does - by implying equivalence


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

How about this alternative example?

Candidates standing are:

Nazi Party
National Front
BNP
Extremely Racist Fuckers Party
Nice Happy Love and Peace Party

Exactly the same scenario and percentages as your heuristic device.  Oh look!  Now FPTP returns the Nice Happy Love and Peace Party whilst AV returns the Nazis.  

Is that what you want, a8?  You want the Nazis?  ARE YOU A FUCKING NAZI?


----------



## creak (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> four candidates along a spectrum of possibilities?  Nothing unlikely about that


 
The question posed in the image is different to the conclusion. Asking 'where' do you want to drink is completely different to 'what' you want to drink.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

Not at all - In relation to the Tories then say Labour, Green, TUSC and Respect are all different parties but on a spectrum of progressive possibilities.  So it's not necessarily misleading.  Obviously in most cases there wouldn't be one option versus a spectrum.   But it's not a direct analogy.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

kabbes said:


> How about this alternative example?
> 
> Candidates standing are:
> 
> ...



I would vote for the Nice party.  But if there are more Nazis, surely the more democratic outcome was that the Nazis would win,.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

I'm not taking voting advice from a Nazi.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

Don't be a dickhead.  I wouldn't want the Nazi's to win.  But if the only non-nazi candidate couldn't convince the majority of voters to back them, they shouldn't win.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I would vote for the Nice party.  But if there are more Nazis, surely the more democratic outcome was that the Nazis would win,.


except the point is that kabbes set up a situation which bears no relation to a likely reality, simply to demonstrate that the cuppa/pint argument was just as ridiculous, unlikely and unfeasible


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Silly of me to expect a8 to understand an illustrative heuristic.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 3, 2011)

kabbes said:


> How about this alternative example?
> 
> Candidates standing are:
> 
> ...




Both funny and illustrative of a point.  Well done.


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 3, 2011)

Why don't we just count up the total votes across the country for each party, instead of all this boundary-driven nonsense?


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Why don't we just count up the total votes across the country for each party, instead of all this boundary-driven nonsense?


that can only really be done with the Israeli system i.e. National List


----------



## Zachor (May 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that can only really be done with the Israeli system i.e. National List


 
Agree there and it does seem to produce permanant coalitions with all the compulsory horsetrading that goes on between politicos.  I think it makes for volatile coalitions.


----------



## binka (May 3, 2011)

im voting yes to av because most pubs will serve coffee anyway


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 3, 2011)

binka said:


> im voting yes to av because most pubs will serve coffee anyway


 
Surely thats a reason for voting no?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus christ - i know you're not very political but even you need to ask what's gone wrong when you're forced into allying with moon23 and his brand of right-wing extremism.


 
I note you're allying yourself with Zachor. Strange bedfellows indeed.


----------



## binka (May 3, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Surely thats a reason for voting no?


 
absolutely not im sick of having the coffee nazis imposing their will on the majority of me and my great mates who just want a pint of beer


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I note you're allying yourself with Zachor. Strange bedfellows indeed.


 
On the contrary - a no vote is the only possible electoral way to stop the cuts. That zachor can't see that is neither here nor there. You though, are giving the extremists pro-cuts freaks like moon23 exactly what they want.


----------



## Edie (May 3, 2011)

I guess if you wouldn't vote in an election cos you think the whole system is fuckin corrupt and pointless, it doesn't make any sense to vote in a referendum about how those votes are counted.


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2011)

i guess not. but if you'd do it as a favour to us, a no vote would be appreciated.


----------



## magneze (May 3, 2011)

I'm sticking with my No vote. I'm aware that it'll be misinterpreted, but I'll whip an email off to my MP so I can register what I really want (PR) in the only other way I can.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

ComRes show landslide lead for NO - 32 point lead



> ComRes has a new poll in tomorrow’s Independent, presumably their final call for the AV referendum. Topline referendum voting intention taking into account likelihood to vote and excluding don’t knows and won’t votes stands at YES 34%, NO 66%. 32 points is by far the largest lead we’ve seen for the NO campaign, up from 20 points in the last ComRes poll a week ago.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 3, 2011)

creak said:


> Fucks sake re: that image. In which constituency would you find four candidates standing for the same party?


 
All it would take is the Green Party or UKIP to join the Neo-Liberal consensus and it would effectively be the case in most constituencies.


----------



## kabbes (May 3, 2011)

Don't these people understand?  We're all going to end up drinking coffee!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 3, 2011)

what about tea?


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> a no vote is the only possible electoral way to stop the cuts.


 
Cameron would actively see the Tories invest millions in an outcome that could stop the cuts?  And you say Open Sauce is mad?


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Cameron would actively see the Tories invest millions in an outcome that could stop the cuts?  And you say Open Sauce is mad?


 
He doesn't have any control over how the lib-dems react to the hand grenade rolled into the tent that a NO vote represents - beyond propping up Clegg as far as possible through transparent PR moves. It's not about him or the Tories. 

If you don't see the tensions that this vote is already bringing to the surface and then heightening then you really are the king of the blind. But of course you have to pretend that reality isn't happening as your failing narrative collapses around you.


----------



## articul8 (May 3, 2011)

But surely if he was worried about the effect of a NO vote on the coalition he would have been more guarded in advocating it?  Unless he's happy to see the coalition and the cuts fall?  He knows that a NO vote wouldn't mean jack shit as far as seeing off the cuts or breaking the coalition goes - or, alternatively, at least if the coalition does fall the Tories are best placed to fight the next election.  None of which is remotely positive.

Victory to the Tory millionaires and their anarchist dupes!


----------



## ericjarvis (May 3, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what about tea?


 
Nobody will be drunk enough to vote for the tea party unless a majority vote whisky first.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But surely if he was worried about the effect of a NO vote on the coalition he would have been more guarded in advocating it?  Unless he's happy to see the coalition and the cuts fall?  He knows that a NO vote wouldn't mean jack shit as far as seeing off the cuts or breaking the coalition goes - or, alternatively, at least if the coalition does fall the Tories are best placed to fight the next election.  None of which is remotely positive.
> 
> Victory to the Tory millionaires and their anarchist dupes!


 
And this is why and how you've turned a 20 point lead into a 30 point deficit. 

Cameron had two options - yes or no. He insured against the former by gerrymandering. His party supports the latter and he had to deal with the consequences of that. I'm sure he can see the potential trouble a NO vote would cause him even if you're unable to? But but there's very little he can actually do about it.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2011)

a friend posted me this review - only part way through, but thought it may be of interest here...

http://badconscience.com/2011/04/01/the-day-of-judgement/


----------



## moochedit (May 4, 2011)




----------



## moochedit (May 4, 2011)

> I also genuinely think there were a number of supporters of the Yes cause who thought they wouldn’t need to campaign at all. Where the north London focus groups led, the rest of the country was bound to follow. Swept along on  a wave of liberal intellectual enthusiasm, we would all swarm aboard HMS Purple Revolution.



http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/04/2...ll-you-do-exactly-if-we-defy-you-and-vote-no/



> The No campaign didn’t win the referendum. The Yes campaign lost it.



http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/05/03/the-av-referendum-result/


----------



## shagnasty (May 4, 2011)

One thing is obvious is that cameron was going to play a low key part in the referendum ,but as actually played a big role.i wonder if this will piss of the libdems.


----------



## moochedit (May 4, 2011)

Tory press stick the knife in.... ( all 3 parties will be throwing shit at each other on friday  )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ords-reform-Nick-Clegg.html?ito=feeds-newsxml



> You can forget about Lords reform too, Nick
> 
> It’ll be very hard to trust him again after the way Cameron has behaved over this’, one Clegg confidant declared to me this week. The comment was a sign of just how badly relations at the very top of the Coalition have been damaged by the AV referendum campaign.Clegg’s circle believes that Cameron has broken a promise he made to his Deputy Prime Minister to keep a low profile during the referendum campaign. The idea was to stop the issue, which divides them, from souring the partnership between the two men.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...ilver-lining-to-this-pointless-av-referendum/



> This is, in any case, a great moment for the Conservative cause. Tomorrow, our most precious institution will rejuvenate itself amid an outburst of national pride, exuberance and occasional silliness. Then, next Thursday, we will all get to vote in the referendum on the Alternative Vote. As polls suggest, and as senior figures in the Yes to AV camp privately concede, the first past the post system for electing MPs will almost certainly be preserved, and the constitutional fiddlers sent back to their think tanks to sulk. Campaigning has effectively stopped, drowned out by national festivities and popular indifference.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 4, 2011)

moochedit said:


>


Pity I can't see that.  I could do with a laugh.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Why _wouldn't_ Cameron back No?  He's nothing if not a shrewd politician and was pretty obvious from early on which way the wind was blowing.  It's always good to be associated with success, particularly when your involvement isn't likely to have much effect in any case.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

moochedit said:


>


 
Must be cathartic to rant like that.  I just post here instead.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Still as confident as you ever were in victory then, a8?  Still sure that your approach was the right one and that the message was clear and well-developed?


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

I still think that principle beneficiaries of a No vote will be the Tories.   I never thought that an electoral reform referendum would ideally counterpose just AV to FPTP.  But given these two options, I'm clear that AV is a small but significant step forward - not least in registering a rejection of FPTP and the political status quo.

I don't think the Yes campaign has been all it could have been - but the No campaign has been based on systematic lies and funded almost exclusively by Tory money.  I think that tells its own tale.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

I think that the fact you think that speaks _volumes _about how the YES campaign has seen a 20 point lead turn into a 30 point loss.  You just don't get it and the result has been a total disaster from start to finish.

See, many of us would quite happily vote for AV over FPTP if the rest of the political environment surrounding it was right.  We just don't care that much about this minor tweak; the surrounding politics are the key determinant, not the flavour of FPTP we choose.  This is what you have never addressed, reducing a whole complex raft of issues down to "You're just like the Tories!"  It's demeaning, it's patronising and, crucially, it makes us think you don't even _understand_ the political context, which stops us taking you seriously.  The result is that people have turned off your campaign in droves.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

I'd also note, a8, that (as per usual) butchers precisely predicted _exactly _how this would all go down, and from months and months out to boot.  You'd have been far better off taking his issues and concerns into consideration and looking to address them rather than just loudly proclaiming he was wrong and continuing down the same destructive path.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

Well I think you'll find that there is a common pattern in referenda for the NO camp to pick up momentum in the final few weeks.  The problem was that we didn't have a sufficiently large cushion to begin with.  I think that there is an understandable but mistaken tendency to see current polling on 2nd preferences as being indicative of how people will feel at the next election.  I certainly wouldn't be ruling out a Tory majority at the next election.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

"It wasn't our fault, nothing we could have done, it's just the way it is!"


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> taking his issues and concerns into consideration and looking to address them .


 He has no interest whatsoever in electoral reform, so he's hardly in the best position to advise on how it might be achieved.  It doesn't surprise me that the toxicity of Clegg looks like its been too powerful given the relatively modest benefits of AV (as opposed to PR systems), but I do think the potential significance of the latter has been underestimated.   If we'd had AV Cameron might not be PM, the Tories might not be leading the coalition, and we might have avoided Tory government from 92-97.   But it wasn't framed the way I'd have chosen to frame it (along the New Zealand 2 stage model).


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

It's not just Clegg.  The problem has always been that AV is intrinsically associated with the Lib Dems and the Lib Dems were so obviously going to be horribly unpopular with the electorate.  

The YES campaign needed to utterly disassociate themselves with the Lib Dems.  Essentially, they needed to somehow make it so that a YES would *not* be seen as an endorsement of the Libs' decision to go into bed with the Tories, which the Libs did purely to get this referendum.  The failure to achieve this disassociation is why so many of us feel the need to vote NO to make the point that the Libs' actions were unacceptable.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I note you're allying yourself with Zachor. Strange bedfellows indeed.


christ, you really will never learn how catastrophic this tactic of yours has been, will you?


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

And you're wrong -- if I understand him correctly, butchers would like to see *serious* electoral reform.  He just doesn't see the point in pissing about with a tweak to FPTP that actually does nothing more than reinforce the status quo.

He might not be a lover of PR but that's another issue entirely.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I think that the fact you think that speaks _volumes _about how the YES campaign has seen a 20 point lead turn into a 30 point loss.  You just don't get it and the result has been a total disaster from start to finish.
> 
> See, many of us would quite happily vote for AV over FPTP if the rest of the political environment surrounding it was right.  We just don't care that much about this minor tweak; the surrounding politics are the key determinant, not the flavour of FPTP we choose.  This is what you have never addressed, reducing a whole complex raft of issues down to "You're just like the Tories!"  It's demeaning, it's patronising and, crucially, it makes us think you don't even _understand_ the political context, which stops us taking you seriously.  The result is that people have turned off your campaign in droves.


I couldn't agree with you more


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

What does "Serious electoral reform" mean if it doesn't mean PR?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Edie said:


> I guess if you wouldn't vote in an election cos you think the whole system is fuckin corrupt and pointless, it doesn't make any sense to vote in a referendum about how those votes are counted.


yes it does - because even a system as bad as this can, _possibly_, be saved, by a whole raft of radical reforms (tho', personally, I'd rather have a revolution)


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What does "Serious electoral reform" mean if it doesn't mean PR?


 
Seriously?  You think that exactly the same parliamentary system but just with a different way of getting essentially the same people into power consistutes "serious electoral reform"?  I think you're suffering from an imagination deficit there.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

I mean, I _want_ PR, but I still see it as a stepping stone on a path to _proper_ parliamentary reform.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Ed Milliband interview with John Humphreys on R4 this morning on AV - scroll down this link for transcript/details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/04/politics-blog-pmqs-live


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What does "Serious electoral reform" mean if it doesn't mean PR?


 
Democracy in the workplace.
Random selection for the upper house.
Open primaries.

To give just three examples.


----------



## Ozric (May 4, 2011)

Anyone voting No because they want full PR is cutting of their nose to spite their face.
A No vote will mean the No crowd will harp on that this is a vote for FPTP and that there is no need for electoral reform.


----------



## magneze (May 4, 2011)

Proper LOL moment at the end.


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> Anyone voting No because they want full PR is cutting of their nose to spite their face.
> A No vote will mean the No crowd will harp on that this is a vote for FPTP and that there is no need for electoral reform.


 
Fuck AV and fuck PR and fuck FPTP.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Seriously?  You think that exactly the same parliamentary system but just with a different way of getting essentially the same people into power consistutes "serious electoral reform"?  I think you're suffering from an imagination deficit there.


 
Hold on a minute you are conflating electoral reform with political reform tout court - of course there is more to change than the voting system!!!  But Butchers doesn't care about that at all...


----------



## Ozric (May 4, 2011)

Santino said:


> Fuck AV and fuck PR and fuck FPTP.



...and fuck reform?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> Anyone voting No because they want full PR is cutting of their nose to spite their face.
> A No vote will mean the No crowd will harp on that this is a vote for FPTP and that there is no need for electoral reform.


so argue the case FOR PR and AGAINST AV


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> Anyone voting No because they want full PR is cutting of their nose to spite their face.
> A No vote will mean the No crowd will harp on that this is a vote for FPTP and that there is no need for electoral reform.



Whereas, as Ed Milliband said on his R4 interview this morning, a vote for AV would be an end for a call for PR as AV is "enough", hence, er no need for further electoral reform.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

A rejection of FPTP for AV would be a greater step towards PR than a vote to keep FPTP.


----------



## Ozric (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> so argue the case FOR PR and AGAINST AV


 
If we don't get a change soon PR will never happen so as I see it currently the argument is for change.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A rejection of FPTP for AV would be a greater step towards PR than a vote to keep FPTP.



But Labour don't want to do that, and the Lib Dems haven't said they would pursue PR from AV either  - Clegg was pressed on this on R4 the other day and completely dodged the question.

The three mainstream parties simply won't countenance PR in this country as things stand at present - they're happy with the way things are sewn up here, and AV's minor tinkling (coupled with Cameron's forthcoming constituency boundary-changing gerrymandering) will keep the show on the road.  Post referendum, keep your eyes on whether Clegg will fight the boundary changes - he's "in charge of the election process", remember.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> If we don't get a change soon PR will never happen so as I see it currently the argument is for change.


yes it can, and will, provided
a) you respect the electorate's intelligence
and
b) you run the right campaign


----------



## fractionMan (May 4, 2011)

I've had running arguments with liberal hippies on facebook over this.  Having wet simpletons call me a tory is actually rather fun, considering how easy it is to demolish.


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> If we don't get a change soon PR will never happen so as I see it currently the argument is for change.


 
Yes, that's how life works. Opportunity for reform gradually diminishes through entropy. If only the establishment could have prevented women from getting the vote for a while longer, that issue would have gone away.

In other words, WTF are you chatting about?


----------



## strung out (May 4, 2011)

*Q Would a vote for AV be the end of electoral reform?
*
Yes, says Miliband. "That's the system I want."


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A rejection of FPTP for AV would be a greater step towards PR than a vote to keep FPTP.


 
So you keep saying.  And we're saying, "Yeah?  Prove it.  Because we disagree."


----------



## fractionMan (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> A rejection of FPTP for AV would be a greater step towards PR than a vote to keep FPTP.


 
balls.  you keep saying it but it's pure speculation.  

It could just as easily work the other way around (not that they'll ever give us PR)


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Hold on a minute you are conflating electoral reform with political reform tout court


So in your head, these are separate things?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

The pro-AV Independents headline to this Comres poll they commissioned that puts NO 32% ahead:

*



			Yes campaign makes its final push for victory
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)




----------



## fractionMan (May 4, 2011)

jesus christ.  who are these people that can say black is white so glibly?


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> So in your head, these are separate things?


 
Do you want a Venn diagram?  Electoral reform is one sub-set of political reform more generally.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

From the Indie article mentioned by butchersapron:



> The Yes camp hopes for a last-minute change of heart among Labour supporters. Neal Lawson, chair of the democratic left group Compass, *warned that Mr Brown's administration "could well have been the last Labour government*". He said: "Labour supporters have just 24 hours to wake up and start to change the future of politics. The outcome of this referendum is in Labour's hands."



No scaremongering there from the Yes to AV people there, eh?  What next - "People who vote No to AV are all Tories and racists."?


----------



## ExtraRefined (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The pro-AV Independents headline to this Comres poll they commissioned that puts NO 32% ahead:
> 
> 
> 
> > Yes campaign makes its final push for victory


 
So _that's_ where the Iraqi information minister works these days!


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Do you want a Venn diagram?  Electoral reform is one sub-set of political reform more generally.


 
Exactly.  So it's a reasonable stance to view messing about with the voting system as missing the (literally) bigger picture.  It doesn't mean you *don't want* electoral reform (your claim), it just means you view it as relatively meaningless in the grander scheme of things.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

I've never claimed that AV was more important than politically defeating the cuts agenda, and changing the whole structure of politics that locked it in place.  But I see FPTP as a key strategic obstacle to the emergence of a viable left alternative.  AV wouldn't resolve this overnight by any means - but by disaggregating 1st preference votes it will at least allow people to make an initial break from the main parties (which could be sustained under PR, or allow for more effective targetting at local level).


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

What's that got to do with your claim that butchers doesn't want electoral reform?


----------



## gosub (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Do you want a Venn diagram?  Electoral reform is one sub-set of political reform more generally.


 
YES just spent a month arguing that AV will reform politics as well as voting.


----------



## gosub (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I've never claimed that AV was more important than politically defeating the cuts agenda, and changing the whole structure of politics that locked it in place.  But I see FPTP as a key strategic obstacle to the emergence of a viable left alternative.  AV wouldn't resolve this overnight by any means - but by disaggregating 1st preference votes it will at least allow people to make an initial break from the main parties (which could be sustained under PR, or allow for more effective targetting at local level).


 
Anybody want to go through and find the instances where YES is thebest way of splitting the co-eletion.

What is going on here? is YES going forget all the shit we came out with and I take you down the pub


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What's that got to do with your claim that butchers doesn't want electoral reform?



He doesn't?


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Maybe butchers can tell us whether he is actively against electoral reform or just thinks it's pissing in the wind.  I'm not going to speak any more for him when he speaks so much better for himself.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

I'm quite prepared to argue for and support changes to the electoral system on a purely instrumental basis (or even implicit participation at times - see the general election in Spain 36) - if they help achieve the sort of politics i support. By the same token i'm prepared to oppose changes that that i think will damage those politics on that same instrumental basis - or to put it another way, i'll evaluate things politically. This AV vote falls into the latter of these two - i don't think the change would make things better, i think it would make things worse and much more importantly, it will facilitate the attacks on the welfare state, the cuts and all the other priority issues. 

I know that the YES campaign are quite keen to reduce this issue down to whether you for or against _electoral reform_ full stop and shear off all context and wider issues - but i don't think they've managed to convince many that this is the way to approach this - certainly not me.


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2011)

Have failed to find an image of the Liberal campaign slogan from (I think) 1929, "One Last Push", to illustrate the Yes campaign.


----------



## strung out (May 4, 2011)

anyone for David Maciver's 'perfect' voting system? http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/04/a-perfect-voting-system/

basically, you vote the same as you do already under FPTP, then each constituency picks one voter at random and uses their vote to decide who gets elected.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

strung out said:


> anyone for David Maciver's 'perfect' voting system? http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/04/a-perfect-voting-system/
> 
> basically, you vote the same as you do already under FPTP, then each constituency picks one voter at random and uses their vote to decide who gets elected.


 
Reminds me of an Asimov short story in which the voting system had all been boiled down to asking one carefully chosen representative voter who he wants to vote for.  IIRC, it was called "Franchise" and he wrote it in 1955.  I am very ashamed that I remember that.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Awesome, I just looked it up.  I was spot on!

One thing my memory had let me down on, though, is that the story is set in 2008!


----------



## fractionMan (May 4, 2011)

strung out said:


> anyone for David Maciver's 'perfect' voting system? http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/04/a-perfect-voting-system/
> 
> basically, you vote the same as you do already under FPTP, then each constituency picks one voter at random and uses their vote to decide who gets elected.


 
I love the dialogue at the bottom.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Awesome, I just looked it up.  I was spot on!
> 
> One thing my memory had let me down on, though, is that the story is set in 2008!


 two years out then, not bad. was the representative called Nick?


----------



## fractionMan (May 4, 2011)

The wikipedia entry even mentions Asimov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> The wikipedia entry even mentions Asimov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot


 


Asimov was there first, always.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> it will facilitate the attacks on the welfare state, the cuts and all the other priority issues.


 
The State needs AV to do that? I hardly think so.  There would have been cracks opening up in the coalition irrespective of the outcome - but it looks like being one of those counterfactuals.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The State needs AV to do that? I hardly think so.  There would have been cracks opening up in the coalition irrespective of the outcome - but it looks like being one of those counterfactuals.


 
I didn't say that it _needs_ AV to do that. Stop doing this shit. 

A stable coalition _helps_ it to do that - the _prospect_ of a NO vote is already destabilising it. You claim there would have been cracks appearing whatever - i'm not sure there would have been, but what i am sure of, is that a NO vote will _widen_ the cracks and YES vote allows them to be papered over - it hands Clegg the ability to point to a concrete victory to dissenters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2011)

Zachor said:


> I think that there are ways to make FPTP better, different sized consituencies for example or compulsory voting (to reduce the adverse impacts of low turnouts) are just two that I can think of at the moment.


Re-definition of constituency boundaries has been going on for two centuries. It doesn't improve FPTP, and compulsory voting means that your franchise becomes an imposition on the individual, rather than a choice.



> As  a Tory I'm pleased to see the back of Gordon Brown's incompetent administration but less pleased to see the immense influence the Lib Dems appear to have in Government especially in areas such as reducing the size and intrusiivness of the state.



As a tory you're still entirely deluded about the political process. That much is obvious from your fantasy that the Lib-Dems exercise any power in the coalition.



> Also as an observer of politics in the State of Israel it worries me to see that Israel's proportional system has given undue influence to the Charadi religious parties and other smaller parties.



You're not an observer, you're a partisan. Israel's system is one most political scientists would agree is "fair" (the system itself, that is). 

The religious and other small parties have influence because they tend to form "swing" components in the formation of coalitions. This is because the system was constructed to maximise the ideological "spread" of any coalition, in order to ensure that even the extremes felt enfranchised.



> It's horrific to think that under a future AV election for Parliament the major parties could be held to ransom by extremists such as the BNP and the Greens who may only have won a few seats but will have immense power to decide who gets to govern.



Quantify this "immense power", please.



> The uncertainty of the result (fptp has only delivered a couple of Coalitions in decades) and the prospect of permanent coalitions that give undue influence to some pretty unsavoury characthers makes me want to retain our current voting system.
> 
> No to AV on Thursday.


 
No, not for your ill-informed reasons, but because neither AV nor FPTP are fit systems, even if they're modified.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> Anyone voting No because they want full PR is cutting of their nose to spite their face.
> A No vote will mean the No crowd will harp on that this is a vote for FPTP and that there is no need for electoral reform.


 
It's irrelevant. What we need is proper representation where the electorate have a meaningful choice. That means regardless of the system, we must get to choose our representative. So what matters is not PR, AV or FPTP, but the ability of the system to allow us a proper choice.

PR will be an improvement if it is a form of PR that allows the voter to choose specific candidates. If it's a form of PR based solely on voting for a party then it will be a step further away from meaningful democracy than the current system.

AV is inevitably, a step away from meaningful democracy. Even the yes campaign admit that it favours middle ground candidates (except when they are arguing with somebody who supports a party outside the consensus, in which case they seem to be arguing that it only works against extremists at the other end of the spectrum) which basically means that the choice will be narrowed as parties crowd into the middle ground.

AV is not a step towards PR. It is a step in completely the wrong direction for anyone who wants to see plurality in British politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> If we don't get a change soon PR will never happen so as I see it currently the argument is for change.


 
So, to avoid being forced to eat an electoral shit sandwich, you're up for eating an electoral shit sandwich garnished with some flat-leaf parsley.

Enjoy!


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Reminds me of an Asimov short story in which the voting system had all been boiled down to asking one carefully chosen representative voter who he wants to vote for.  IIRC, it was called "Franchise" and he wrote it in 1955.  I am very ashamed that I remember that.


I really do have to ask - are ALL actuaries as sad and anal as you? 
I mean, does it go with the territory?


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

I'm considered dangerously anarchic


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

Ozric said:


> If we don't get a change soon PR will never happen so as I see it currently the argument is for change.


 
If nobody bothers to make a more coherent argument than "PR is better" then it certainly won't happen. If nobody can be bothered to explain what sort of PR they want and how it will be an improvement then it shouldn't happen. PR is not some sort of magic word that you can just shout in order to fix everything.

Frankly I think the level of thought that underlies most of this thread shows that even amongst a very politically literate group of people there isn't really much effort going into thinking about electoral reform. Without a lot more careful thought going into the debate I really don't think we are in a fit state to change anything, because I don't think many have a clue what they want or what electoral system might lead to it.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It's not just Clegg.  The problem has always been that AV is intrinsically associated with the Lib Dems and the Lib Dems were so obviously going to be horribly unpopular with the electorate.
> 
> The YES campaign needed to utterly disassociate themselves with the Lib Dems.  Essentially, they needed to somehow make it so that a YES would *not* be seen as an endorsement of the Libs' decision to go into bed with the Tories, which the Libs did purely to get this referendum.  The failure to achieve this disassociation is why so many of us feel the need to vote NO to make the point that the Libs' actions were unacceptable.


 
Actually it goes beyond that. AV intrinsically favours a party like the Lib Dems that actively tries to be all things to all men. It favours a party that tries to be non-controversial regardless of what policies are necessary. It favours parties that determinedly stake out a place in the centre ground. AV is a system purpose designed for those who simply want the electorate to feel they have a choice without actually giving them anything meaningful to choose between.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Actually it goes beyond that. AV intrinsically favours a party like the Lib Dems that actively tries to be all things to all men. It favours a party that tries to be non-controversial regardless of what policies are necessary. It favours parties that determinedly stake out a place in the centre ground. AV is a system purpose designed for those who simply want the electorate to feel they have a choice without actually giving them anything meaningful to choose between.


very true - AV is for the vanilla beige party.
except we now know they're really blue.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Actually, further to eric's last post, AV is a system tailormade for when big business, the establishment etc have a common interest in, and need to shift the centre ground rightwards, as it makes the 3 main parties acquiescence in this process that much more likely


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

And they're off - Chris Huhne gets all uppity and stuff in a cabinet meeting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/03/av-referendum-row-cabinet-smears

One of his quotes is:



> Huhne did not consult Nick Clegg before his demarche and defended his role in the confrontation. "I think these have been unacceptable leaflets," he said. "In any other walk of life such behaviour would be seen as nasty, personal and vindictive."



Really?  This coming from the party who, in the Millwall council elections of 1993, put out a leaflet that was slammed for being blatantly racist, and contributed to an atmosphere that led to the election of the BNP's Derek Beackon.

Back on topic - nice to see Huhne et al getting so het up about AV when they've been all sweetness and light with the Tories on cuts, NHS, student loans etc etc.  Shows they've got their prioirities just right, eh?


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2011)

When is this?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> And they're off - Chris Huhne gets all uppity and stuff in a cabinet meeting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/03/av-referendum-row-cabinet-smears
> 
> One of his quotes is:
> 
> ...


 
He's also the man who did this:


Senior Lib Dem in hypocrisy shocker!


----------



## Random (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I really do have to ask - are ALL actuaries as sad and anal as you?
> I mean, does it go with the territory?


 
I'm not an actuary and I also remember that story. Clarly it's a Barnet thing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Polls for last referendum:

1975 EEC Referendum, I remember it well…



> Result 67%/33% on the day
> 
> MORI 67%/33%
> Gallup 68%/33%
> ...


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Random said:


> I'm not an actuary and I also remember that story. Clarly it's a Barnet thing.


 
BEES bees bees bees BEES


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

The Cats video's far more persuasive than anything else I've seen in the YES campaign, including the arguments put forward on this thread.



The arguments only work in some purist political landscape that only exists in the minds of voting theory academics of course, so I'm still voting NO.


----------



## Belushi (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I really do have to ask - are ALL actuaries as sad and anal as you?
> I mean, does it go with the territory?


 
Entirely coincidentally an actuary is the hero of one of the entries in the Spring writing contest


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

I am looking forward to finding out who wrote that entry.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'm considered dangerously anarchic


ye holy gods. mind, i understand the barnet thing - not much to do there etc etc....


----------



## Belushi (May 4, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I am looking forward to finding out who wrote that entry.


 
Read all the way to the end and you'll see.


----------



## kabbes (May 4, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Read all the way to the end and you'll see.


 
I did read to the end? 

I saw it was posted by you but I assumed they were all posted by you.


----------



## Voley (May 4, 2011)

Wasn't going to vote but NO has swayed me now simply because there's a miniscule possibility I might see Nick Clegg cry.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 4, 2011)




----------



## DotCommunist (May 4, 2011)

NVP said:


> Wasn't going to vote but NO has swayed me now simply because there's a miniscule possibility I might see Nick Clegg cry.


 
tbh this is why I am expecting 'no' to win. because even people who don't give a fuck either way are encouraged by a chance to smite clegg for his sins.


----------



## andy2002 (May 4, 2011)

NVP said:


> Wasn't going to vote but NO has swayed me now simply because there's a miniscule possibility I might see Nick Clegg cry.



I wasn't going to vote either but I've done a bit more reading about AV in recent days and will be putting my cross in the NO box. The YES campaign has been shit and it's going to lose – Clegg's tears would just be a very welcome bonus.


----------



## binka (May 4, 2011)

im loving all the yes people having a fit about losing the vote. they're acting as if this is the most important issue since womens suffrage when i bet a year ago 99% of them had never even heard of av


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> tbh this is why I am expecting 'no' to win. because even people who don't give a fuck either way are encouraged by a chance to smite clegg for his sins.



Yes, Clegg should have had the sense to stay well away from the yes campaign although there wasn't much he could do about the no campaign using him on their leaflets (along with babies in incubators). 

The conservatives, and I don't just mean the tories, are likely to get their way tomorrow which is a shame. A no vote is likely to leave us stuck with fptp for generations to come.


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

Seeing as, in practice, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between the two shitty systems, I can't quite understand why anyone on either side of the debate is that incensed about it.

AV is probably slightly worse, which is one reason I'm voting no.  The other is that Clegg's a skidmark.  But the only thing that stirs my emotions much at all about any of it, is the frustration at seeing people getting evangelical about AV being 'fairer' and other such misinformed nonsense.  It's the same feeling of frustration I get when hearing people sincerely parroting government lies about the 'necessity' of reducing the deficit, and any other context where people have been gulled by the state.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

binka said:


> im loving all the yes people having a fit about losing the vote. they're acting as if this is the most important issue since womens suffrage when i bet a year ago 99% of them had never even heard of av



Er, no. Getting rid of fptp and replacing it with something fairer is important but obviously not as important as universal sufferage. Personally I've been banging on about it to anyone who'd listen since about 1981.


----------



## binka (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Er, no. Getting rid of fptp and replacing it with something fairer is important but obviously not as important as universal sufferage. Personally I've been banging on about it to anyone who'd listen since about 1981.


 
youve been banging on about av since 1981?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

'No', because it is a so-minimal-as-to-be-meaningless change that entrenches the 'big 3' further and does zero to make British politics more pluralistic, plus 'no' kicks the orange book faction very hard indeed


----------



## Open Sauce (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can you really not keep track of your own posts? Of your own arguments? Of the reasons you've so forcefully put forward for voting YES to AV? OK, try this one for starters:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to get you to defend it for over 12 hours now. All i've got is an example that you have now disowned. Give it a go.



You logic is I stated a left wing candidate could win, Scargill is a left wing candidate, therefore I explicitly said Scargill would win - it is the logic of a three year old. 

You stated I claims Scargill would win, I never, you know that.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

binka said:


> youve been banging on about av since 1981?



I've been banging on about electoral change since around then yes. AV was never my favourite system but now we've been given a choice of two I'd certainly choose AV over FPTP.


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I've been banging on about electoral change since around then yes. AV was never my favourite system but now we've been given a choice of two I'd certainly choose AV over FPTP.


 
I don't understand why.  It's not PR in any way, shape or form, and as Streathamite succinctly put it on the other thread: "It keeps smaller parties locked out, funnels votes to the big 3, encourages the tories to use dog-whistle tactics over race, immigration and europe".

Change is good just because it's change?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

thank'ee corax


----------



## weltweit (May 4, 2011)

So, the big day approaches.. 

I hope you all know you have to do the right thing! 

Nothing less than a correct vote will suffice

And afterwards you can all bask in the glory of having acted correctly! 

Go ye out and VOTE!!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> I don't understand why.  It's not PR in any way, shape or form, and as Streathamite succinctly put it on the other thread: "It keeps smaller parties locked out, funnels votes to the big 3, encourages the tories to use dog-whistle tactics over race, immigration and europe".
> 
> Change is good just because it's change?



FPTP already keeps smaller parties locked out and already favours the big 2, let alone the big 3.

As usual it's easy to criticise AV but not many people can actually tell us why FPTP is a good system.......except Cameron with his patronising "It's easy to understand" mantra.

And no it's not PR but we're not being given that choice. A decisive no vote will mean FPTP for generations to come.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2011)

No it won't.


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> FPTP already keeps smaller parties locked out and already favours the big 2, let alone the big 3.
> 
> As usual it's easy to criticise AV but not many people can actually tell us why FPTP is a good system.......except Cameron with his patronising "It's easy to understand" mantra.


 
I don't think anyone on here is claiming FPTP is a good system.



Andrew Hertford said:


> And no it's not PR but we're not being given that choice. A decisive no vote will mean FPTP for generations to come.



No it won't.  A rejection of AV is a rejection of AV, not an endorsement of FPTP.

Whereas if the voting system is changed, that in itself can and will be used as a trump card to prevent any further change for 'generations to come'.


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, the big day approaches..
> 
> I hope you all know you have to do the right thing!
> 
> ...



Fuck off.


----------



## Karac (May 4, 2011)

Vote yes as its a slightly less crap system than the one we have now.
Plus all the Tory bellends are vehemently opposed to it


----------



## lighterthief (May 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> No it won't.  A rejection of AV is a rejection of AV, not an endorsement of FPTP.


It's an implicit acceptance that FPTP is better though.


----------



## Santino (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Vote yes as its a slightly less crap system than the one we have now.
> Plus all the Tory bellends are vehemently opposed to it


 
Slightly less crap in what way exactly?


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> It's an implicit acceptance that FPTP is better though.


But it's not an endorsement of it, in preference to a proper PR system for example.

But with a YES vote, PR will never be put on the table in our lifetimes, because:



Corax said:


> Whereas if the voting system is changed, that in itself can and will be used as a trump card to prevent any further change for 'generations to come'.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> 'No', because it is a so-minimal-as-to-be-meaningless change that entrenches the 'big 3' further and does zero to make British politics more pluralistic, plus 'no' kicks the orange book faction very hard indeed


 
Then why the Tories urging people to vote No? I don't get it they must know something that we haven't yet picked up on...


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Vote yes as its a slightly less crap system than the one we have now.


 
It's not even that though.  It'll result in sweet FA independents and minor party MPs.


----------



## lighterthief (May 4, 2011)

Pure speculation.  I'd say it's more likely a no vote will keep the door closed for longer <shrugs>


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Then why the Tories urging people to vote No? I don't get it they must know something that we haven't yet picked up on...


 
They have to look like they are vehemently against it to give any sort of value to the 'concession' that they made to the LDs.  To do otherwise would be to publicise the fact that they've got Clegg and co to prop them up in exchange for absolutely nothing of any worth.  By fighting against AV, the referendum becomes something of value that they've given away in exchange for orange-book support.

It's spin.


----------



## Karac (May 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> It's not even that though.  It'll result in sweet FA independents and minor party MPs.


Like we have loads now


----------



## Karac (May 4, 2011)

sorry no quote


----------



## Refused as fuck (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Plus all the Tory bellends are vehemently opposed to it


 
If No wins Nick Clegg might top himself. This is only valid reason to vote either way.


----------



## Karac (May 4, 2011)

Santino said:


> Slightly less crap in what way exactly?


Less crap in that well have less Tories


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Less crap in that well have less Tories


 
Sigh...the Lib Dems are doing a grand job out Tory-ing the Conservatives - their Orange Book bible is a triumph of neo-liberalism.  You think that they'd start being a progressive anti-cuts party just because they'd get their way with a voting system that's been proved (as per the Australia example) to be equally as piss-poor as FPTP?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

Corax said:


> I don't think anyone on here is claiming FPTP is a good system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But there's no getting away from the fact that a no vote will be interpreted as an endorsement for FPTP, a rejection of changing the system. 

You may be right that a yes vote might also draw a line under the whole question of electoral change, who knows, but I think that that is far more likely if we don't take this opportunity to change it now. Not to mention that we'd end up with a better system anyway.


----------



## FreddyB (May 4, 2011)

It's all over now, the vote's tomorrow, it's going to be no and the Libdems are going to cry.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes, Clegg should have had the sense to stay well away from the yes campaign although there wasn't much he could do about the no campaign using him on their leaflets (along with babies in incubators).
> 
> The conservatives, and I don't just mean the tories, are likely to get their way tomorrow which is a shame. A no vote is likely to leave us stuck with fptp for generations to come.



As is is a YES vote. 2/12 hours to got and you still don't get it. Make the case otherwise - you might convince some waverers.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> You logic is I stated a left wing candidate could win, Scargill is a left wing candidate, therefore I explicitly said Scargill would win - it is the logic of a three year old.
> 
> You stated I claims Scargill would win, I never, you know that.


Oh you're back. Any chance of defending this madness



> Consider a safe labour seat in a Northern ex-industrial town, labour can parachute in anyone with a red rosette and be elected under FPTP, under AV an non Nu-labour candidate can stand and have a good chance of being elected.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> FPTP already keeps smaller parties locked out and already favours the big 2, let alone the big 3.
> 
> As usual it's easy to criticise AV but not many people can actually tell us why FPTP is a good system.......except Cameron with his patronising "It's easy to understand" mantra.
> 
> And no it's not PR but we're not being given that choice. A decisive no vote will mean FPTP for generations to come.



AV is far harder for parties not of the mainstream to breakthrough - it raises the threshold from around 35% to around 50% and funnels non-mainstream votes to the big three. You should be rejecting AV if you believe in your own logic. But you don't do you? You've been mugged by the words 'change' 'fairer' and 'electoral reform'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

I'm voting NO because AV is slightly more crap then FPTP.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As is is a YES vote. 2/12 hours to got and you still don't get it. Make the case otherwise - you might convince some waverers.



What, a yes vote also means we'll be stuck with fptp for generations to come? Is this you trying to pretend that the two systems are exactly the same?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What, a yes vote also means we'll be stuck with fptp for generations to come? Is this you trying to pretend that the two systems are exactly the same?


 
Make a case for your argument. You haven't. 

What you _have_ done is fuck up any possibility of top-down electoral reform towards PR (your favoured option)  forever by a) voting lib-dem and B) voting YES. You fucked it up for everyone -and you're still doing it now by conflating electoral reform with AV. You damaging damaging clown


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What, a yes vote also means we'll be stuck with fptp for generations to come? Is this you trying to pretend that the two systems are exactly the same?


 
Yes, it will mean that. The two systems are substantially the same and i don't need to argue that to make the former point. What's wrong with you?


----------



## Winot (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make a case for your argument. You haven't.
> 
> What you _have_ done is fuck up any possibility of top-down electoral reform towards PR (your favoured option)  forever by a) voting lib-dem and B) voting YES. You fucked it up for everyone -and you're still doing it now by conflating electoral reform with AV. You damaging damaging clown


 
Has probably been posted upthread already, but this is very good:

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Last call -36% lead for NO:

AV poll indicates crushing defeat for yes campaign



> Voters look set to deal a crushing blow to Nick Clegg by rejecting the alternative vote by a two to one majority, an end of campaign Guardian/ICM poll shows.
> 
> The survey predicts a 68% no vote against just 32% for yes and, in line with other recent polls, suggests support for electoral change has slumped further since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead. The lead then was 16 points, compared with 36 now.
> 
> That suggests the campaign has been overwhelmingly lost by the Yes to AV alliance, which began the year with an apparent lead in the polls. In February, a Guardian/ICM poll put the yes camp ahead by two points


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Winot said:


> Has probably been posted upthread already, but this is very good:
> 
> http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/



There's one major-league blunder with that blog post - yer man argues against FPTP for not being proportionate, then suggests that AV be adopted, even though it's not proportionate.  And his major contention tht AV discourages tactical voting is blown out of the water by an Australian commenter, who provides a real-life example to illustrate that AV is used tactically.  Finally, he is labouring under the impression that Labour ar a progresive party - nah, that went out wih Neil Kinnock.  Very flawed analysis, made worse by trying to blind the reader with over-complicated mathematics.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> AV is far harder for parties not of the mainstream to breakthrough - it raises the threshold from around 35% to around 50% and funnels non-mainstream votes to the big three. You should be rejecting AV if you believe in your own logic. But you don't do you? You've been mugged by the words 'change' 'fairer' and 'electoral reform'.



You prefer the threshold stay around 35% do you?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Make a case for your argument. You haven't.
> 
> What you _have_ done is fuck up any possibility of top-down electoral reform towards PR (your favoured option)  forever by a) voting lib-dem and B) voting YES. You fucked it up for everyone -and you're still doing it now by conflating electoral reform with AV. You damaging damaging clown



So much for civilised discussion, here comes old butch like some mouthy pissed bloke at a party. Am I really expected to respond to such drivel?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So much for civilised discussion, here comes old butch like some mouthy pissed bloke at a party. Am I really expected to respond to such drivel?


 
You're expected to at the very least make a case for your argument. You haven't. Can you?

That above post was perfectly clear. It wasn't drivel, it made a number of points - you ignored them all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You prefer the threshold stay around 35% do you?


 
Yes, i do - and lower. You want to make it harder for Lucas and others to win seats do you?


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2011)

yougov is predicting 60/40


----------



## Karac (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Sigh...the Lib Dems are doing a grand job out Tory-ing the Conservatives - their Orange Book bible is a triumph of neo-liberalism.  You think that they'd start being a progressive anti-cuts party just because they'd get their way with a voting system that's been proved (as per the Australia example) to be equally as piss-poor as FPTP?


 
Thats not the issue is it?
The Lib dems are obviously a pile of crap-but any voting system that is more democratic than the one we have now is more progressive?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Thats not the issue is it?
> The Lib dems are obviously a pile of crap-but any voting system that is more democratic than the one we have now is more progressive?


 
So argue why it is for fucks sake.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Thats not the issue is it?
> The Lib dems are obviously a pile of crap-but any voting system that is more democratic than the one we have now is more progressive?


 
But the thing is (as I've waffled on about at tedious length here) it isn't - it's not proportionate, it's proven (as per Australia) that parties like the Greens etc don't benefit from it (look at how Liberal and Labour has ruled the roost in Aus for the past eternity), if anything it increases tactical voting (2nd/3rd preferences being used for this) - so leaving us with the same problem we have with that now, and it does nothing to break the cosy status quo of the three parties we have now (who all have pretty much the same policies on all the areas of life that affect us all - all that differs is their sales pitches).  Result of AV?  Lib Dems get a few more seats (probably not more than 10-15 extra at tops, I understand)  Big deal -that's all we need, more Orange Tories offering "change".  That's not progressive to me, that's more of the same shite we've got alerady.


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

I like the idea of being able to vote for everyone except my current MP, and being able to leave him out altogether. if AV gives me the chance to vote against someone, by letting me vote for everyone else, then it gets the thumbs up from me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Just don't vote for him, or cast a vote against him - you don't need AV to do that.


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

AV will ensure my vote against him will be counted though - whoever his main competitor is when it's down to the final two


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> AV will ensure my vote against him will be counted though - whoever his main competitor is when it's down to the final two


 
No it won't. FPTP is the only system that will do that.


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Last call -36% lead for NO:


 
It's been turned into a referendum on Clegg.  Understandable but nevertheless - it will be used by Tories as evidence that people are happy with FPTP.  I don't see PR being on the agenda for the Commons for another 20 years at least.

Tories have played a blinder, now they have their gerrymander through without the bit they wanted to avoid at all costs.


----------



## strung out (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't see PR being on the agenda for the Commons for another 20 years at least.


 
that's a lot sooner than if the yes vote wins


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's been turned into a referendum on Clegg.  Understandable but nevertheless - it will be used by Tories as evidence that people are happy with FPTP.  I don't see PR being on the agenda for the Commons for another 20 years at least.
> 
> Tories have played a blinder, now they have their gerrymander through without the bit they wanted to avoid at all costs.



What do you mean NOW they have their gerrymander - it's the whole basis of what and why you're been working for them and that you're now trying to walk way from. It was the whole basis of their lib-dem/tory lash up - that you dare called people tory stooges...

Take some responsibility.

You raised more than the NO campaign didn't you?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's been turned into a referendum on Clegg.  Understandable but nevertheless - it will be used by Tories as evidence that people are happy with FPTP.  I don't see PR being on the agenda for the Commons for another 20 years at least.
> 
> Tories have played a blinder, now they have their gerrymander through without the bit they wanted to avoid at all costs.



It wasn't turned into - it was always going to be  - your millionaire clegg lib-dem advisor head of saatchi *Campaign Director* manged to miss that -  i wonder why? _I like the lib-dems other people do too!_


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Karac said:


> Plus all the Tory bellends are vehemently opposed to it


and all the libdemtory bellends are in favour. so?
I can make my own mind up, thank you, without the comfort blanket of seeing all the 'right' people around me


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> without the bit they wanted to avoid at all costs.


 
My arse.  They don't give a toss either way.


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it won't. FPTP is the only system that will do that.


 
no - in the current system (FPTP) - someone can get elected despite more people voting against them than for them.

e.g. a low turnout first round result of 5 voters for 4 partys

Stephen Gilbert Party - 2 votes
Stephen Gilbert is a liar Party - 1 vote
Stephen Gilbert is a criminal Party - 1 vote
Stephen Gilbert is a liar and a criminal Party - 1 vote

Under the FPTP system Stephen Gilbert gets elected again, under AV he'd be out.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> FPTP already keeps smaller parties locked out and already favours the big 2, let alone the big 3.


So AV's big contribution is a legup to those yellow scumbags. No thanks.



> As usual it's easy to criticise AV but not many people can actually tell us why FPTP is a good system.......except Cameron with his patronising "It's easy to understand" mantra.


precisely - I don't want EITHER system. at all, and I'm not convinced a system as poor as AV will lead to true PR


> A decisive no vote will mean FPTP for generations to come


no it won't - a hung parliament, a liblab coalition and proper PR is right back in the frame


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> no - in the current system (FPTP) - someone can get elected despite more people voting against them than for them.
> 
> e.g. a low turnout first round result of 5 voters for 4 partys
> 
> ...



Why?


----------



## articul8 (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean NOW they have their gerrymander - it's the whole basis of what and why you're been working for them and that you're now trying to walk way from. It was the whole basis of their lib-dem/tory lash up - that you dare called people tory stooges...
> 
> Take some responsibility.
> 
> You raised more than the NO campaign didn't you?



Not at all.  I argued that the Bill ought to be split and that there was no way I would have voted for it as it stood (with the gerrymander).  But once it had passed, the AV element was worth pursuing.

No to AV spent much more - they haven't disclosed money/secondees from official Tory party.  

But yes, if AV was put to the public in different circumstances the result might well have been different.  I'm not going to defend the campaign leadership though - they fucked up on a number of fronts.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> no - in the current system (FPTP) - someone can get elected despite more people voting against them than for them.
> 
> e.g. a low turnout first round result of 5 voters for 4 partys
> 
> ...


not necessarily - it depends on second prefs, and beside which that scenario is so unlikely as to be not worth taking seriously. Please tell me the last time a parly seat was contested when all the candidates baer one campaignede explicitly against that one candidate, in concert


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> no - in the current system (FPTP) - someone can get elected despite more people voting against them than for them.
> 
> e.g. a low turnout first round result of 5 voters for 4 partys
> 
> ...



How many parliamentary and local electons are decided  by 5 people in total voting?  Not a good example for what your trying to illustrate at all.  Try using real-life parties with real-life voting statistics to make your case.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> without the bit they wanted to avoid at all costs.


no they didn't, Cameron's so much craftier than you, all he needed to do was to keep his backwoods halfwits mollified, regardless of the result


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> No to AV spent much more - they haven't disclosed money/secondees from official Tory party.



So when you concentrate on the word spent - you mean that you raised/had more money than them?


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why?


 
as one of the 2nd,3rd, or 4th parties would likely recieve 3 votes after the AV second and third round, so one would likely end up with 3 votes.  As i said originally, if AV gives me the chance to vote against someone, by letting me vote for everyone else, then it gets the thumbs up from me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> as one of the 2nd,3rd, or 4th parties would likely recieve 3 votes after the AV second and third round, so one would likely end up with 3 votes.  As i said originally, if AV gives me the chance to vote against someone, by letting me vote for everyone else, then it gets the thumbs up from me.



Why would that put your hated MP out of a seat?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

A8, if you  had 1/3 more money than the NO campaign (which alone blows your posts on here away) why didn't you spend it?


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> not necessarily - it depends on second prefs, and beside which that scenario is so unlikely as to be not worth taking seriously. Please tell me the last time a parly seat was contested when all the candidates baer one campaignede explicitly against that one candidate, in concert


 
am just trying to explain the basics, in a simplified form, the second and third prefs should be a given in the example.


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would that put your hated MP out of a seat?


 
because he would only have 2 votes ! - less than his opponent who has 3 votes after the AV second and third choices have been counted - and with fewer votes, he wouldn't be elected ! - that's how AV works


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

"i was never happy with the yes campaign"

11:20


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> because he would only have 2 votes ! - less than his opponent who has 3 votes after the AV second and third choices have been counted - and with fewer votes, he wouldn't be elected ! - that's how AV works



No, that's how it works in your made up world where there are 5 or 6 votes and they all do as you wish.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> because he would only have 2 votes ! - less than his opponent who has 3 votes after the AV second and third choices have been counted - and with fewer votes, he wouldn't be elected ! - that's how AV works


 
The second or third choice votes could easily go to the hated MP too (ah, he's not that bad), or the voters might not have any 2nd or 3rd choices.  The hated MP could still get elected then under AV.


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> am just trying to explain the basics, in a simplified form, the second and third prefs should be a given in the example.


but that example has never even remotely corresponded to any real-life electoral situation. ergo, fail as highly misleading


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, that's how it works in your made up world where there are 5 or 6 votes and they all do as you wish.


 
change the names of the party's to ones you recognise, add three zeros to the end of the numbers if you wish - so long as everyone who doesn't put Stephen Gilbert first on their list, decides not to give him a ranking at all (or put him last) he'll still lose his seat.

there's a video somewhere that explain this system to cats you know !


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The second or third choice votes could easily go to the hated MP too (ah, he's not that bad), or the voters might not have any 2nd or 3rd choices.  The hated MP could still get elected then under AV.


 
you ovbiously don't know him


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> change the names of the party's to ones you recognise, add three zeros to the end of the numbers if you wish - *so long as everyone who doesn't put Stephen Gilbert first on their list, decides not to give him a ranking at all (or put him last) he'll still lose his seat.*
> 
> there's a video somewhere that explain this system to cats you know !


 
Not if those people with zeros on put him as 2nd pref or 3rd pref - do you get AV?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> you ovbiously don't know him


except - as a lib dem mp - mr gilbert is _more_ likely to benefit from AV. LDs have always been classic least-awful-candidate winners, hoovering up votes from people scared of Labour and disgusted by the tories (and vice-versa)


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> you ovbiously don't know him


 You've just ensured his safe return you muppet - and you've made sure that his appeal has widened, you've _safened_ his seat.


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

here's a much more realistic scenario for you - that video explaining it all for cats -


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've just ensured his safe return you muppet - and you've made sure that his appeal has widened, you've _safened_ his seat.


 
Why ?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

This is why you've getting destroyed.


----------



## free spirit (May 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> except - as a lib dem mp - mr gilbert is _more_ likely to benefit from AV. LDs have always been classic least-awful-candidate winners, hoovering up votes from people scared of Labour and disgusted by the tories (and vice-versa)


tbf though they've done a good job of scuppering this aspect of things recently at least for labour supporters (and 2/3 of lib dem supporters).


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> Why ?


 
Because he picks up the anti-other big party 2nd prefs plus his first prefs, he walks it. Look at what's going to happen not what you want to happen. AV cements him in.


----------



## Combustible (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> here's a much more realistic scenario for you - that video explaining it all for cats -




Just as terrible as all that 'let's have AV a beer' rubbish.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> here's a much more realistic scenario for you - that video explaining it all for cats -




I had to stop watching this - riduculous assumptions that all non-Tory (sorry, non dog ) candidates unite under the same banner, as opposed to fighting their own corners. It's like the lager/coffee argument proffered earlier in thiis thead - all lager (non-Tory) parties are one big (progressive) family.  Wrong wrong wrong.

e2a - why can't Yes to AV explain themselves in real-life terms at all, instead of the lager/cat/etc gimmicks?


----------



## Streathamite (May 4, 2011)

free spirit said:


> tbf though they've done a good job of scuppering this aspect of things recently at least for labour supporters (and 2/3 of lib dem supporters).


yes, that has rather shaken the bottle a bit


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Because he picks up the anti-other big party 2nd prefs plus his first prefs, he walks it. Look at what's going to happen not what you want to happen. AV cements him in.


 
not if those people dont put him as a preference at all - don't you get AV?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

Penry said:


> not if those people dont put him as a preference at all - don't you get AV?


 
But if they do?


----------



## Penry (May 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> e2a - why can't Yes to AV explain themselves in real-life terms at all, instead of the lager/cat/etc gimmicks?



it is pretty cheesy - i saw it linked from the bbc news website earlier today ! - all the real world examples are very dull though, like showing australia and saying 'it doesn't really make much of a difference'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2011)

FPTP and voting tory is your only chance penry - in fact your example is a sure fire tory win. 60%+ of that lib-dem vote is labour - not enough to not elect the tory.


----------



## gosub (May 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> except - as a lib dem mp - mr gilbert is _more_ likely to benefit from AV. LDs have always been classic least-awful-candidate winners, hoovering up votes from people scared of Labour and disgusted by the tories (and vice-versa)



Actually Rod Liddle nicked a plausable scenario  :

"Imagine a three way fight between Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. The Labour candidate polls 45 per cent, The Tory 35 per cent, The Lib Dem 20 per cent. In FPTP, Labour wins. However, this is AV. In my contest both Labour and Tory give their second preferences to the Lib Dem (as might well happen) – but he is eliminated. The second preferences of the Lib Dem voters all go to the Tory, who therefore wins the contest. The Lib Dem, who is the first or second choice of 100 per cent of the electorate, does not get past round one. Further, 80 per cent of the electorate is partially disenfranchised by having only one of its votes counted. The Labour candidate comes a poor second. In other words the two candidates who, through any fair system, might have been worthy winners, both lose. "


Don't like the " partially disenfranchised" bit (not really bought into the double vote arguement)- as close as I get to making that point.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

Penry said:


> it is pretty cheesy - i saw it linked from the bbc news website earlier today ! - all the real world examples are very dull though, *like showing australia and saying 'it doesn't really make much of a difference*'.



Exactly the point - this is what happens in real life, not a fantasy wish-list example.  If AV is shown to make zero difference in Aus, why the hell is it going to do the same here? No-one on the Yes to AV side has give me one convincing argument that AV transform neo-liberalist parties into progressive ones.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> So AV's big contribution is a legup to those yellow scumbags. No thanks.
> 
> 
> precisely - I don't want EITHER system. at all, and I'm not convinced a system as poor as AV will lead to true PR
> ...



Whistling in the wind I'm afraid, hung parliaments are few and far between, the last one was in 1974. How can you be sure that the next one whenever it comes will give us another referendum anyway, not to mention one that includes PR? We'll be constantly reminded for years to come by the right wing press and other conservative outlets that 'the British people decisively decided in 2011 to keep the present system so there's no need to ask them again'. 

As it looks like it'll be a clear 'no' vote tomorrow then I hope I'm proved wrong. You can even come back and say "I told you so" if I am.

Tomorrow is about choosing between two systems and can't be seen as a step on the way to a third. A no vote is a vote for fptp, so if you don't want either system then you'd better abstain.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i do - and lower. You want to make it harder for Lucas and others to win seats do you?



So you'd prefer _lower_ than 35%? You don't have much time for democracy do you. No wonder you're voting to keep FPTP.

Caroline Lucas might find it easier to be elected under AV, voters will be able to vote Green knowing they're not throwing their votes away, me included. And they could pick up a lot of second preferences too.


----------



## free spirit (May 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yes, that has rather shaken the bottle a bit


yep, because now the (left) anti-tory vote really only has one main home in England outside of a few seats where greens / respect / tusc or someone of that ilk have a reasonable level of support.

must admit to changing my mind on this a bit after digging through the depths of a yougov poll to see how all the different preference votes now stood. Unless the lib dems either do a complete about turn at some point, or split, or one of the other left of centre alternatives manage to fill the void, it does look like it's now the right of centre vote being split between tory, lib dem, ukip, bnp, etc.

under AV I reckon the lib dems would go chasing more after the 2nd pref votes from the right not the left, as they can read the polls too, and they'd end up drifting irideemably further to the right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Whistling in the wind I'm afraid, hung parliaments are few and far between, the last one was in 1974. How can you be sure that the next one whenever it comes will give us another referendum anyway, not to mention one that includes PR? We'll be constantly reminded for years to come by the right wing press and other conservative outlets that 'the British people decisively decided in 2011 to keep the present system so there's no need to ask them again'.
> 
> As it looks like it'll be a clear 'no' vote tomorrow then I hope I'm proved wrong. You can even come back and say "I told you so" if I am.
> 
> Tomorrow is about choosing between two systems and can't be seen as a step on the way to a third. A no vote is a vote for fptp, so if you don't want either system then you'd better abstain.


 
You like your moral choices. You made one last may. You're making another one tomorrow. Or, rather, it's the same mistake repeated. No thought of the victims, just individual right. Just plain selfishness.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Tomorrow is about choosing between two systems and can't be seen as a step on the way to a third. A no vote is a vote for fptp, so if you don't want either system then you'd better abstain.


 
And then be told, "You didn't vote, you didn't make your voice heard, you don't count and we'll ignore you, thanks".
Or "No to Av is Yes to Tories and the BNP. Are you a toff or Nazi?"


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you'd prefer _lower_ than 35%? You don't have much time for democracy do you. No wonder you're voting to keep FPTP.
> 
> Caroline Lucas might find it easier to be elected under AV, voters will be able to vote Green knowing they're not throwing their votes away, me included. And they could pick up a lot of second preferences too.



Caroline Lucas would not. She's the hard face of first pref voting - they'd fall away at 2nd pref.

Yes i prefer lower than 35%. Why on earth are you imposing your idea of what it means on me? You have a model of AV that means 50%+ (not true) and you now define that as democracy? Democracy full stop. 

Tell me why your idea of democracy is a) better than mine and b) democracy


----------



## Penry (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> FPTP and voting tory is your only chance penry - in fact your example is a sure fire tory win. 60%+ of that lib-dem vote is labour - not enough to not elect the tory.


 
TBH - since voting in a lying lib-dem last may, i've been completely disheartened with all things political! the only thing that would get me back into the ballot box for future general elections would be the chance to vote against what i consider to be the worst candidate.  I've voted tactically previously under the promise of 'A vote of Stephen Gilbert is the only way to prevent the tories getting in' - and look where it got me - disillusioned with it all. If i make it to the ballot tommorow, i'll be voting for the alternative system, probably ...


----------



## gosub (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Whistling in the wind I'm afraid, hung parliaments are few and far between, the last one was in 1974. How can you be sure that the next one whenever it comes will give us another referendum anyway, not to mention one that includes PR? We'll be constantly reminded for years to come by the right wing press and other conservative outlets that 'the British people decisively decided in 2011 to keep the present system so there's no need to ask them again'.
> 
> As it looks like it'll be a clear 'no' vote tomorrow then I hope I'm proved wrong. You can even come back and say "I told you so" if I am.
> 
> Tomorrow is about choosing between two systems and can't be seen as a step on the way to a third. A no vote is a vote for fptp, so if you don't want either system then you'd better abstain.


 


MellySingsDoom said:


> And then be told, "You didn't vote, you didn't make your voice heard, you don't count and we'll ignore you, thanks".
> Or "No to Av is Yes to Tories and the BNP. Are you a toff or Nazi?"


 
On the contrary: I would say its low turnout that gives politicans the chance to say there is little appetite for electoral reform. High turn out for choice between shit sandwich and shit sandwich with salad, there might have been a chance.


----------



## Riklet (May 5, 2011)

Lol that 'kitteh' AV vote vid is crap!  ...Although it did make me smile a bit 

Latest figures on AV not looking too good are they, really.  Oh Stephen Fry, your twitter activism has failed   Bah the friends i've facebook-debated this with are all assuming AV will pave the way as some kind of 'stepping stone' to PR, and that a no vote will convince all the political parties everyone loves FPTP....

I think this is a bit naive and have been arguing against, but it is a bit hard to know what will happen in relation to PR if the AV vote does fail... do people think Labour or anyone else would build up a campaign in the somewhat near future? Is there any incentive for them to at the moment, what with the Tories fiddling with electoral boundaries etc? I would imagine it's a campaign the Tories would try to rubbish with a 'not _another_ vote/waste of public money' but it might also be a referendum that could pass.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Every smug middle class twitter celeb - this is a punch  in your BBC oxbridge fed face. We hate you. We really really hate you.


----------



## shagnasty (May 5, 2011)

Going to register my no vote quite soon ,i hope i am doing the right thing,because it could be a bloody long time before we get a chance to vote on proper PR .i am sixty next birthday so it may not be in my lifetime ,but Av as glegg said is a miserable compromise


----------



## cliche guevara (May 5, 2011)

Just remember, if you vote No, you're Tory scum.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> Just remember, if you vote No, you're Tory scum.


 
Zzzzzz.  Just remember, if you vote Yes, you're Lib Dem Tory scum.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 5, 2011)

I'm voting for change rather than stagnation, that and I can;t bring myself to swallow a bucket of Tory jizz like the rest of you sell outs.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you'd prefer _lower_ than 35%? You don't have much time for democracy do you. No wonder you're voting to keep FPTP.
> 
> Caroline Lucas might find it easier to be elected under AV, voters will be able to vote Green knowing they're not throwing their votes away, me included. And they could pick up a lot of second preferences too.


Nope.  Australia has AV, and there the Greens poll 12 times what they poll in the UK, but they still have only one Green elected, rather than 12 times the amount.  Lucas won on FPTP by being the candidate with the most votes.  Under AV she'd have to clear the 50% hurdle (unless preferences ran out) on elimination prefs.  This system is designed to *keep out* minority parties, not to help them.  (Literally designed to, as in that was its purpose).


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

cliche guevara said:


> I'm voting for change rather than stagnation, that and I can;t bring myself to swallow a bucket of Tory jizz like the rest of you sell outs.


 
Pfft.  Lib Dems are Tory sell-outs, and as has been shown time and again in on the discussions in ths thread, the AV being proprosed merely moves a few deckchairs for the benefit of the Orange Books.

60% of Labour MPs are voting No - Tory sell outs!  That neo-liberal man of the establishment Milliband hasn't convinced his lot at alL.

"VOTE NO TO AV AND YOU'RE A NAZI!"
"ONLY NAZIS WANT A VOTE FOR PR!"


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

FPTP funnels seats to the big two.
AV funnels seats to the big three.

Logically, on the basis of power, Tories AND Labour should want FPTP whilst the LibDems should want AV.  The Tories, the Libs and more than 60% of Labour seem to recognise this.

Saying "a No vote helps the Tories" makes no more sense than saying "a No vote helps Labour".  And both statements are actually less true than "a Yes vote helps the Lib Dems".


----------



## Kameron (May 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> FPTP funnels seats to the big two.
> AV funnels seats to the big three.
> 
> Logically, on the basis of power, Tories AND Labour should want FPTP whilst the LibDems should want AV.  The Tories, the Libs and more than 60% of Labour seem to recognise this.
> ...


 
This. What is amazing about this debate is that the rest of the country seems to be voting no on the basis that it might change the way people vote and allow more extreme right and left wing (depending on the target audience fears) parties in and on Urban people are voting no in case people don't change the way they vote. It is dam right capricious.

We have a once in a life time opportunity to divest ourselves of of  system which has consistently failed to be fair. AV may be only a little better but it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to saddle ourselves with an orange sandal in our face forever, you mean.

We have a once-in-a-parliament opportunity to smash the coalition and end the cuts, though.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> AV may be only a little better but it is a step in the right direction.


Except it isn't; it's a little worse.

Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to saddle ourselves with an orange sandle in our face forever, you mean.
> 
> We have a once-in-a-parliament opportunity to smash the coalition and end the cuts, though.


  Good gag.  (But edit sandal).


----------



## killer b (May 5, 2011)

it isn't better though. it's worse, as explained ad infinitum throughout this thread and elsewhere.

tbh, i don't really want PR either. and i suspect this may also be true of the rest of the country.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> i don't really want PR either. and i suspect this may also be true of the rest of the country.


For me, as a purely academic argument devoid of political context, it would depend on the type of PR.  I don't like party list systems (for example, the system we'll be using in the Holyrood general election today).


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 5, 2011)

So that's a NO! then?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> So that's a NO! then?


Who was that to?


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Who was that to?


 
A 'NO!' to AV


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> A 'NO!' to AV


It looked like you were asking someone if they were voting "no", but I wasn't clear about to whom the question was directed.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Good gag.  (But edit sandal).


 
Cheers.  I tell you, it's _amazing_ the errors you make when you are typing on a phone instead of a keyboard.  It's like the brain just gives up.


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It looked like you were asking someone if they were voting "no", but I wasn't clear about to whom the question was directed.


 
Soz, I was slipping into summary mode. It's the day of reckoning today.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

The Graun this morning reporting that the Orange Books are bracing themselves for a thumping in the AV referendum, plus the local English, Scottish and Welsh elections: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/04/av-referendum-nick-clegg-defeat-predicted



> Some in the all-party yes camp blame Clegg for abandoning a pledge to stay out of the campaign, saying his presence destroyed their appeal for a new kind of politics and meant their campaign was seen through the prism of the coalition.



Clegg a toxic brand?  Whoulda thunk it!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Soz, I was slipping into summary mode. It's the day of reckoning today.


Ah!  I see.  Yes.  I think you're right, it looks like a victory for No.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

Rumours that Huhne will resign this evening.

Huhne - what a fucking irritating word to type.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

What a fucking irritating twonk to listen to too.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

In case anyone missed it, he has a big _i'm better than Clegg vote for me_ sign on his back. It's next to the one that memorialises when he out BNPed Nick Griffin on question time.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

Just imagine the shit that will get flung if there's a leadership election.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Clegg to stay on as deputy pm  - 50% of party stays with him. That would be fantastic.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

The splitters can call themselves Social Democrats to distinguish themselves from the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Last poll of all - Angus Reid

YES on 39%, NO on 61%


----------



## Streathamite (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> AV may be only a little better but it is a step in the right direction.


no it isn't, not necessarily


----------



## magneze (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Nope.  Australia has AV, and there the Greens poll 12 times what they poll in the UK, but they still have only one Green elected, rather than 12 times the amount.  Lucas won on FPTP by being the candidate with the most votes.  Under AV she'd have to clear the 50% hurdle (unless preferences ran out) on elimination prefs.  This system is designed to *keep out* minority parties, not to help them.  (Literally designed to, as in that was its purpose).


Yep, it's actually worse. Potentially much worse. Thank god it looks like being defeated. I'll vote later.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

Just had a look on the Aus ABC site about how AV works down there, which confirms that Liberal and Labour rule the roost, and any genuine opposition parties don't even begin to get a look in.  There's a push for Aus to adopt PR as opposed to FPTP, from what I can see.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just had a look on the Aus ABC site about how AV works down there, which confirms that Liberal and Labour rule the roost, and any genuine opposition parties don't even begin to get a look in.  There's a push for Aus to adopt PR as opposed to FPTP, from what I can see.


 
So there we go -- all we need to do is adopt AV and wait 90 years and then we might start to see some support developing for PR.


----------



## Streathamite (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> The splitters can call themselves Social Democrats to distinguish themselves from the Liberal Democrats.


or even....just plain Liberals


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Nope.  Australia has AV, and there the Greens poll 12 times what they poll in the UK, but they still have only one Green elected, rather than 12 times the amount.  Lucas won on FPTP by being the candidate with the most votes.  Under AV she'd have to clear the 50% hurdle (unless preferences ran out) on elimination prefs.  This system is designed to *keep out* minority parties, not to help them.  (Literally designed to, as in that was its purpose).


 
Yep, but it's an effective system if what you're after is creating an illusion of wider consent to neo-liberal policies.


----------



## girasol (May 5, 2011)

I really hope enough of the people voting 'No' turn up, I have just been and put a big X next to 'No'.


----------



## creak (May 5, 2011)

Dunno where else to put this but holy fuck, found right on the front page of the Telegraph website:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

Even over there I wouldn't expect this sort of thing. Why now? Is it just there to outrage enough people to generate more traffic (and am I falling into that trap)? Or is it symptomatic of the slow trend rightwards in this country, that even stuff like this is being given oxygen again?


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

girasol said:


> I really hope enough of the people voting 'No' turn up, I have just been and put a big X next to 'No'.


 
I bet they regret linking the referendumto local elections now. If it had been a separate exercise, they could have counted on a lower turnout of not-that-bothered No voters.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

creak said:


> Dunno where else to put this but holy fuck, found right on the front page of the Telegraph website:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/
> 
> Even over there I wouldn't expect this sort of thing. Why now? Is it just there to outrage enough people to generate more traffic (and am I falling into that trap)? Or is it symptomatic of the slow trend rightwards in this country, that even stuff like this is being given oxygen again?



It almost seems like a joke - the phrase 'modest proposal' is used.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep, but it's an effective system if what you're after is creating an illusion of wider consent to neo-liberal policies.


It certainly seems to be.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

creak said:


> Dunno where else to put this but holy fuck, found right on the front page of the Telegraph website:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/
> 
> Even over there I wouldn't expect this sort of thing. Why now? Is it just there to outrage enough people to generate more traffic (and am I falling into that trap)? Or is it symptomatic of the slow trend rightwards in this country, that even stuff like this is being given oxygen again?


That has to be a troll, surely?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

creak said:


> Dunno where else to put this but holy fuck, found right on the front page of the Telegraph website:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/
> 
> Even over there I wouldn't expect this sort of thing. Why now? Is it just there to outrage enough people to generate more traffic (and am I falling into that trap)? Or is it symptomatic of the slow trend rightwards in this country, that even stuff like this is being given oxygen again?


 
To be fair, the system we currently have is more extreme than what is being proposed. I'd compare it with the system in Iran. 

In order to get elected, you need a multi-million pound market research programme to identify the swing voters in key marginals and their hot issues, in order to focus solely on the few thousand people whose votes actually do something rather than wasting effort on everyone else whose votes are meaningless. This requires the support of a bunch of dodgy millionaries willing to hand over the dosh to pay for the market research, in return for say seats in the Lords. 

Hence nobody whose policies might upset a typical bunch of dodgy millionaires can ever get elected ...

... kind of like Iran only with dodgy millionaires, instead of a council of mullahs, having the veto on democracy.

Edited to add: and of course, AV does nothing to change that situation. It just lets the winner claim votes that_ didn't change the outcome _as supporting them rather than whoever those people actually voted for.


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

Bloggers say incendary crap shock.

Next up: some US radio DJs are occasionally less than considered in their views.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Expect to see labour people involved  in NO to start shit-stirring about what the tories said to them in secret - Huhne and Cable absolute clowns to hand them this opp (huhne after something  bigger mind). Fun to be had.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2011)

And as for the 'a No vote helps the BNP' argument: 

"The AV would be a gift to the BNP"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1371174/AV-gift-BNP.html

(apols for DM source)


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

editor said:


> And as for the 'a No vote helps the BNP' argument:
> 
> "The AV would be a gift to the BNP"
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1371174/AV-gift-BNP.html
> ...


Yes, it's funny how it's both, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

That's an awful piece to be honest (it confuses PR for AV for example) . AV would do them no favours whatsoever  - under both systems they will never win a seat. They're just a rhetorical tool to whack people round the head with. And the way the YES campaign ran with it was insulting and, i think, i cost them.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2011)

I find this argument rather hard to disagree with:

"One check on extremist parties growing is that we have a system of one person, one vote. If someone wants to indulge themselves by voting for an extremist with little chance of election then they have used up their vote. They are not then able to have another vote to cast for a candidate with a greater chance of winning. That is the voting system of first-past-the-post with which we are all so familiar in this country - and indeed across the  world in so many other places that have followed our democratic model."


----------



## editor (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's an awful piece to be honest (it confuses PR for AV for example) . AV would do them no favours whatsoever  - under both systems they will never win a seat. They're just a rhetorical tool to whack people round the head with. And the way the YES campaign ran with it was insulting and, i think, i cost them.


Well, yes. The BNP are pretty much a total irrelevance


----------



## binka (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Rumours that Huhne will resign this evening.
> 
> Huhne - what a fucking irritating word to type.


 
hes going to resign over an issue no one gives a fuck about? if he had some brains he would have resigned over the cuts / coalition policies and maybe earned some respect


----------



## strung out (May 5, 2011)

that would require something no lib dems have got. a backbone.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

binka said:


> hes going to resign over an issue no one gives a fuck about? if he had some brains he would have resigned over the cuts / coalition policies and maybe earned some respect


 
A failed AV referendum is the perfect politician's excuse. He never needs to worry about economic reality making his position look stupid, and he can bang on for the rest of his life about what (he imagines) would have happened under AV (trains running on time, unemployment eliminated, NHS staffed exclusively by buxom Scandinavian nurses, etc).


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What a fucking irritating twonk to listen to too.


 
Not helped by having a voice that makes it sound like he's got a traffic cone stuffed up his arsehole.


----------



## Kameron (May 5, 2011)

fantasies of how the British electorate would have voted or whether we would ever even have been in the position prior to the 97 are entirely bogus. The idea seems to be that people are forced to choose second preferences even when there is no second preference that suits them, this is plainly not the case yet has formed a major part of the no campaign.

The worst thing about voting no is the certain knowledge that when we see the funding of the no and yes campaign that it seems extremely likely that the no vote is going to appear to have been bought and bought; that really isn't something that I would want to put my name against. A no vote is a vote against reform and that is a tragedy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> The splitters can call themselves Social Democrats to distinguish themselves from the Liberal Democrats.


 
Or the Orange Bookers could be honest and call themselves National Liberals  (Neo-Liberal Wing).


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> fantasies of how the British electorate would have voted or whether we would ever even have been in the position prior to the 97 are entirely bogus. The idea seems to be that people are forced to choose second preferences even when there is no second preference that suits them, this is plainly not the case yet has formed a major part of the no campaign.
> 
> The worst thing about voting no is the certain knowledge that when we see the funding of the no and yes campaign that it seems extremely likely that the no vote is going to appear to have been bought and bought; that really isn't something that I would want to put my name against. A no vote is a vote against reform and that is a tragedy.



Wtf? Have you read what you just wrote? The YES campaign had more money (from hedge funders, lib-dem advisers and Orange bookers) btw.

Less pompous lament - more argument.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or the Orange Bookers could be honest and call themselves National Liberals.


 
Or even just Liberal Conservatives and take the Tory whip. A bit like Co-operative Labour MPs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2011)

creak said:


> Dunno where else to put this but holy fuck, found right on the front page of the Telegraph website:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/
> 
> Even over there I wouldn't expect this sort of thing. Why now? Is it just there to outrage enough people to generate more traffic (and am I falling into that trap)? Or is it symptomatic of the slow trend rightwards in this country, that even stuff like this is being given oxygen again?


 
Apart from the stupidity of re-instituting a contributory franchise, Mr McKie obviously given much thought to the administrative costs such a system would incur, given the unstable nature of employment for even those earning a good wage.


----------



## Streathamite (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Or even just Liberal Conservatives and take the Tory whip. A bit like Co-operative Labour MPs.


a bit more like Ramsay McDonald & co


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> A no vote is a vote against reform and that is a tragedy.


Have you bothered looking into AV?  Or will just any change do?  

Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Have you bothered looking into AV?  Or will just any change do?
> 
> Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
> Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au


 
Lot of one armed people around today.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lot of one armed people around today.


It's like Nick Clegg is one of those Silence off Dr Who.  People keep forgetting when they've been mugged.


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2011)

I've just found out where my polling station is (no thanks to the useless council and their cryptic polling card). I walked past it earlier and there were two officals sat outside looking very bored and no voters in sight - no local elections here.

Still haven't decided how to vote.


----------



## stethoscope (May 5, 2011)

Well, I'm off out now to cast my no.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> I've just found out where my polling station is (no thanks to the useless council and their cryptic polling card). I walked past it earlier and there were two officals sat outside looking very bored and no voters in sight - no local elections here.
> 
> Still haven't decided how to vote.


Read these:

Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Still haven't decided how to vote.


 
Traditionally, one places an X in a box.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Traditionally, one places an X in a box.


Or you could put "1" in yes and "2" in no?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> We have a once in a life time opportunity to divest ourselves of of  system which has consistently failed to be fair. AV may be only a little better but it is a step in the right direction.


 
You haven't read any of the thread have you?

AV is only a step in the right direction if what you want is voters to have more influence over their "choice" of increasingly similar parties. It takes real choice away from the electorate when it comes to policies, and substitutes an illusion of more choice of personality.

AV is a step in completely the wrong direction, as seems to be understood by the majority of people who have bothered to actually think about the subject on a basis more sensible than "something should be done, this is something so it should be done".


----------



## ericjarvis (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> For me, as a purely academic argument devoid of political context, it would depend on the type of PR.  I don't like party list systems (for example, the system we'll be using in the Holyrood general election today).


 
The trouble is that unless we can mobilise a VERY large majority of people in favour of a sensible form of PR, it's only the party list type that will be offered.


----------



## Streathamite (May 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The trouble is that unless we can mobilise a VERY large majority of people in favour of a sensible form of PR, it's only the party list type that will be offered.


I think that one useful alternative would be a county-by-county top up - with london split into 4 'counties' due to its' size.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The trouble is that unless we can mobilise a VERY large majority of people in favour of a sensible form of PR, it's only the party list type that will be offered.


I know.  It's what we have for Holyrood here in Scotland.


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> You haven't read any of the thread have you?
> 
> AV is only a step in the right direction if what you want is voters to have more influence over their "choice" of increasingly similar parties. It takes real choice away from the electorate when it comes to policies, and substitutes an illusion of more choice of personality.


 
What "real choice" does it take away that wouldn't be taken away by an ideal PR system?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2011)

Kameron said:


> fantasies of how the British electorate would have voted or whether we would ever even have been in the position prior to the 97 are entirely bogus. The idea seems to be that people are forced to choose second preferences even when there is no second preference that suits them, this is plainly not the case yet has formed a major part of the no campaign.



And yet one of the larger issues found in connection with this referendum is, in fact, that (as I pointed out on here several weeks ago) that many people are still unaware that preference voting isn't compulsory, that if they wish they need only make a single choice with no preferences (many areas seem to have not received literature about the referendum, perhaps an artifact of following close on the heels of so many bank holidays).

Perhaps that's why the "no" campaign are using this argument: Because it is a valid one?



> The worst thing about voting no is the certain knowledge that when we see the funding of the no and yes campaign that it seems extremely likely that the no vote is going to appear to have been bought and bought;



And the "yes" campaign won't appear that way, on analysis?



> that really isn't something that I would want to put my name against. A no vote is a vote against reform and that is a tragedy.


 
Depends how you quantify reform. Personally I don't see how replacing one electoral system that favours the main established parties with another that does the same is any sort of *meaningful* reform. It's closer to reform for reforms' sake.


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2011)

Are there any countries that use a system that _doesn't_ favour the established parties? Are the actual actions of the resultant governments any more praiseworthy than the governments of other nations?


----------



## ericjarvis (May 5, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> It's an implicit acceptance that FPTP is better though.


 
Better than AV...yes. Better than a huge number of other possible systems...nowhere near.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 5, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Then why the Tories urging people to vote No? I don't get it they must know something that we haven't yet picked up on...


 
Possibly because they would like to move still further to the right. More likely to make the Lib Dems think they give a damn and the referendum is a meaningful concession, most likely because Tories don't like changing anything unless they can make money from it or hurt somebody they don't approve of.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> What "real choice" does it take away that wouldn't be taken away by an ideal PR system?


 
You've taken one thing and invented another then compared the two - then asked the first why it's not the second.


----------



## Streathamite (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> What "real choice" does it take away that wouldn't be taken away by an ideal PR system?


a choice of parties of the left (say, some sort of socialist front) that would at least have _some_ chance of representation, however small, under PR


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> What "real choice" does it take away that wouldn't be taken away by an ideal PR system?


 
That's actually a mental post. There are no grounds on which it could make sense.


----------



## binka (May 5, 2011)

you should read some of the comments left on av articles on the guardian today. some hillarious stuff. this is a favourite of mine so far from Nick Das (who works for the guardian / cif) on this article: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/05/lib-dems-av-coalition



> We don't like fancy ideas that sound a bit continental and clever.



you can almost taste the tears


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 5, 2011)

binka said:
			
		

> you should read some of the comments left on av articles on the guardian today. some hillarious stuff. this is a favourite of mine so far from Nick Das (who works for the guardian / cif) on this article:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...s-av-coalition



From the article:



> The Lib Dems have no one to blame for this result but themselves. Last year they attracted the largest number of votes for their party since its creation, with the promise of a new politics. But in the end they settled for a squalid little deal stitched up behind closed doors.
> 
> They have shredded the hopes of the centre left for a new progressive majority based on a more open, less tribal alliance of parties and political groups, along with their electoral promises.



Could this be the Guardian beginning to back out of their love-in with the Orange Books?


----------



## creak (May 5, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Could this be the Guardian beginning to back out of their love-in with the Orange Books?


 
Not by the sound of their editorial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/04/av-referendum-editorial

I guess Glover's been busy on that one.


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2011)

My dad is voting yes i think


----------



## strung out (May 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> My dad is voting yes i think


 
mine did too. and he's a tory.


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2011)

i think the yes campaigners heads will now explode.


----------



## Smangus (May 5, 2011)

I was going to vote no for a whole bunch of good reasons which have been outlined here and elsewhere. Until last night when I thought about the proposed boundary changes and the fact that labour was going to lose out in this reorganisation. They are changing the game with no referendum and people will be affected by this in other ways. The Torys will be the winners out of it for a long time to come if it goes ahead. So in order to cock that up if AV makes a centre left coalition more likely then I will vote for that to counter the boundary change gerrymander.  I still wouldn’t give Clegg the steam off my piss though.


----------



## stethoscope (May 5, 2011)

Smangus said:


> I was going to vote no for a whole bunch of good reasons which have been outlined here and elsewhere. Until last night when I thought about the proposed boundary changes and the fact that labour was going to lose out in this reorganisation. They are changing the game with no referendum and people will be affected by this in other ways. The Torys will be the winners out of it for a long time to come if it goes ahead. So in order to cock that up if AV makes a centre left coalition more likely then I will vote for that to counter the boundary change gerrymander.  I still wouldn’t give Clegg the steam off my piss though.



So did you vote yes or no?


----------



## Smangus (May 5, 2011)

yes


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Caroline Lucas would not. She's the hard face of first pref voting - they'd fall away at 2nd pref.
> 
> Yes i prefer lower than 35%. Why on earth are you imposing your idea of what it means on me? You have a model of AV that means 50%+ (not true) and you now define that as democracy? Democracy full stop.
> 
> Tell me why your idea of democracy is a) better than mine and b) democracy


It's you that needs to explain your idea of democracy, you actually PREFER  MPs to be elected with a mandate of LESS than 35%? That at least explains why you're happy to line up with the upper class establishment, the tories and the bnp.


----------



## stethoscope (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's you that needs to explain your idea of democracy, you actually PREFER  MPs to be elected with a mandate of LESS than 35%? That at least explains why you're happy to line up with the upper class establishment, the tories and the bnp.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's you that needs to explain your idea of democracy, you actually PREFER  MPs to be elected with a mandate of LESS than 35%? That at least explains why you're happy to line up with the upper class establishment, the tories and the bnp.


 
You're arguing in defence of democracy - i'm not. I don't have to define or defend democracy - you do. Pronto.

How warped do you have to be to believe that the deputy prime minister and his cut supporting mates are the rebels, the anti-establishment types? How wrong Andrew Hertford?

In fact you're just wrong aren't you? Wrong and weird (march 26th was our kristannacht)


----------



## articul8 (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf? Have you read what you just wrote? The YES campaign had more money (from hedge funders, lib-dem advisers and Orange bookers) btw.


Not true.  No camp didn't quantify the money that has gone directly into campaign for a NO vote via the Tory party itself.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not true.  No camp didn't quantify the money that has gone directly into campaign for a NO vote via the Tory party itself.



So you mean yes, you had  a million pounds more than them, moaned about them having too much money and then come up with this..this...shit. Last night it was they spent more than you - you had more money, why didn't you spend it? Answer - fuck all came back.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not true.  No camp didn't quantify the money that has gone directly into campaign for a NO vote via the Tory party itself.


 
You don't deny the hedge funders, lib-dem advisers and Orange bookers bit  do you - because you can't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Not true.  No camp didn't quantify the money that has gone directly into campaign for a NO vote via the Tory party itself.


 
Hey, enjoy scrabbling down there for excuses. You might get pissed on.


----------



## 1%er (May 5, 2011)

Any exit poll news, its gone 8pm in the UK I believe?


----------



## articul8 (May 5, 2011)

Tiny proportion - overwhelming bulk of Yes money came from ERS and Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.  No2AV did not declare their donations until we had.  They deliberately came in under, but by channeling most of their funding through official Tory channels.  They had more money than us, by a significant amount.

Not that I hold that entirely responsible for what looks like their victory.


----------



## articul8 (May 5, 2011)

1%er said:


> Any exit poll news, its gone 8pm in the UK I believe?



Polls don't close until 10pm.  I doubt anyone will have done a proper exit poll though.  If I had to guess I'd suggest something like 58/42 in favour of NO.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It's you that needs to explain your idea of democracy, you actually PREFER  MPs to be elected with a mandate of LESS than 35%? That at least explains why you're happy to line up with the upper class establishment, the tories and the bnp.


 
Well, if that's the actual level of support for them, isn't it more honest and healthy to be clear about that? 

Sure it tells us that something is badly wrong with our democracy, but letting them add a bunch of secondary preferences to make it look better won't fix that ...


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2011)

Both campaigns were utterly shite, a bunch of school kids could have done better.

"Vote for fair votes to make your MP work harder"

"AV: a deeply un-Britsh pointless anachronism"

...wtf?


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Tiny proportion - overwhelming bulk of Yes money came from ERS and Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.  No2AV did not declare their donations until we had.  They deliberately came in under, but by channeling most of their funding through official Tory channels.  They had more money than us, by a significant amount.
> 
> Not that I hold that entirely responsible for what looks like their victory.



No, you had more than them - you can't make a point about declared donations then go, opps we had more than them, that shows that they had more than us. You've even fucked this up. 

What happened to last nights desperation - they _spent_ more than us? Is that line of defence gone?


----------



## 1%er (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Polls don't close until 10pm.  I doubt anyone will have done a proper exit poll though.  If I had to guess I'd suggest something like 58/42 in favour of NO.


OK thanks I wondered why there was no thread about incoming results


----------



## subversplat (May 5, 2011)

1%er said:


> Any exit poll news, its gone 8pm in the UK I believe?


 
If betfair odds are anything to go by, it's something to the order of 33/1 in favour of NO...


----------



## articul8 (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, you had more hen them - you can't make a point about declared donations then go, opps we had more than them, that shows that they had more than us. You've even fucked this up. What happened to last nights desperation - they _spent_ more than us?


 
They did spend more - it's just some of that spending was channeled through official Tory channels not through the main No2AV campaign (the distinction is mainly administrative).


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

articul8 said:


> They did spend more - it's just some of that spending was channeled through official Tory channels not through the main No2AV campaign (the distinction is mainly administrative).


 
It's mainly heuristic you mean. Did you tax manage the larger amount of money than the no campaign that you had or something? Where is the money?


----------



## articul8 (May 5, 2011)

We spent what we had.  But we didn't have massive donations on top of this amount to launder through the LDs.


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

doddles said:


> Now there's a brilliant reason to vote no. Never mind long term consequences, the likelihood that this will be the only chance to bring about change to the voting system for another 50 years. The fact that the current Labour Party is just a meek imitation of New Labour without the guts to take on big business and thus the thing that UK politics is crying out for is a viable 3rd voice that will never be possible with FPTP voting. Nah - stuff the consequences. I'm voting no out of spite. Clever.
> 
> Anothet good reason to vote no - the advertising for the No campaign is much smoother.
> 
> I had no doubts 6 months ago that the No vote would win, because ultimately the UK population is far too scared of change to vote yes. Unfortunately, it's what's causing the UK to stagnate, and is falling right into the hands of the big money interests who have both major parties firmly locked into their agenda.


 
Look, it's really fucking simple:

There is no meaningful difference between AV and FPTP, except that AV would exclude every smaller party except the Lib Dems from parliament (apart from the significant regional parties, of course).

Given that it makes no fucking difference, you have to think about how you can use your vote effectively.

If AV wins, then we face a perpetual blue/yellow tory stitch-up - with the remaining Lib Dem voters giving their 2nd prefs to the Tories and vice versa. I can't actually see the Lib Dems winning many seats under AV now anyway - they've lost too much support and become one of the smaller parties that is hurt more by AV than FPTP - so it just gives us a perpetual Tory stitch-up. It's hard to see the Tories winning the next election, but if they do it's much more likely to be under AV than FPTP because they'll get the yellow Tory votes too.

Maybe that's all a bit too what iffy, so what about a more creative approach? Which coalition partner should we hit the hardest in order to bring down the government as quickly as possible?

The one that's already on the fucking ropes, of course. First party down ends the coalition, and the LDs are on their knees begging for a swift end to be administered. They're going to lose AV today - the one reason many of the grassroots agreed to tolerate the coalition in the first place - and they're going to lose several hundred councillors, and half their local organising capacity with them.

This is no time to be a gentleman. They're on the floor and this is when you're supposed to stick the boot in.


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Or you could put "1" in yes and "2" in no?


Another hopelessly poor tactical voter!

People, if you want both votes to count in the AV referendum, you have to put 1 against the No box so that your 2nd preference can be counted should the No vote fail.

The convention in AV with only two candidates is, of course, to put a simple cross against your first preference. So, if you want your vote for AV to count, you have to put a cross against the NO box.

Phew. I think I did a better job of explaining the true facts about this referendum than the official campaigns there.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

Another way of looking at it. 

Does AV fix any of the things that desperately need to be fixed about our democracy? Not that I can see. If anything it makes it easier for neo-liberals, whether blue, orange or slightly pink, to claim they have a mandate for their horrible policies. 

It does however offer an opportunity to stick the knife in the ToryDem coalition, which is good enough for me.


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Another hopelessly poor tactical voter!
> 
> People, if you want both votes to count in the AV referendum, you have to put 1 against the No box so that your 2nd preference can be counted should the No vote fail.
> 
> ...


 
If it's an exact tie in an AV election with two candidates, i.e. both have 50% of first preference votes, then presumably the result would be decided on second preference votes.


----------



## sihhi (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tim Minchin, Dave Gorman...
> 
> That looks like a list of liberal-NATO-UN sanctions starvers and bombers doesn't it?



For the files

Tim Minchin, Dave Gorman, Richard Wilson, Anthony Barnett (openDemocracy), Peter Kellner (boss of YouGov), David Aaronovitch, Kriss Akabusi, Billy Bragg, Helena Bonham Carter, Colin Firth, Johann Hari, Joanna Lumley, Greg Dyke (ex-boss of BBC), Stephen Fry, Rowan Davies, James Palumbo (boss of Ministry of Sound), Art Malik, Dan Snow, Eddie Izzard, John O’Farrell, Mehdi Hasan, Polly Toynbee, Jonathan Bartley (boss of Ekklesia, founder of Christian Peoples' Alliance), Benjamin Zephaniah, John Cleese, Melvyn Bragg (ex-boss of Border Television), Bonnie Greer, Josie Long, Charlie Brooker, John Harris, George Monbiot, Laurie Penny, Tony Robinson, Jonathan Ross, Jason Cowley (boss of New Statesman), Alexandra Shulman (boss of Vogue UK), Ann Limb (ex-boss of Ufi-learndirect), Carol Lake (boss of JP Morgan Europe, Middle East & Africa), Gabrielle Rifkind (a boss at Oxford Research Group), Helena Kennedy, Hilary Wainwright (ex-boss of the Popular Planning Unit of the GLC), Isabel Hilton (Guardian, openDemocracy) Jacqueline Rose, Jay Griffiths (the 21st century Laurens van der Post), Joan Bakewell , Julia Neuberger, Lindsay Mackie (wife of Alan Rusbridger Guardian editor), Jackie Ashley, Lisa Appignanesi, Lynne Franks (ex-PR boss), Lynne Parker (boss of Funny Women), Nina Kowalska (boss of St Luke's PR), Patsy Puttnam (boss of The Vita Studio), Janet Todd (Oxbridge boss), Rosie Boycott, Seema Maholtra (ex-boss of Government and Public Sector at PricewaterhouseCoopers) , Servane Mouazan (boss of Ogunte Ltd), Nick Cohen, Sue Hollick (wife of ex-Daily Express boss Clive Hollick), Martin Bell, Will Hutton (Oxbridge boss, boss of Work Foundation, supporter of performance-related public sector boss pay) Susan Richards (openDemocracy), Tamsin Omond, Victoria Brittain, Vivienne Westwood, Wendy Savage, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Ryan Shorthouse (journalist and member of Bow Group), , Tim Smit (boss of Eden Project), David Puttnam (ex-boss of Columbia Pictures), Benedict Cumberbatch, Tony Juniper (ex-boss of Friends of the Earth), Colin Hines (boss of investment firm Finance for the Future), John Elkington (boss at Volans), Jonathan Freedland, Joanna Yarrow, Ed Gillespie, Wayne Hemmingway, David Goodhart (Prospect), Simon Goldsmith (boss of Principled Sustainability, old boss at British Gas+Centrica), Dale Vince (boss of Ecotricity), Timothy Garton Ash, Neal Lawson (Compass) Joss Garman (Plane Stupid), Greg Rosen (boss at Bellenden Public Affairs), Polly Higgins, Armando Iannucci, Mark Thomas, and PCS TU bureaucrats.

Politicians: Andrew Boff (Conservative London Assembly), Sara Parkin and Jonathan Porritt, Nigel Farage and UKIP,  Anthony Butcher and Libertas,


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> If it's an exact tie in an AV election with two candidates, i.e. both have 50% of first preference votes, then presumably the result would be decided on second preference votes.


 
Always with the reality.


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 5, 2011)

I voted YES, with NO as my second preference*


----------



## Belushi (May 5, 2011)

Can we ban the next person who makes that joke?


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 5, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Can we ban the next person who makes that joke?


Sorry, has it already been made? LOL


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're arguing in defence of democracy - i'm not. I don't have to define or defend democracy - you do. Pronto.
> 
> How warped do you have to be to believe that the deputy prime minister and his cut supporting mates are the rebels, the anti-establishment types? How wrong Andrew Hertford?
> 
> In fact you're just wrong aren't you? Wrong and weird (march 26th was our kristannacht)



It's sometimes difficult to know with you butch, but you're actually saying you don't believe in democracy at all? 

......and you call me "wrong and weird".


----------



## Belushi (May 5, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Sorry, has it already been made? LOL


 
30, 40 times...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Another way of looking at it.
> 
> Does AV fix any of the things that desperately need to be fixed about our democracy? Not that I can see. If anything it makes it easier for neo-liberals, whether blue, orange or slightly pink, to claim they have a mandate for their horrible policies.
> 
> It does however offer an opportunity to stick the knife in the ToryDem coalition, which is good enough for me.



It does go _some_ way to fixing a desperately crap electoral system. In my opinion AV will (or rather would have) been a fairer system.

Whatever the result I can't see it meaning the end of the coalition, but a yes vote would've put the knife in to the government more than a no.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It does go _some_ way to fixing a desperately crap electoral system. In my opinion AV will (or rather would have) been a fairer system.
> 
> Whatever the result I can't see it meaning the end of the coalition, but a yes vote would've put the knife in to the government more than a no.


 
Say *how* it goes some way and say why a yes vote is worse for the coalition than a NO vote. Coim eon, say something Andrew.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Sorry, has it already been made? LOL


 
To be fair, the "Osama's Death Certificate" one has been fairly popular too ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Another hopelessly poor tactical voter!
> 
> People, if you want both votes to count in the AV referendum, you have to put 1 against the No box so that your 2nd preference can be counted should the No vote fail.
> 
> ...


thanks for correcting me


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It does go _some_ way to fixing a desperately crap electoral system. In my opinion AV will (or rather would have) been a fairer system.
> 
> Whatever the result I can't see it meaning the end of the coalition, but a yes vote would've put the knife in to the government more than a no.


 
What do you think a system that guarantees bigger majorities for the centre parties by giving them the secondary preference votes of the minor ones achieves apart from whitewashing their lack of a mandate?


----------



## Winot (May 5, 2011)

The reason you people are so angry is that you will never get the politics you want. It's so much easier to maintain a principled stance than engage with the grubbiness and compromise of reality. 

In the real world the options you want aren't available. Yes2AV isn't great, but it's the best we've got.


----------



## strung out (May 5, 2011)

no it isn't


----------



## killer b (May 5, 2011)

no, it isn't. it's worse.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 5, 2011)

Winot said:


> Yes2AV isn't great, but it's the best we've got.


Do you people just not like evidence or something?

It's really boring.  Look, fine, if you want to vote for change because it's change, but it isn't better!

Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au


----------



## andy2002 (May 5, 2011)

Paddy Pantsdown is very cross...

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/05/av-referendum-paddy-ashdown-david-cameron


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you people just not like evidence or something?
> 
> It's really boring.  Look, fine, if you want to vote for change because it's change, but it isn't better!
> 
> ...


It is better. If you want to exclude small parties even more effectively than FPTP does.

Otherwise, it's a bit pants. Ooh look, my first preference shows up in a count on election night. That's me satisfied with an electoral system which excludes everyone bar the status quo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is better. If you want to exclude small parties even more effectively than FPTP does.


 
People keep saying this, but where is the evidence?


----------



## Belushi (May 5, 2011)

roflmao


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People keep saying this, but where is the evidence?


 
Australia. 12% of first preferences for the Green party. One MP.


----------



## stuff_it (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People keep saying this, but where is the evidence?


 
By how it works? Everyone that votes for a smaller party that doesn't win gets their vote transferred to another party? Isn't that how it works? Therefore small parties will never win ever, or at least far far less often.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Say *how* it goes some way and say why a yes vote is worse for the coalition than a NO vote. Coim eon, say something Andrew.



I did all that about 80 pages ago and I can't be arsed to repeat it all now. You were there if I recall. And anyway AV or any kind of electoral reform is probably history now, it's good plain and simple old fptp for ever.

As for why a yes vote would've been worse for the government, you do know that most of the government were in the no camp don't you? 

Just out of interest butch, if you don't believe in democracy, did you actually go out and vote?


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People keep saying this, but where is the evidence?


 
Because you cannot win a seat under AV unless at least 50% of the population listed you ahead of your nearest rival. That's piss easy for the mainstream parties, and nigh on impossible for a small party. It's not at all clear that the Greens would have taken Brighton under AV, and it is why the BNP are in the No camp.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> no, it isn't. it's worse.


 
Yep, I agree. It's worse. 

It does nothing whatsoever to enfranchise all the people whose votes currently don't count (basically anyone except a few middle-class people in key marginals)

On the other hand it does let the parties who currently benefit from the status quo claim a much larger mandate by adding the secondary preferences of the people whose votes didn't count ...


----------



## Belushi (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I did all that about 80 pages ago and I can't be arsed to repeat it all now. You were there if I recall. And anyway AV or any kind of electoral reform is probably history now, it's good plain and simple old fptp for ever.


 
Christ; I think this is whats really sickened me about the yes camp recently, as if electoral reform is a tidbit we are thrown from masters table.


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2011)

yup.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Because you cannot win a seat under AV unless at least 50% of the population listed you ahead of your nearest rival. That's piss easy for the mainstream parties, and nigh on impossible for a small party. It's not at all clear that the Greens would have taken Brighton under AV, and it is why the BNP are in the No camp.


 
That's an argument for STV, not an argument for keeping the current system. The current system does a very, very good job of excluding smaller parties.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I did all that about 80 pages ago and I can't be arsed to repeat it all now. You were there if I recall. And anyway AV or any kind of electoral reform is probably history now, it's good plain and simple old fptp for ever.
> 
> As for why a yes vote would've been worse for the government, you do know that most of the government were in the no camp don't you?
> 
> Just out of interest butch, if you don't believe in democracy, did you actually go out and vote?


 
Fantastic, vote no and you don't believe in democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's an argument for STV, not an argument for keeping the current system. The current system does a very, very good job of excluding smaller parties.


 
...and so a vote against av. Can you keep track of what you're demanding?


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's an argument for STV, not an argument for keeping the current system. The current system does a very, very good job of excluding smaller parties.


 
AV does a better job of excluding smaller parties. That's the point. You'll see your small party vote reported somewhere on election night, and in return for that, you settle for never being able to elect the small party to parliament.

You can get in under FPTP with less than 10% of the votes if there are enough candidates and a stupidly close race.

You _cannot_ get in under AV without 50% supporting you above your closest rival.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Australia. 12% of first preferences for the Green party. One MP.


 
UK. One Green MP too. Presumably the Australian parliament has fewer seats than the UK one. I understand, and agree, when people say that AV is not a good system, but I have yet to hear anything to commend the current system in relation to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...and so a vote against av. Can you keep track of what you're demanding?


 
What I'm demanding? I'm not demanding anything. As much as anything, I would see a yes vote as a signal of dissatisfaction with the current set up, and little more than that. 

We'll see. If no wins, I hope you're right in your judgement that this will have bad repercussions for the libdems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> You can get in under FPTP with less than 10% of the votes if there are enough candidates and a stupidly close race.


 Yes, which is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. You would never, ever design a system from scratch like that, which is why the likes of the mayoral elections, etc, all have some kind of preference system. You have to.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 5, 2011)

I voted NO LOL


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, which is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. You would never, ever design a system from scratch like that, which is why the likes of the mayoral elections, etc, all have some kind of preference system. You have to.


 
So why would you go for an even more ludicrous system when offered the chance to change? 

Is it because they told you it was a bit like PR and you just believed them?


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> So why would you go for an even more ludicrous system when offered the chance to change?
> 
> Is it because they told you it was a bit like PR and you just believed them?


 
It's for FAIRER VOTES, ymu. How many times??


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, which is ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. You would never, ever design a system from scratch like that, which is why the likes of the mayoral elections, etc, all have some kind of preference system. You have to.


 
No, it evolves to support the power structure that it legitimates - AV does that as well. Put some politics into it. Not fucking lego modeling. And 'you'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is it because they told you it was a bit like PR and you just believed them?


 
Yes. That's right. I'm just a stupid twat. 

Fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What I'm demanding? I'm not demanding anything. As much as anything, I would see a yes vote as a signal of dissatisfaction with the current set up, and little more than that.
> 
> We'll see. If no wins, I hope you're right in your judgement that this will have bad repercussions for the libdems.


 
You're demanding someone prove something to you so you can be bothered to take a position. Tell you what, do it yourself.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> It's for FAIRER VOTES, ymu. How many times??


 
Fucking English mug.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. That's right. I'm just a stupid twat.



Your most resonant post.

You can retire now.


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Fucking English mug.


 
Don't you want Fairer Votes, ern? You must be some sort of Nazi if not.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 5, 2011)

santino said:


> don't you want fairer votes, ern? You must be some sort of nazi if not.


 
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

Paddy Ashdown blames Labour for the failure of the Yes vote. lol


----------



## Santino (May 5, 2011)

Ashdown does not deny that Labour offered the Lib Dems PR during coalition negotiations.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 5, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> I voted NO LOL


i burnt the polling station down.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 5, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i burnt the polling station down.


 
LOL You wanked into your copy of 'The Independent' you big girl's blouse.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 5, 2011)

How about we just set fire to anyone who mentions privatisation or claims that 'free markets' can solve social problems? 

If you're looking for a way to remedy the deficiencies of our current system, I think it could be argued that a can of petrol in the right place could do more good than AV ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 5, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> LOL You wanked into your copy of 'The Independent' you big girl's blouse.


no, i wanked into your coffee and shit in your sandwich


----------



## kabbes (May 6, 2011)

The NO vote is already working.  Listen to Ashdown and Hughes.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The NO vote is already working.  Listen to Ashdown and Hughes.


i'd rather stick knitting needles in my ears thanks


----------



## kabbes (May 6, 2011)

Fair enough.  Put it this way -- they're already basically saying that the Tories can expect nothing from them other than strict to-the-letter-coalition agreement from now on.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 6, 2011)

will you be taking the 3-1 on huhne flying the coop sooner rather than later?

they're falling to bits basically, and clegg has shown himself up as the political naif that he is imvho.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

Ooh, a Lib Dem work to rule. Is that "we'll agree with everything you say, but we won't admit it to the media any more"?


----------



## xenon (May 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Fair enough.  Put it this way -- they're already basically saying that the Tories can expect nothing from them other than strict to-the-letter-coalition agreement from now on.


 

Which will it not, be enough to continue business as usual? They're posturing for the core Libdem voters, such as they may exist. I hope I'm wrong and this coalition's policies fall one way or another. But I see no sense in the Libdems bringing it down. Being obstropalous, mouthy and as inneffectual as a whiney hormonal teenager but nothing dangerous.


----------



## xenon (May 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, a Lib Dem work to rule. Is that "we'll agree with everything you say, but we won't admit it to the media any more"?


 

Exactly. So fucking what. Do peple really think there's enough Libdems with the balls, let alone the principles to jepadise their modicom of power in gambling on recovering some credibility. When the price for failiure means political oblivian and get it wrong, it comes sooner?

I still think, if those minded to jump. they'll do so just prior to the next GE, to a renewd new new ultra shiny labourr. Renouncing all that was done before. "We're social democrats, honest. The Tories made us do it. Cleg was lied to. We didn't have the opportunity to effect our economic policies."


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

xenon said:


> Exactly. So fucking what. Do peple really think there's enough Libdems with the balls, let alone the principles to jepadise their modicom of power in gambling on recovering some credibility. When the price for failiure means political oblivian and get it wrong, it comes sooner?


You may not have noticed the election results flooding in. The Lib Dems have no way back to electability via the coalition - some of them might see a way back via bringing this government down.

As you say, they're a party of opportunists, and they have 6000 councillors furiously assessing their political futures tonight.

I don't give a shit why they're doing it. Use their opportunism against them. The British people just said "bring this government down or you lot are electoral toast for the rest of the century".

Let's see if any opportunists decide to take the hint?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 6, 2011)

lib-dems are fucked basically


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 6, 2011)

I don't give a shit about the libdems being fucked. It's this govt being fucked I care about. If being wiped out causes the libdems to cling to a full five years of this fucking govt, who cares about them being fucked? The damage is being done - damage that it will be incredibly hard to undo.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't give a shit about the libdems being fucked. It's this govt being fucked I care about. If being wiped out causes the libdems to cling to a full five years of this fucking govt, who cares about them being fucked? The damage is being done - damage that it will be incredibly hard to undo.


 
How can the Lib Dems cling on after this? They look like they'll lose over 600 councillors tonight - and they have 6000 facing relection before the MPs do. You think they value 57 MPs doing loathsome things in Westminster above their local fiefdoms?

If you cared about fucking the government, you'd be sticking it to the Lib Dems because they are actually vulnerable to attack right now - the Tories are only just starting to slip in the polls and they're largely bullet-proof still. Why the fuck waste ammunition on them before you've even tried to make them take their bright yellow flak jacket off?


----------



## kabbes (May 6, 2011)

"Bright yellow flak jacket"


----------



## magneze (May 6, 2011)




----------



## xenon (May 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> You may not have noticed the election results flooding in. The Lib Dems have no way back to electability via the coalition - some of them might see a way back via bringing this government down.
> 
> As you say, they're a party of opportunists, and they have 6000 councillors furiously assessing their political futures tonight.
> 
> ...


 

From what I've heard this morning. Paddy Ashdown, a sound bite from the Lib Dem leader in Nottingham. They're not questioning the coalition at all yet. The nottingham guy said he's still in favour of it. Seems like the higher ranks at least, are trying to patch up and stick to the line that the coalition is for the bennefit of the country. Beyond party interest. It's up to the grass routes to start the rott, if anything will pull the Libdems away from the Tories. I think again, it will just be posturing, talking tough in public. But still being whipped into line on policy matters.

Interesting few weeks ahead though. Let's see what if anything changes when the NHS reforms are brought back to focus.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

YG/s did a form of exit poll on AV yesterday (online rather than in person but with voters they'd been monitoring for months)  - 62%/38%.


----------



## binka (May 6, 2011)

was anyone watching news24 earlier? as i switched over to it they had peter strignfellow and chris akabusi on slagging off the electorate for rejecting av


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

Stringfellow's changed his tune then  - i personally felt that articul8's most persuasive argument on the whole thread was that Stringfellow supported FPTP.


----------



## binka (May 6, 2011)

tbf i didnt see strignfellow speak just chris akabusi. i only caught the end of the interview i take it strignfellow is no then? wondered why he had a massive grin on his face


----------



## articul8 (May 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Stringfellow's changed his tune then  - i personally felt that articul8's most persuasive argument on the whole thread was that Stringfellow supported FPTP.


 
he was the biggest celeb backer of NO2AV.  Maybe we should have just taken out giant billboards with his face on it...  Akubisi was just plain odd - at the final rally he started quoting Guillame Appollinaire (although he called him a cubist philosopher - whatever the fuck that is!)


----------



## articul8 (May 6, 2011)

binka said:


> take it strignfellow is no then? wondered why he had a massive grin on his face



You see what you've done


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

First AV results in - Scily NO - by a mile as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

10% of votes in.

YES - 32% 
NO - 67%

(rounding)


----------



## Voley (May 6, 2011)

BBC have got it as a 70/30 split now.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 10% of votes in.
> 
> YES - 32%
> NO - 67%
> ...


That rounding error is impossible. 

The discrepancy might be due to leaving spoilt ballots in the denominator.


----------



## SLK (May 6, 2011)

Some Lib Dem on BBC news has just said this isn't Nick Clegg's fault. He was right to offer the vote on AV. He then compared it to a referendum on votes for women and said "if it fell, it wouldn't be the fault of the person who offered the referendum"

WTF?

It's running at 70% No at the moment. How did they fuck up so spectacularly?


----------



## Voley (May 6, 2011)

SLK said:


> Some Lib Dem on BBC news has just said this isn't Nick Clegg's fault. He was right to offer the vote on AV. He then compared it to a referendum on votes for women and said "if it fell, it wouldn't be the fault of the person who offered the referendum"


 
It's the electorate's fault. They just don't _understand_.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

We are not worthy.


----------



## 03gills (May 6, 2011)

So, the Tories get off scot free over the cuts then?  Just knowing how smug they probably are over this just makes me want to puke. And I'm not defending Nick Clegg here, he thoroughly deserves the drubbing he's been delivered.
And if it wasn't for him letting the promise of electoral reform cloud his judgement, David Cameron would have been forced to actually compromise over the cuts in a minority Tory government, rather than steaming ahead with them using the Lib Dems as a Shite Magnet.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 6, 2011)

03gills said:


> <snip> using the Lib Dems as a Shite Magnet.


 I'm not sure that'll work twice though ...


----------



## killer b (May 6, 2011)

03gills said:


> And if it wasn't for him letting the promise of electoral reform cloud his judgement, David Cameron would have been forced to actually compromise over the cuts in a minority Tory government, rather than steaming ahead with them using the Lib Dems as a Shite Magnet.


 
Still not getting it? Ffs... He believes the cuts are right. That's what's driving him, not a promise of electoral reform.


----------



## Belushi (May 6, 2011)

SLK said:


> It's running at 70% No at the moment. How did they fuck up so spectacularly?


 
Read some of the posts by Yes campaigners on here in recent threads and you'll see why they lost so badly.


----------



## weltweit (May 6, 2011)

I am trying hard not to be smug... 

It is difficult..

After all not all the votes have been counted yet 

But it looks like the NOs have it - Yay !!


----------



## weltweit (May 6, 2011)

But this again goes to show that Urban is not the electorate.. 

I don't think any of the many urban polls had 70 - 30 ..


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

Huhne now aggressively arguing that a NO vote is most definitely not an affirmation of FPTP - it's merely a knowing informed rejection of AV.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

03gills said:


> So, the Tories get off scot free over the cuts then?  Just knowing how smug they probably are over this just makes me want to puke. And I'm not defending Nick Clegg here, he thoroughly deserves the drubbing he's been delivered.
> And if it wasn't for him letting the promise of electoral reform cloud his judgement, David Cameron would have been forced to actually compromise over the cuts in a minority Tory government, rather than steaming ahead with them using the Lib Dems as a Shite Magnet.


 
The Tories retained their core vote, as they always will, and benefited from yellow Tories jumping ship.

I need to look at the Welsh results, and I don't know about the local issues there, but it seems to me that if an electorate could give all three big parties a kicking, they did (Scotland and big Green gains). If it was between the big three, they kicked the coalition. If it was a blue/yellow Tory fight, they kicked the Lib Dems.

The issue here isn't the 30% of fools and cunts that always vote Tory, it's the 70% of us that don't, being betrayed by a party that got 70% of it's vote in May 2010 from people who wanted to stop the government they are now enabling.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne now aggressively arguing that a NO vote is most definitely not an affirmation of FPTP - it's merely a knowing informed rejection of AV.


 
That's basically correct, no?


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But this again goes to show that Urban is not the electorate..
> 
> I don't think any of the many urban polls had 70 - 30 ..


 
There was only one other and it was 50/25.


----------



## stethoscope (May 6, 2011)

Huhne - dangerously off-message.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's basically correct, no?


 
Yes, but he and other pro-AV freaks made it a cornerstone of their case that a rejection of AV meant a definitive informed and knowing affirmation of FPTP.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, but he and other pro-AV freaks made it a cornerstone of their case that a rejection of AV meant a definitive informed and knowing affirmation of FPTP.


 
Ah, yes. Thanks.


----------



## weltweit (May 6, 2011)

Well for all the elections taking place, the Conservatives and New Labour both have at least something they can point to as a success, but it seems the Liberal Democrats don't, for them there is no silver lining.


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2011)

-674 lol.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

All over - NO wins.


----------



## frogwoman (May 6, 2011)

When is the final result of the referendum going to be in?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But this again goes to show that Urban is not the electorate..
> 
> I don't think any of the many urban polls had 70 - 30 ..


 
So what?  Urban is an unashamedly lefty site.  I don't think it claims to be representative of the population as a whole.


----------



## butchersapron (May 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> When is the final result of the referendum going to be in?


 
Soon, but no is over the threshold already. It's just by how much now.


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

I just hope that this doesn't give the Tories a helping hand at the next GE.  In hindsight this was always going to be a mountain to climb as people saw it as a chance to give their verdict on the LDs and the coalition.   A bit surprised by the scale of the defeat - but then I was working in some of the inner Lonon suburbs we won.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2011)

Of course you were surprised by the scale of the defeat. You haven't been fucking listening to anyone, and you assume the voters are as terminally ill-informed as you are.

The referendum prediction thread will tell you what urban expected. Hypothesis stated. Hypothesis tested. Hypothesis adopted. Try accepting the possibility - not certainty, possibility - that the people who called the result correctly might, just might, be saying summat worth listening to.


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

I wasn't surprised by defeat per se - I knew that was coming and not by a small margin.  But I still think that those on the left who voted No might have strengthened the Tories.  Being in a minority doesn't make me wrong about this.  The scale of right wing vitriol from the Sun, Daily Mail and others suggests that there is nothing much to cheer about the result.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I wasn't surprised by defeat per se - I knew that was coming and not by a small margin.  But I still think that those on the left who voted No might have strengthened the Tories.  Being in a minority doesn't make me wrong about this. * The scale of right wing vitriol from the Sun, Daily Mail and others suggests that there is nothing much to cheer about the result*.



Establishment papers supporting the status quo - no surprise there.  Such is always the way in Brit media.


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

Of course, I expected nothing less.  But it does make me question the judgement of so-called lefts who gave support to these fuckers.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Of course, I expected nothing less.  But it does make me question the judgement of so-called lefts who gave support to these fuckers.



Groan -I know we've been through this already on here enough times, but once more with feeling: a No for AV vote is NOT a vote for Tories (or the BNP, mister Clegg), and a vote for AV is NOT a vote for FPTP. A Yes to AV vote is NOT A VOTE FOR PR.  Milliband said No to PR, Disco is No, and Clegg weaseled out of saying Yes, so put him down for a No too.  And for your leftists thing - what did you want the "left" to do - boycott the whole thing?  Great, and then be told "You didn't vote, your voice doesn't count, we're not interested in you, so jog on".  Fuck that shit!


----------



## strung out (May 7, 2011)

good spreadsheet of all the results here if anyone's interested https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFNsbF9fREtaNEctU0tKallCQWY1VEE&hl=en#gid=0


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Groan -I know we've been through this already on here enough times, but once more with feeling: a No for AV vote is NOT a vote for Tories (or the BNP, mister Clegg), and a vote for AV is NOT a vote for FPTP. A Yes to AV vote is NOT A VOTE FOR PR.  Milliband said No to PR, Disco is No, and Clegg weaseled out of saying Yes, so put him down for a No too.  And for your leftists thing - what did you want the "left" to do - boycott the whole thing?  Great, and then be told "You didn't vote, your voice doesn't count, we're not interested in you, so jog on".  Fuck that shit!


 
Just watching Tory and old guard Labour people queuing up to say what a vindication of FPTP the result was should have sent shudders down the spine of any PR support who voted NO.  That was a really stupid position.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2011)

Great then have AV. 

what makes you think that people wouldn't be forced to rank all candidates in order of preference or invalidate their vote, as in australia? They never said they wouldn't do that did they?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Just watching Tory and old guard Labour people queuing up to say what a vindication of FPTP the result was should have sent shudders down the spine of any PR support who voted NO.  That was a really stupid position.


 
Well the Tories we can predict they would say that - when would a Thatcherite clap their hands for PR?. Old Guard Labour - John Reid?  Blunkett? Margaret Hodge?  New Labour to the core - nothing to do with yer actual socialism.

And as for Yes to AV - why did Milliband refuse to share a platform with Clegg?  Even Ed realises how toxic Clegg is, and perhaps susses what an outright Tory he is too.  I feel sorry for the likes of Caroline Lucas - gulled into supporting AV (when the Greens have been calling for PR since the Stone Age), and then having to share space with the Orange Quisling and Dr No to PR.


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Great then have AV.
> 
> what makes you think that people wouldn't be forced to rank all candidates in order of preference or invalidate their vote, as in australia? They never said they wouldn't do that did they?


 
Yes, it was specifically said that people wouldn't need to rank all of them.  Not the end of the world in any case.


----------



## articul8 (May 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Well the Tories we can predict they would say that - when would a Thatcherite clap their hands for PR?. Old Guard Labour - John Reid?  Blunkett? Margaret Hodge?  New Labour to the core - nothing to do with yer actual socialism.


Of course...



> And as for Yes to AV - why did Milliband refuse to share a platform with Clegg?  Even Ed realises how toxic Clegg is, and perhaps susses what an outright Tory he is too.  I feel sorry for the likes of Caroline Lucas - gulled into supporting AV (when the Greens have been calling for PR since the Stone Age), and then having to share space with the Orange Quisling and Dr No to PR.


 
I think Lucas made the right call.  Certainly didn't harm the Green vote in Brighton anyway.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 7, 2011)

^^^ I think Lucas's record of being a decent MP for B-town has helped the Greens in the locals, and would've done so w/out the AV business anyway.  I'm glad the Greens have done well there, anyway.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I wasn't surprised by defeat per se - I knew that was coming and not by a small margin.  But I still think that those on the left who voted No might have strengthened the Tories.  Being in a minority doesn't make me wrong about this.  The scale of right wing vitriol from the Sun, Daily Mail and others suggests that there is nothing much to cheer about the result.


 
Yeah. We all knew you were going to lose. Even you.

Some of the posters you're treating with such contempt predicted the _scale_ too.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Of course...
> 
> 
> 
> I think Lucas made the right call.  Certainly didn't harm the Green vote in Brighton anyway.


The Greens made a stupid, but principled call. They won Brighton with the narrowest % ever under FPTP in the UK (IIRC). It's unlikely they'd have won it under AV.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 7, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> So what?  Urban is an unashamedly lefty site.  I don't think it claims to be representative of the population as a whole.


 
It is my arse. It's a liberal site.


----------



## kabbes (May 7, 2011)

In this very thread, a8 once argued that Urban is the kind of site that would be MORE likely than the general population to vote NO.

You could have learnt a lot early on from some posters, a8, if you had just listened to them rather than pooh-poohed them.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

They're not here to listen to us. They're here to tell us.

You don't think they paid him a wage to come here and pick our brains? Pure astro-turfing, no possible way that we could tell them more about the political mood of the country than they already know because it is their job to dictate the political mood of the country, not ours to tell them what it is.

I'm quite surprised that you haven't grasped these quite basic and obvious principles kabbes. Are you feeling OK?

_<worries>_


----------



## lighterthief (May 8, 2011)

I'd be curious to know from all the no-to-AV voters a) when the coalition will fall, b) your predictions as to who would win the ensuing general election and c) your timescale for a new referendum on electoral reform.

Weren't these your main objectives?


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

I have posted a bunch of scenarios in recent weeks. Until last night, I favoured a timetable that would allow plenty of time to fully nationalise the 2012 olympics, but I am eagerly watching the news today in case there are signs that a new possibility has emerged:



> ymu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know from all the no-to-AV voters a) when the coalition will fall, b) your predictions as to who would win the ensuing general election and c) your timescale for a new referendum on electoral reform.
> 
> Weren't these your main objectives?


Do you not think the majority just didn't want AV?


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you not think the majority just didn't want AV?


 
Thats the question I answered on the ballot paper, didnt see any of those others.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 8, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know from all the no-to-AV voters a) when the coalition will fall, b) your predictions as to who would win the ensuing general election and c) your timescale for a new referendum on electoral reform.
> 
> Weren't these your main objectives?


 
Sigh.  I voted No to AV because it was a crap system, and equally as useless (in fact worse, in my opinion) as FPTP (I've gone into my reasonings on this in great details on this and other threads).  If Jesus Christ himself was backing AV and handing out free falafels to boot, I still would've voted no.

But to your questions:

a)  I'd think the Orange Books in the cabinet will be holding on to their priveleged positions as long as they can think they can get away with.  Anyone with any sense knows that they are right up there idealogically with the Tories, so they'll continue to get hammered by voters wherever they stand.  Could be that Clegg is deposed/defects to the Tories, following mass unrest by the rank-and-file - cue uproar in the LDs, splits, and a then the decision - do we stay with the Tories and get wiped out at the next GE, or do we bring down the coalition to save our skins?  Give it 2 years or so max - I wouldn't be surprised if we're back to the polling booths before the date of the next official GE.
b) Labour, on a (not particularly great) majority - any anti-Tory votes will go to Labour instead of the Orange Books.
c) Could be 10 years? 20 years?  The fight for PR is a long term one - no quick wins here.  (And before anyone mentions it, PR was NOT on the cards as being offered if AV won - Milliband is No, Disco is No, and Clegg weaseled out of saying where he stood (so No then).


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

suey2y Sue 

Oh, Nick's up..... #marr

9 mins


----------



## magneze (May 8, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know from all the no-to-AV voters a) when the coalition will fall, b) your predictions as to who would win the ensuing general election and c) your timescale for a new referendum on electoral reform.
> 
> Weren't these your main objectives?


No. I thought AV was a shit system and voted accordingly.


----------



## magneze (May 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> suey2y Sue
> 
> Oh, Nick's up..... #marr
> 
> 9 mins


He mentioned "the national interest" in the 3rd sentence. Interview fail. I've started turning off as soon as I hear that phrase.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2011)

How in holy fuck is James Cordon on Marr? He had fucking Clegg and Miliband 'fessing up minutes ago.

This is ridiculous. Unless I've made a massively insensitive error in what he's on for, but he just said Osborne is a hilariously funny man (sincerely), so I reckon howls of protest are in order at the vapid celebrification of current affairs on the BBC, presumably because there are so many things the government won't allow them to say they might as well ramp up the pace of Project Make Britain Stupid to fill the airtime until they're told what to report on next.


----------



## Random (May 9, 2011)

Has anyone posted up this link yet?

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=8107



> The scale of incompetence by the YES campaign simply cannot be overstated. It is so vast and so staggering that it won’t merely fill column inches for days, if not weeks to come, it will be the subject of PhD theses for decades to come. It is unlikely that a wilful infiltration of the YES campaign by the NO side – at the most senior levels – could have resulted in a more calamitous result. The enormity of this professional political campaigning disaster is without parallel in modern British history.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

That's probably the only thing written by a lib-dem i'll be agreeing with this year:



> If there was one thing that nearly tipped me to voting NO (and I didn’t), it was the direct mail leaflet with the postal vote form. From recollection, the front page featured Joanna Lumley, Eddie Izzard, Tony Robinson, Colin Firth, Stephen Fry and other such celebrities. I may as well have been sent a leaflet saying “If you love the Guardian Arts supplement, then vote YES.” It showed a completely pitiful understanding of what most people – as opposed to most electoral reform professionals – care about.



He's right - if articul8 had actually grasped the points of calling him _the boy in the bubble_ and the repeated emphasis on here about the YES campaign appearing to be the private property of a small group of _pluralists_, and if he'd managed to effectively explain them to his co-workers the YES campaign would have done a lot better. He didn't and i think he still hasn't, which explains the lashing out and blame diffusion he's been engaged on since friday night - expertly summed up in the article in ref to his boss' behaviour:



> It is the fault of (a) the Murdoch empire or (b) the right-wing press more generally or (c) Conservative Party donors or (d) some other nebulous, ill-defined enemy of the people. No blame can be placed at the feet of Katie or the “movement” of democracy activists.



And the conclusion:



> The lessons of all of this should be pretty clear. Never again allow a bunch of well-meaning, self-important Guardian readers to run a national campaign in which they talk to themselves and then blame their embarrassing naivety on external forces beyond their control.


----------



## Santino (May 9, 2011)

articul8, if you're reading this, could you please pass on a message to your boss? Message follows:



> lol


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

Of course, the lib-dem bloke writing above is doing his own parties version of blame the others but he's still right.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, the lib-dem bloke writing above is doing his own parties version of blame the others but he's still right.


I think "angela" might possibly not be a 'bloke'!
She's also factually wrong about US Presidential polls - McGovern got below 40% in '72 - but the rest of it I found insightful, and the bits about (I paraphrase) the "YES" campaign being a bunch of _guardianista_ "beautiful people" talking to each other and not the whole country - far less building a broad national campaign - to be totally right


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think "angela" might possibly not be a 'bloke'!



I thought you knew better than to trust _anything_ they say?


----------



## Random (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think "angela" might possibly not be a 'bloke'!
> She's also factually wrong about US Presidential polls - McGovern got below 40% in '72 - but the rest of it I found insightful, and the bits about (I paraphrase) the "YES" campaign being a bunch of _guardianista_ "beautiful people" talking to each other and not the whole country - far less building a broad national campaign - to be totally right


 The beautiful, progressive, pluralist people, against the tribalists and the status quo. _How could they lose?????_


----------



## frogwoman (May 9, 2011)

Because everyone was brainwashed. By old labour tribalists and tories. That's what the public are like. They're stupid. Let's start an independent republic made up of clever areas.


----------



## Random (May 9, 2011)

Orpheus Shrugged


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

More evidence of the progressives deep connections with the mass of people - Jon snow, twitter, election day evening:



> I sense a surge for the ‘Yes’ vote, but have absolutely no rational grounds for so doing.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I thought you knew better than to trust _anything_ they say?


Ovaries - i'll concede on that one, given 3rd party verification!


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Because everyone was brainwashed. By old labour tribalists and tories. That's what the public are like. They're stupid. Let's start an independent republic made up of clever areas.


yes - so we can be sure _people are clever enough to vote the right way._
A8, if you're reading this, THIS is where it all went tits up


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

Internal inter-LD spat - they can't take the hint that it was lost as soon as Clegg put the Tories in power and are wildly lashing out at everyone else. 

I've never denied that some serious mistakes were made - eg. she's right about that direct mail.  But in general she'd be better off looking at how her own side soured the pitch (including the boundary changes into the bill setting up the referendum).


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

Note the _they_ in the above. You got clean hands eh? The article summed up exactly how _you_ personally behaved in the campaign and how you've responded since the loss.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Internal inter-LD spat - they can't take the hint that it was lost as soon as Clegg put the Tories in power and are wildly lashing out at everyone else.
> 
> I've never denied that some serious mistakes were made - eg. she's right about that direct mail.  But in general she'd be better off looking at how her own side soured the pitch (including the boundary changes into the bill setting up the referendum).


come off it. The 'YES' campaign failed as a whole, your whole pitch was wrong, it was more than about isolated mistakes of the toxicity of the LDs


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

I don't see how - I've acknowledged mistakes were made on the campaign - but this shrill denunciation by someone who wanted to put UKIP front and centre of the campaign is totally blinkered to the role of the LDs in making this unwinnable.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> come off it. The 'YES' campaign failed as a whole, your whole pitch was wrong, it was more than about isolated mistakes of the toxicity of the LDs


 
How would you have "pitched" a Yes vote on AV then?  We didn't have that option of asking a different question when the legislation went through.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't see how - I've acknowledged mistakes were made on the campaign - but this shrill denunciation by someone who wanted to put UKIP front and centre of the campaign is totally blinkered to the role of the LDs in making this unwinnable.


 
You don't see how you personally behaved in the campaign and how you've responded since the loss is accurately reflected in the article? What mistakes have you acknowledged?


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't see how - I've acknowledged mistakes were made on the campaign - but this shrill denunciation by someone who wanted to put UKIP front and centre of the campaign is totally blinkered to the role of the LDs in making this unwinnable.


so you're saying that this campaign was unwinnable even if you'd got the tactics right? I don't agree


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Internal inter-LD spat - they can't take the hint that it was lost as soon as Clegg put the Tories in power and are wildly lashing out at everyone else.
> 
> I've never denied that some serious mistakes were made - eg. she's right about that direct mail.  But in general she'd be better off looking at how her own side soured the pitch (*including the boundary changes into the bill setting up the referendum*).



I recall there was a few of us on here pointing this glaring "what the fuck" piece of legalised gerrymandering out to the Yes to AV-ers, yet no-one on that side ever responded to this.  Why the hell not?


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would you have "pitched" a Yes vote on AV then?  We didn't have that option of asking a different question when the legislation went through.


 
It's not about the question is it? It's about how you relate to the mass of people. You still just do not get it.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I recall there was a few of us on here pointing this glaring "what the fuck" piece of legalised gerrymandering out to the Yes to AV-ers, yet no-one on that side ever responded to this.  Why the hell not?


 
Because the gerrymander goes ahead anyway.   I did opppose it (including on here).


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would you have "pitched" a Yes vote on AV then?  We didn't have that option of asking a different question when the legislation went through.


The mirror image of what Elliott did - gone out to build as broad-based a coalition as possible, through time-honoured grassroots campaigning methods, and by ensuring the campaign has as wide a spectrum of 'yes' speakers - Labour, tory, UKIP, green - ANYONE who could pitch outside your narrow, exclusivist tent. And then I'd have got them out talking to people
And I'd have dropped all the art-stunt bollocks, and the labelling of the voters as thickies (you did do this, you just weren't ever aware of it)
e2a: your campaign was woefully patronising from day 1, tbh


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'd be curious to know from all the no-to-AV voters a) when the coalition will fall, b) your predictions as to who would win the ensuing general election and c) your timescale for a new referendum on electoral reform.
> 
> Weren't these your main objectives?


 
No. They weren't an objective at all for me. I've seen an attempt to impose an even worse voting system than the current one get thoroughly defeated. That's all I ever wanted from the referendum.

As far as I'm concerned there was only really one question. Would AV make British politics more relevant to the majority of people or not. I think the majority of voters looked at the "yes" campaign and decided that it was the usual load of irrelevant bollock and voted for the devil they knew.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't see how you personally behaved in the campaign and how you've responded since the loss is accurately reflected in the article? What mistakes have you acknowledged?


 
Mistakes I have acknowledged:
Over reliance on celebs
Over-selling benefits of AV
excessive emphasis on twitter/facebook etc at expense of direct community engagement
Excessive reliance on Guardian/Indie
synthetic attempt to promote "people's" campaign independent from political interests etc.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2011)

What made the "yes" campaign unwinnable was that AV appeals to precisely the sort of people who treat politics as a primarily intellectual exercise. In a recession where the government are hammering most of us with austerity measures most people don't see politics as an intellectual exercise, they see it relating to their ability to survive with a decent quality of life or, for many of us, to survive at all.

Had the "yes" campaign had any strong arguments regarding the ways in which AV would lead to a better life for the majority of the British people then there might have been a lot of support. However that argument wasn't made, in my view because there isn't any such argument.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Mistakes I have acknowledged:
> Over reliance on celebs
> Over-selling benefits of AV
> excessive emphasis on twitter/facebook etc at expense of direct community engagement
> ...


 
I've seen the first acknowledged in at best two or three passing posts, the second in one. The rest are things i'm pretty sure you haven't - on here at least. But all them things develop out of the same ground - the way in which you related to the mass of people, and how you as a group of pluralists related to yourself. The above article nailed that - regardless of where it comes from. This is the mistake all others flowed from and it's one that i've most certainly not seen you acknowledge. Acknowledgement means rejecting the bubble.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> The mirror image of what Elliott did - gone out to build as broad-based a coalition as possible, through time-honoured grassroots campaigning methods, and by ensuring the campaign has as wide a spectrum of 'yes' speakers - Labour, tory, UKIP, green - ANYONE who could pitch outside your narrow, exclusivist tent.



Difference is that Elliot had ready made support for the status quo on the Labour benches whereas Tory MPs were never going to come out against a system that meant the Tories spent less time out government in the 20th C than the communists in the USSR!!


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's basically correct, no?


 
Well yes, but the surprise is a Lib Dem actually talking about Planet Earth.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Difference is that Elliot had ready made support for the status quo on the Labour benches whereas Tory MPs were never going to come out against a system that meant the Tories spent less time out government in the 20th C than the communists in the USSR!!


You're still at it. You think people decided how to vote based on what their MPS decided? Such continuing arrogance.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've seen the first acknowledged in at best two or three passing posts, the second in one. The rest are things i'm pretty sure you haven't - on here at least. But all them things develop out of the same ground - the way in which you related to the mass of people, and how you as a group of pluralists related to yourself. The above article nailed that - regardless of where it comes from. This is the mistake all others flowed from and it's one that i've most certainly not seen you acknowledge. Acknowledgement means rejecting the bubble.


 
I don't necessarily dispute there is a gap between professional Westminster political campaigns and the world beyond the commentariat/insider chatter.  I just dispute that I've ever been holed up inside to the extent you've suggested.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're still at it. You think people decided how to vote based on what their MPS decided? Such continuing arrogance.


 
It's not arrogant to assume that Tory voters were influenced in how they voted by the formal position of the Tory leadership and hierarchy and the clear editorial stance taken by the Tory press.  It would be irrational to assume otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I don't necessarily dispute there is a gap between professional Westminster political campaigns and the world beyond the commentariat/insider chatter.  I just dispute that I've ever been holed up inside to the extent you've suggested.


 
Which would explain just how far off the mark you've been throughout this thread wouldn't it? You don't know how deep into it you are.


----------



## Random (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How would you have "pitched" a Yes vote on AV then?  We didn't have that option of asking a different question when the legislation went through.


 
You and the ERS could have said 'sod the referendum'; discredited it and kept your powder dry to push for PR. As it is now you're discredited by your loss and by the people you sided with in order to campaign for it.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Difference is that Elliot had ready made support for the status quo on the Labour benches whereas Tory MPs were never going to come out against a system that meant the Tories spent less time out government in the 20th C than the communists in the USSR!!


yes, but there were nevertheless SOME pro-AV tories, all of whom you should have used much better. it's not like you didn't have plenty of time to prepare - ever since the formation of the coalition, in fact


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not arrogant to assume that Tory voters were influenced in how they voted by the formal position of the Tory leadership and hierarchy and the clear editorial stance taken by the Tory press.  It would be irrational to assume otherwise.


 
You mentioned labour and tory MPs. Not the parties positions. Not the tory press, not anything else.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not arrogant to assume that Tory voters were influenced in how they voted by the formal position of the Tory leadership and hierarchy and the clear editorial stance taken by the Tory press.  It would be irrational to assume otherwise.


So get to them on the doorstep and engage with them. Otherwise, you simply repeate the same mistakes and defeatist asumptions which kept Labour out for 18 years. Stop treating ordinary voters as idiots!


----------



## Wolfie Smith (May 9, 2011)

It was always going to be hard for Yes to win.  There was a debate about the benefits or failings of AV in left wing and liberal circles - as evidenced in a small way by this very board - and that vote divided accordingly.   No such debate happened on the right, where Tory voters, once they had cottoned on to the fact that the Conservatives were whole-heartedly united behind No, dutifully trooped to the polling stations and voted accordingly.   Of course the scale of the defeat was such that even if there had been some division on the right then No might still have won, but the fact that the 'No' campaign had a united and solid base level of core Conservative support really did give them a head start.  

Or it could be that AV really is rubbish and most people recognised that.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (May 9, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's not arrogant to assume that Tory voters were influenced in how they voted by the formal position of the Tory leadership and hierarchy and the clear editorial stance taken by the Tory press.  It would be irrational to assume otherwise.


 
In my in depth poll of the two Tory voters I know (my Mum and my Mother in Law) this was _exactly _the reason they both voted no.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> It was always going to be hard for Yes to win.  There was a debate about the benefits or failings of AV in left wing and liberal circles - as evidenced in a small way by this very board - and that vote divided accordingly.   No such debate happened on the right, where Tory voters, once they had cottoned on to the fact that the Conservatives were whole-heartedly united behind No, dutifully trooped to the polling stations and voted accordingly.   Of course the scale of the defeat was such that even if there had been some division on the right then No might still have won, but the fact that the 'No' campaign had a united and solid base level of core Conservative support really did give them a head start.
> 
> Or it could be that AV really is rubbish and most people recognised that.


 
Or that the basis the YES vote started from an approach alienated potential YES voters and DKs - regardless of whether they could ever win.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 9, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Or it could be that AV really is rubbish and most people recognised that.


 
Nail.
|
V
Head.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2011)

To my mind it all swung on how many voters for each camp could be bothered on the day to turn out and vote. As a NO supporter I was worried that those who wanted change would be motivated to turn out and that this could hand them the result. 

However, it seems even if that was the case, the number of people who wanted YES was just not enough and in fact on the day plenty enough NO voters turned out. Plenty.


----------



## lighterthief (May 9, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> Or it could be that AV really is rubbish and most people recognised that.


More rubbish than FPTP?  I genuinely find this opinion baffling.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> More rubbish than FPTP?  I genuinely find this opinion baffling.


 
Irrelevant -it was offered as a reason why yes lost. Nice to see you being so neutral again.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant -it was offered as a reason why yes lost. Nice to see you being so neutral again.



Which electoral system would you prefer?


----------



## past caring (May 9, 2011)

Show of hands.


----------



## lighterthief (May 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant -it was offered as a reason why yes lost. Nice to see you being so neutral again.


I don't see why, given that the choice was between AV or the status quo (FPTP) - of course you have to compare one against the other.  How else would you make a decision?


----------



## strung out (May 9, 2011)

and 70% decided that AV was shitter than the status quo


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 9, 2011)

_Voters in Hackney bucked the national trend with 30,969 or 60.6 per cent of them opted for the alternative vote system and 20,064 or 39.3 per cent voting to stick with the first past the post system.

A further 164 votes were discounted as they were spoilt.

The yes vote was greater than the poll for either MP representing Hackney seats at last year’s General Election.

Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP Diane Abbott got 25,553 and Hackney South and Shoreditch representative Meg Hillier was elected with 23,888. _

Hackney Gazette


----------



## lighterthief (May 9, 2011)

strung out said:


> and 70% decided that AV was shitter than the status quo


Presumably, which is the bit I find baffling.  Although there were plenty of people on Urban saying they were voting no as it was the best way to "stop the cuts", which seems to be working out well as a strategy.


----------



## lighterthief (May 9, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _Voters in Hackney bucked the national trend with 30,969 or 60.6 per cent of them opted for the alternative vote system and 20,064 or 39.3 per cent voting to stick with the first past the post system.
> 
> A further 164 votes were discounted as they were spoilt.
> 
> ...


Another reason to love Hackney


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 9, 2011)

innit


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 9, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Another reason to love Hackney


 
Only borough in London with any sense.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 9, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Only borough in London with any sense.


or style.

or skill.


----------



## past caring (May 9, 2011)

It's a fucking khasi, tbf.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 9, 2011)

so speaks sarf london


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so speaks sarf london


endorsed from hackney's immediate east.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2011)

articul8 said:
			
		

> A no vote would make the LD MPs petrified of the Tories bouncing them into an early election - neither Clegg nor Cameron want that either - so the effect will be to bind the coalition closer.



Any sign of this happening yet?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 10, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Presumably, which is the bit I find baffling.  Although there were plenty of people on Urban saying they were voting no as it was the best way to "stop the cuts", which seems to be working out well as a strategy.



I don't recall anyone on here claimed that a "No" vote would immediately bring down the Government or somesuch.  What is has done is caused evident tensions between the Orange Books and the Tories - the liar Clegg is now trying to pretend that's "we're listening" and showing off his "progressive" roots - as if the hammering they got at the locals hasn't already shown them that the public think they're full of shit on that front.  Clegg really does think we're mugs.

Put it another way - would a "Yes" vote have stopped the cuts?  Answer:  Hell no.


----------



## stethoscope (May 10, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I don't recall anyone on here claimed that a "No" vote would immediately bring down the Government or somesuch.  What is has done is caused evident tensions between the Orange Books and the Tories - the liar Clegg is now trying to pretend that's "we're listening" and showing off his "progressive" roots - as if the hammering they got at the locals hasn't already shown them that the public think they're full of shit on that front.  Clegg really does think we're mugs.
> 
> Put it another way - would a "Yes" vote have stopped the cuts?  Answer:  Hell no.



Absolutely this.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Any sign of this happening yet?


 
I don't see any likelihood of the coalition beginning to fracture and the breaks being applied to the cuts.  They'll pick a token fight or two - but do you really think LDs will welcome a general election any time soon?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2011)

A no vote would make the LD MPs petrified of the Tories bouncing them into an early election - neither Clegg nor Cameron want that either - so the effect will be to bind the coalition closer. said:


> I don't see any likelihood of the coalition beginning to fracture and the breaks being applied to the cuts.  They'll pick a token fight or two - but do you really think LDs will welcome a general election any time soon?


 




			
				articlu8 said:
			
		

> A no vote would make the LD MPs petrified of the Tories bouncing them into an early election - neither Clegg nor Cameron want that either - so the effect will be to bind the coalition closer.



Has this happened? Were you, are you right?

All the things that i said would happen if there was a NO vote are happening.


----------



## TruXta (May 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> All the things that i said would happen if there was a NO vote are happening.


 
Link? Curious is all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2011)

A link to hidden conflicts coming to the surface, to existing conflicts being heightened, to general dissaray? As a result of the NO vote?


----------



## TruXta (May 10, 2011)

Sorry, I meant a link to posts where you'd laid out your ideas about what a NO would mean. I guess you kinda summarised it there anyway.


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> More rubbish than FPTP?  I genuinely find this opinion baffling.


Way, way worse.

Greens win first parliamentary seat in 2010 with 31% of the vote under FPTP.

AV would have required 50%, and there's no way they'd have got enough second preferences, because they were well known to be in with a good chance. Virtually none of their supporters voted tactically for a different party, and it's hard to imagine left-LDs and Labour voters not using them as a very fine protest vote if they liked them enough to put them #2 on an AV ballot.

So basically, PR campaigners were destroying the village in order to save it - gullible enough to support an regressive step just because  ... well, just because of what? No one in their right mind who both cared about PR would vote for AV. It is a majoritarian, not proportional, system, and it is even worse than FPTP for banishing small parties from Westminster.

We were saved because the liberal elite have become so smug and self-selecting, they don't bother to do their homework properly and are incredibly easy to manipulate as a result - but the public know that politics is literally life or death right now, so they did do their homework and cannot believe how arrogant the cunts are in the ease with which they lie to us.


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sorry, I meant a link to posts where you'd laid out your ideas about what a NO would mean. I guess you kinda summarised it there anyway.


tbh, a lot have been saying this, time and time again, throughout the thread (tho' i think BA was first)


----------



## lighterthief (May 10, 2011)

ymu said:


> Greens win first parliamentary seat in 2010 with 31% of the vote under FPTP.
> 
> AV would have required 50%, and there's no way they'd have got enough second preferences, because they were well known to be in with a good chance. Virtually none of their supporters voted tactically for a different party, and it's hard to imagine left-LDs and Labour voters not using them as a very fine protest vote if they liked them enough to put them #2 on an AV ballot.


I'm not sure I quite understand your logic.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> All the things that i said would happen if there was a NO vote are happening.



How?  The coalition is coming apart?  bollocks.  Insofar as it might still end early it will be because the Tories feel strong enough to throw the LDs aside.


----------



## TruXta (May 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How?  The coalition is coming apart?  bollocks.  Insofar as it might still end early it will be because the Tories feel strong enough to throw the LDs aside.


 
Bravo, you just managed to contradict yourself.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How?  The coalition is coming apart?  bollocks.  Insofar as it might still end early it will be because the Tories feel strong enough to throw the LDs aside.


 
And why this?  Because of the thumping Clegg's lot got at the locals, plus the hammering of AV (which was Clegg's baby), there's a lot more obvious tension between the Tories and the Orange Books.  Watch now for how the Orange Bookers try to publically reverse the NHS "reforms", even though they signed up to them in the first place (and if the rumors are to be believed, Clegg didn't even bother to read the small print of the "reforms" - he just waved them through), and then get humiliated again when Cameron et al get their way and push them through, leasding to more humiliation for the Bookers, and more genuine hatred for them from the public....and people wonder why Clegg was so toxic to the Yes to AV campaign!


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How?  The coalition is coming apart?  bollocks.  Insofar as it might still end early it will be because the Tories feel strong enough to throw the LDs aside.


it is completely obvious the coalition is under much, MUCH more stress and pressure than it was before, you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb to miss that. These are human beings, and organisations made up of them - of course there's a breaking point


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

The LDs are in a no win position now - Clegg needs to be seen to take on the Tories, but at the same time is totally bound to them because his party faces annihilation if the coalition breaks down early.  The Tories have emerged much stronger after May 5 - particularly with SNP trouncing Labour.  The coalition will only end if the Tories want it to - in no way has a No vote opened up a dynamic for stopping the cuts even if the coalition breaks up.


----------



## Random (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The LDs are in a no win position now - Clegg needs to be seen to take on the Tories, but at the same time is totally bound to them because his party faces annihilation if the coalition breaks down early.  The Tories have emerged much stronger after May 5 - particularly with SNP trouncing Labour.  The coalition will only end if the Tories want it to - in no way has a No vote opened up a dynamic for stopping the cuts even if the coalition breaks up.


 
The Lib Dems are screwed. Do you think the tories would have been just as screwed if there had been a yes verdict?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 11, 2011)

Also note that certain elements in the Tories are trying to get the "left wing" Kenneth Clarke booted out of his role as Justice Secretary, to be replaced by some thumping "prison works" bore.  There may be trouble ahead....


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The coalition will only end if the Tories want it to - in no way has a No vote opened up a dynamic for stopping the cuts even if the coalition breaks up.


This is categorically not so. If the membership of the LDs say "no mas! enough!" Clegg has little choice in the matter


----------



## Random (May 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> This is categorically not so. If the membership of the LDs say "no mas! enough!" Clegg has little choice in the matter


 
I think holding out for the LD membership to take action is a bit futile tbh. A bunch of party grandees stabbing Clegg in the back is more likely.


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2011)

As butchers has said from the very beginning, though, we don't necessarily need for the coalition to completely fall apart.  We just need it to be neutered, unable to keep enacting oppressive policy left, right and centre (but mostly right).  For that to be the case, it is sufficient to just have infighting, disagreements about direction and fear for the participants' political future.  We now have those things in spades.


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

Random said:


> I think holding out for the LD membership to take action is a bit futile tbh. A bunch of party grandees stabbing Clegg in the back is more likely.


prob is, such people know they'd need to repudiate not just clegg, but the whole condem project, to have a chance of saving themselves at the next GE (which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise).
Also, it pays never to underestimate the effect of Ld grassroots pressure.
i'd go so far as to kinda-agree, in that a combination of the two is likely


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> As butchers has said from the very beginning, though, we don't necessarily need for the coalition to completely fall apart.  We just need it to be neutered, unable to keep enacting oppressive policy left, right and centre (but mostly right).  For that to be the case, it is sufficient to just have infighting, disagreements about direction and fear for the participants' political future.  We now have those things in spades.


agreed, good point


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I'm not sure I quite understand your logic.


If you could explain why, I might be able to help.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> As butchers has said from the very beginning, though, we don't necessarily need for the coalition to completely fall apart.  We just need it to be neutered, unable to keep enacting oppressive policy left, right and centre (but mostly right).  For that to be the case, it is sufficient to just have infighting, disagreements about direction and fear for the participants' political future.  We now have those things in spades.


 
But Cameron is in the driving seat.  If he find the coalition is not letting him get through enough of what he wants he'll chuck the LDs overboard at the earliest opportunity.  Clegg knows this.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

Random said:


> I think holding out for the LD membership to take action is a bit futile tbh. A bunch of party grandees stabbing Clegg in the back is more likely.


 
LD peers can do this, but the MPs won't because they'll be turkeys voting for xmas.  There will be some noises off for tactical reasons but they won't rock the boat far enough.


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But Cameron is in the driving seat.  If he find the coalition is not letting him get through enough of what he wants he'll chuck the LDs overboard at the earliest opportunity.  Clegg knows this.


 
He can try, yes.  We'll see, won't we?  What I see so far is all kinds of ill-feeling and indications that the Tories will struggle to get their more radical agenda through from now on.  That's not bad for a week.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

The only area thing they are stuggling to push through is NHS reform - but that has more to do with overwhelming opposition from health professionals than the LDs half-hearted opposition.

I'm not expecting an early election - I'm expecting that Cameron has got this LDs held hostage.


----------



## Random (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'm not expecting an early election - I'm expecting that Cameron has got this LDs held hostage.


 Well the British public just shot the hostage.


----------



## doddles (May 11, 2011)

Random said:


> Well the British public just shot the hostage.


 
Yeah, but maybe it'll be like all those old soviet leaders, barely breathing being occasionally propped up in front of a TV camera for a prepared statement before being wheeled away to their guarded hospital ward. And noone really knows that they're dead, until the government is forced to make a statement on an unpopular policy and they can no longer wheel out the old sick man for the occasion.


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> LD peers can do this, but the MPs won't because they'll be turkeys voting for xmas.  There will be some noises off for tactical reasons but they won't rock the boat far enough.


Who said anything about their lordships? I was referring to the membership as a whole - including all those toxically bitter now-ex-councillors


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But Cameron is in the driving seat.  If he find the coalition is not letting him get through enough of what he wants he'll chuck the LDs overboard at the earliest opportunity.  Clegg knows this.


....but Cameron would be risking a GE defeat


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

What with the LDs shafted and being no threat in all the Ld/Con marginals and the SNP hammering Labour in Scotland?    He'd prefer the coalition to work out a) because Clegg is a useful human shield and b) because it would give them time to get the boundaries changed.  But the Tories made *gains* last week - there is every chance they'd win a majority if the election were held soon.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Who said anything about their lordships? I was referring to the membership as a whole - including all those toxically bitter now-ex-councillors


 
So councillors are pissed off..how will that induce LD MPs to risk an early election and a trip to the dole queue?


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> So councillors are pissed off..how will that induce LD MPs to risk an early election and a trip to the dole queue?


you're missing it by a mile....The LD constitution allows for the "ordinary" membership to force a leadership recall and election, if enough branches are seriously in favour of doing so. They can also force the leadeship to adopt their (the members') poilicies
There are similar clauses to make individual MPs accountable to the membership of their branch/constituency. Individual MPs can't stop either scenario, if the grassroots will is there in sufficient quantity.
In other words, if enough of the membership decide now is the time for a complete about-turn, and dig their heels in, they can make it happen.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2011)

streathamite - you've been going on about the LD constitution & leadership recall for months now - it's not going to happen. they won't ever get enough branches demanding it while they are in power - disgruntled members will suck it up, or leave, just like they did with labour. 

look elsewhere for your lib dem decapitation, 'cause it won't come from the membership.


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What with the LDs shafted and being no threat in all the Ld/Con marginals and the SNP hammering Labour in Scotland?    He'd prefer the coalition to work out a) because Clegg is a useful human shield and b) because it would give them time to get the boundaries changed.  But the Tories made *gains* last week - there is every chance they'd win a majority if the election were held soon.


a) seen the opinion polls lately? In fact, have you seen them AT ALL in the past 6 months? because if you had, you'd have noticed Labour leading consistently - enough to indicate a comfortable Labour majority - for almost every single day of the last 6 months. 3 have been a Labour-tory deadheat, the rest ALL Labour. Polls that solid over time are taken seriously by politicians
b) as both the SNP and Labour know, the Holyrood results mean nothing in terms of anything but Holyrood, and the places Labour got hammered in scotland are just as likely to re-elect existing Labour MPs in the next GE. There's no dividend for the tories there AT ALL (they'll probably also vote 'no' to independence too, going by past results).
And wehilst we're at it, LD candidates in tory marginals have traditionally outperformed national polling indicators and overall GE results.
you really haven't done your homework here, have you?


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> streathamite - you've been going on about the LD constitution & leadership recall for months now - it's not going to happen. they won't ever get enough branches demanding it while they are in power - disgruntled members will suck it up, or leave, just like they did with labour.
> 
> look elsewhere for your lib dem decapitation, 'cause it won't come from the membership.


Clearly, you needed to pay closer attention to exactly *what* i've been saying, because I've NEVER said grassroots dissatisfaction will automatically lead to a recall, simply that their members have far more power than in the other parties to make their discontent felt, and that this is just _one_ of _many_ factors that _could _destabilise their party and it's leadership.
secondly, If you've been in a political party for a certain amount of time, you don't just "suck it up or leave" - that party is just as likely to matter sufficiently to individual members to induce them to stay and fight their corner, which is precisely why I stayed in Labour for years longer than I should have, and I know a lot of other current  and ex-Labour members of whom one can say the same. People's feelings of attachment to their party are often too strong to simply walk away, and the longer their membership the more this is so, simply because that party can end up playing a huge role in your life (again, I am exhibit 'A' here).


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

Just tio add; i don't expect this to happen overnight, but the next municipal elections, in 2012, could prove decisive, dependent on what happens between now and then


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> secondly, If you've been in a political party for a certain amount of time, you don't just "suck it up or leave" - that party is just as likely to matter sufficiently to individual members to induce them to stay and fight their corner, which is precisely why I stayed in Labour for years longer than I should have, and I know a lot of other current  and ex-Labour members of whom one can say the same. People's feelings of attachment to their party are often too strong to simply walk away, and the longer their membership the more this is so, simply because that party can end up playing a huge role in your life (again, I am exhibit 'A' here).


 
so, you sucked it up, and then left.


----------



## Streathamite (May 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> so, you sucked it up, and then left.


Yes - after a SEVEN YEAR rearguard action. And there are people to the left of me still in the LP today, hanging on for the next swing of the pendulum


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2011)

fwiw, i have read what you've been saying, as you've been repeating it non stop for a year. i don't disagree that the mechanism is there - i just disagree that it'll ever be used.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> a) seen the opinion polls lately? In fact, have you seen them AT ALL in the past 6 months? because if you had, you'd have noticed Labour leading consistently - enough to indicate a comfortable Labour majority -


 
Christ almighty - you really can't see that votes mounting up in safe Labour seats mean jack shit as far as a General Election result goes?  Might i remind you that Labour's last GE result was only barely better than under Michael Foot, amongst the worst in the modern period?

If you think Labour are well placed to sweep back into power you could scarcely be more wrong. Even the guy who co-wrote the last manifesto with Ed Mili acknowledges this.    Still, Lib Dems members will ride to the rescue?  Dream on...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 11, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Christ almighty - you really can't see that votes mounting up in safe Labour seats mean jack shit as far as a General Election result goes?  Might i remind you that Labour's last GE result was only barely better than under Michael Foot, amongst the worst in the modern period?
> 
> If you think Labour are well placed to sweep back into power you could scarcely be more wrong. Even the guy who co-wrote the last manifesto with Ed Mili acknowledges this.    Still, Lib Dems members will ride to the rescue?  Dream on...



Indeed, tory governments have a good record of winning elections when they're both unpopular and behind in the polls at the start of the campaign. Labour are just not ready in the eyes of the electorate to retake power yet and it may take a change of leadership before they are. If Cameron was to call an election now, the most likely outcome would be a tory government with a small overall majority in my opinion.


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Indeed, tory governments have a good record of winning elections when they're both unpopular and behind in the polls at the start of the campaign. Labour are just not ready in the eyes of the electorate to retake power yet and it may take a change of leadership before they are. If Cameron was to call an election now, the most likely outcome would be a tory government with a small overall majority in my opinion.


 
How is an unpopular and behind in the polls Tory party going to come back in the polls short of offering to buy up all our personal debt and let us pay it back at the price they're getting?I

It's happened before. Is it likely to happen _this _time?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2011)

More likely than not.


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> More likely than not.


 
Could you give us the basis for your opinion as well as what it is? We're not a pantomime - we have actual content here.

I can't change my opinion that your opinion has no merit unless you tell me why you think it has merit so I can consider whether you have a good point or not.

You know, like a discussion, sort of thing.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> What with the LDs shafted and being no threat in all the Ld/Con marginals and the SNP hammering Labour in Scotland?    He'd prefer the coalition to work out a) because Clegg is a useful human shield and b) because it would give them time to get the boundaries changed.  But the Tories made *gains* last week - there is every chance they'd win a majority if the election were held soon.


And you wonder why people don't listen to you. You're living in la-la land.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> And you wonder why people don't listen to you. You're living in la-la land.



In the recession of the early eighties you lot would be confidently predicting the Tories would soon be swept out of power.  They were in office for another decade and a half.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 12, 2011)

Anyone hear Radio 4 early this morning, where Disco claimed he and the Tories would "save" the NHS, pointedly leaving out Clegg and the Orange Books in that equation?  Also some of the Lib Dem Lords managed (with Labour peers) to defeat the police reform bill  - in defiance of Clegg's attempts to whip his lot into line to support the bill.

Yes, the Tories and Lib Dems are all in this together.

And back to AV (after all, this is what this thread is about!), how would AV have helped the Lib Dems reign in the Tories cuts agenda, if they are now (according to some pro-AVers here) seen as Cameron's Useful Idiots?


----------



## kabbes (May 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> In the recession of the early eighties you lot would be confidently predicting the Tories would soon be swept out of power.  They were in office for another decade and a half.


 
No I wouldn't, because I was only 5 at the time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2011)

I don't think the current polls indicate a Labour majority in any hypothetical election any time soon, maybe if we had a proportional electoral system - but we would need to see polls in the key marginals to make a sensible prediction and thats without taking into account the fact that there could be a swing in either direction depending on the campaigns - I think the local election results point to a Tory election victory and thats without boundary changes. I wouldn't worry too much about Scotland as I think the Labour vote would resurge and have much more chance against the SNP though no doubt they would still substantially improve on their current 6 MPs.

I do think the local elections and the AV result have knocked the Libdems for six, and were essential in damaging the coalition and opening it up to infighting and confusion and have had a positive effect.

I also don't think we can expect a huge rebellion from the Libdem grassroots, their power (exagerrated on paper anyway) is not as great when the party is in government, and anyway they don't know what to do...


----------



## xenon (May 12, 2011)

I can see the Tories winning with a narrow majoirty if a GE was held today. The Lib dems are dead. Labour's in disarray and mistrusted. Plenty won't vote. And we still have an FPTP system that the Tories would do well under.

Evidence? I don't have any. Gut feeling. Just more conjecture in a thread oversubscribed with the stuff.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> And back to AV (after all, this is what this thread is about!), how would AV have helped the Lib Dems reign in the Tories cuts agenda, if they are now (according to some pro-AVers here) seen as Cameron's Useful Idiots?


 
I never argued it would - but it would have created more tension between a leadership that are signed up to the cuts because they are politically in agreement they are necessary and a membership which could have argued "we got what we came for" - now we can fuck off if Cameron pushes his luck.  They are in no position to do so now - they need to seen to be more "muscular" in defence of their own party position but ultimately Cameron has them over a barrell.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about Scotland as I think the Labour vote would resurge and have much more chance against the SNP though no doubt they would still substantially improve on their current 6 MPs.


I think people are seriously misreading the situation if they think Scottish voters will not vote Labour in a Westminster election.  In a Westminster election, faced with a choice between Labour and Tory in government, they'll vote Labour.  In Holyrood, faced with a choice between the SNP and Labour forming the government, this time they they chose SNP.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I never argued it would - but it would have created more tension between a leadership that are signed up to the cuts because they are politically in agreement they are necessary and a membership which could have argued "we got what we came for" - now we can fuck off if Cameron pushes his luck.  They are in no position to do so now - they need to seen to be more "muscular" in defence of their own party position but ultimately Cameron has them over a barrell.



I'd say the leadership of the Lib Dems are not just politically in agreement with the cuts, but idealogically too - Clegg's public so-called reversal on the NHS "reforms" has shown him up for the snake-oil salesman that he is.  My take is that if Clegg had been successful with the AV vote, him and the others in the cabinet would have said to the rank and filers, "We're winning, stick with the team and we'll get our way", and then imposed their neo-liberal Orange Books agenda at cabinet level - with the Tories having had zero problem with this up until now.

It's absurd to the point of embarrassing how many Lib Dems supporters/activists have "suddenly" woken up to the Orange Books' true agenda - hadn't they been following the leadership's policy documents and manifestos over the past couple of years?

Cameron has played a blinder here - Lib Dems get the blame whilst Disco gets the media credit for being a "strong" leader - this won't last forever though, once the cuts really kick in and people suddenly remember why they hated Maggie in the first place...


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2011)

Maggie won 3 elections despite how much she's was hated in large parts of the country let's not forget.  Christ, the Tories even won the election after the poll tax.

Think it would have been hard to claim "we're winning" even if the AV vote was carried - given the hammering they took in the locals.  But Cameron's authority in his own party would have been diminished.  

Anyway we are where we are.  Labour is too complacent about what it needs to do to get back in a winning position.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 12, 2011)

I think the 1992 election showed exactly why Kinnock should have never been leader of the LP - talk about an open goal if there ever was one.


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Maggie won 3 elections despite how much she's was hated in large parts of the country let's not forget.  Christ, the Tories even won the election after the poll tax.
> 
> Think it would have been hard to claim "we're winning" even if the AV vote was carried - given the hammering they took in the locals.  But Cameron's authority in his own party would have been diminished.
> 
> Anyway we are where we are.  Labour is too complacent about what it needs to do to get back in a winning position.


 
We hadn't lived with 32 years of neo-liberal havoc-wreaking when Maggie was PM. You need to learn how to update your database or you will never, ever understand why we were right and you were wrong. You don't get to contradict the electorate.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Could you give us the basis for your opinion as well as what it is? We're not a pantomime - we have actual content here.
> 
> I can't change my opinion that your opinion has no merit unless you tell me why you think it has merit so I can consider whether you have a good point or not.
> 
> You know, like a discussion, sort of thing.



What do you want? Charts? Statistics? Science? Hard evidence? All I can give is an educated guess after having followed elections since as long ago as Wilson v. Heath. I'm not expecting you to change your opinion because that never really happens around here, and the fact that you think my opinion has no "merit" is just something I'll have to learn to live with.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What do you want? Charts? Statistics? Science? Hard evidence? All I can give is an educated guess after having followed elections since as long ago as Wilson v. Heath. I'm not expecting you to change your opinion because that never really happens around here, and the fact that you think my opinion has no "merit" is just something I'll have to learn to live with.


 
OK. I think you're wrong because Labour have been ahead in every poll this year, sometimes with more than Tory+LD combined. They've been on a 40-90 seat majority on UK Polling Report since they decided it was worth doing the swing calcs. And the government had been on a -20 to -30 approval rating all year, with their best that I've seen recently being -21 on a Royal Wedding bounce.

That is precisely why I want to know what kind of insanity you expect to befall the voting public to turn it around for them?

If you're basing it on stats, I need the stats nefore I can judge the worth of your opinion. Where the fuck are your stats coming from?


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

Oh, and the world has changed so much that the first projection they did gave the Lib Dems one seat and Respect seven. That's how much UK politics has changed in a year. I'm not sure a lifetime of election watching is a good predictor here.  Your database is obsolete.


----------



## shagnasty (May 13, 2011)

One thing in labours favour is the tories can't lie about what their going to do because they are already doing it


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

Yep. And we know how badly they lie. And they turned a landslide into a hung parliament before everyone knew for certain.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> we were right and you were wrong.


 
I argued a No vote would be a boost for Cameron.  It has been.  FPTP might hand a majority to the Tories at the next election they wouldn't have got under AV.  Wonder if you'll be so smug then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> *I argued a No vote would be a boost for Cameron.  It has been.*  FPTP might hand a majority to the Tories at the next election they wouldn't have got under AV.  Wonder if you'll be so smug then?


 
You sound very sure. You are also missing the point that it was argued that a no vote would damage the coalition; do you think it has strengthened it?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

The coalition will exist for as long as the Tories think it's helping them to implement their cuts agenda.  Cameron is in the driving seat now - the moment he chooses to he can rip the whole thing up, go for an early General Election and crush the LDs.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The coalition will exist for as long as the Tories think it's helping them to implement their cuts agenda.  Cameron is in the driving seat now - the moment he chooses to he can rip the whole thing up, go for an early General Election and crush the LDs.


 
So what is the answer to my question; coalition stronger or weaker?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. it might not be the Tories crushing the LDs.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

The LDs are still locked into coalition with the Tories - the surface need to assert themselves covers over the fact that they know that an early election would be fatal.  

I don't see any evidence that a No vote has made withdrawal from the coalition any more likely.  Quite the contrary.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> The LDs are still locked into coalition with the Tories - the surface need to assert themselves covers over the fact that they know that an early election would be fatal.
> 
> I don't see any evidence that a No vote has made withdrawal from the coalition any more likely.  Quite the contrary.


 
So you think the coalition is a stronger, more credible, more capable government following the no vote. You lost the referendum; you now seem determined to loose the postmortem...have fun.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

I didn't say anything about their credibility.  I'm just saying that from the LD perspective early withdrawal from the coalition is now unthinkable.  But if it collapses - which it could - it will be because the Tory party is in a position of strength and will only tolerate the coalition insofar as they believe it to be useful from their point of view.

To the extent that the coalition can fracture after the AV vote it is because Cameron and the Tories are in a win-win situation.  People who voted NO have helped to engineer this situation.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I argued a No vote would be a boost for Cameron.  It has been.  FPTP might hand a majority to the Tories at the next election they wouldn't have got under AV.  Wonder if you'll be so smug then?


 
Oh ffs! They're telling the Orange Bookers to incorporate themselves as Tories because they know this election was a disaster for them, whatever the fixed grins said. Those yellow Tories need to be hugged close if the coalition is to maintain a majority now.

If you live only in the world inside your own head, you will always be clueless about what is actually going on.

Find Martin Rowson's AV ATQUE VALE cartoon on the result (Guardian). Martin doesn't miss a trick, and it is spot on. I posted it somewhere, but you pay so little attention I'm going to make you find it yourself.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

And if the coalition splits?  What then?  Cameron goes for an early election - winning a majority.  The Tories win either way - they have the LDs over a barrell.  

I'm sorry if you can't see this christ alone knows what you think is "actually going on".


----------



## kabbes (May 13, 2011)

I think there's a leeeeetle bit of justification you need to do between the words "early election" and the words "winning a majority".


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

Labour is near bankrupt (financially and politically) and is in no position to fight it.  The collapse in the LD vote hands walkovers to the Tories in whole swathes of the South [Huhne and Cable will both be gonners] and the Tories better able to concentrate resources on fighting Con/Lab marginals.   The tories made gains in May don't forget.

The only reason Cameron doesn't go for one straight away is that having the LDs as human shields is useful - and pushing through the boundary changes makes it even harder for Labour to get themselves back in the race.


----------



## kabbes (May 13, 2011)

Oh yeah, I forgot that you know more about it than UK Polling Report, who currently have Labour on a 46 seat majority if the election was tomorrow.


----------



## Santino (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Labour is near bankrupt (financially and politically) and is in no position to fight it.  The collapse in the LD vote hands walkovers to the Tories in whole swathes of the South [Huhne and Cable will both be gonners] and the Tories better able to concentrate resources on fighting Con/Lab marginals.   The tories made gains in May don't forget.
> 
> The only reason Cameron doesn't go for one straight away is that having the LDs as human shields is useful - and pushing through the boundary changes makes it even harder for Labour to get themselves back in the race.



How would voting Yes have changed any of that?


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

Hmm - a uniform swing projection.  Which is precisely what WON'T happen where opinion is highly polarised.

UK Polling Report themselves say:


> This is a crude measure and can result in some illogical and impossible projections


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> How would voting Yes have changed any of that?


 
I never claimed it would directly - it was NO people on here claiming that it would kick off some dynamic that meant the cuts agenda would begin to be stymied.
Which they apparently believe is happening!


----------



## kabbes (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Hmm - a uniform swing projection.  Which is precisely what WON'T happen where opinion is highly polarised.


 
Impressive, though, that you manage to to get from UKPR's projected 46 Labour majority to a cast-iron certainty that the Tories would have a majority instead.  That's one hell of a swing that you are completely 100% sure will happen.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> And if the coalition splits?  What then?  Cameron goes for an early election - winning a majority.  The Tories win either way - they have the LDs over a barrell.
> 
> I'm sorry if you can't see this christ alone knows what you think is "actually going on".


 

Show me the polls that tell you the Tories would win an election called tomorrow.

Because without evidence, your opinion is useless.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Show me the polls that tell you the Tories would win an election called tomorrow.
> 
> Because without evidence, your opinion is useless.


 
Why, we have evidence that his opinion is useless.


----------



## kabbes (May 13, 2011)




----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Do you forgive me now, o' Kabbes?

edit: OOOOO it was your 30000th post!


----------



## kabbes (May 13, 2011)

It was a mighty use of post 30,000 too.  I can think of no finer representation of my efforts.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Oh, one might have wished for an equation or two.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

kabbes said:


> UKPR's projected 46 Labour majority



Did you miss the bit where they say openly admit this is not a serious projection but a daft and crude interpretation of national polling data into a uniform swing? 

Perhaps you can explain how seats the LDs took narrowly from the Tories at the last election will go anywhere other than Tory given a LD collapse?


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Did you miss the bit where they say openly admit this is not a serious projection but a daft and crude interpretation of national polling data into a uniform swing?
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how seats the LDs took narrowly from the Tories at the last election will go anywhere other than Tory given a LD collapse?


 
Can you show us the method you used to turn the poll data into a Tory majority please?

UKPR are a serious org, and serious orgs always tell people the limits of their methods.

The mediocre ones never do, because all they have is rhetoric and think that words are enough to trump reality. Because they're not interested in truth, they're interested in proving their original thesis.

Which is why people like me make a living hunting down people like you for taking the piss with your nonsense.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Why, we have evidence that his opinion is useless.


 
Being in the minority and being wrong aren't the same thing.   In years to come it will be people who lined up with the Tories to defend a manifestly bankrupt electoral system whose opinions will be judged as "useless".


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Can you show us the method you used to turn the poll data into a Tory majority please?
> 
> UKPR are a serious org, and serious orgs always tell people the limits of their methods.
> 
> The mediocre ones never do, because all they have is rhetoric and think that words are enough to trump reality.


 
Hold on a minute, I'm saying that it is not possible to translate a national vote share into a meaningful projection - and on that I agree with UKPR.    You are challenging me to do something I'm arguing is not possible!!

I know you're a bit slow on the uptake but...


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

Making ridiculous, unevidenced assertions - and then attacking a serious analysis for admitting the limits of their methods - when you haven't even posted your method yet but think we should just take your word without needing the evidence ...

That's why you lost, right there. You don't think anything could be more important than the ideas in your smug liberal head, so reality must surely reflect what you think and no evidence is needed.

You're a liability, Which is why you backed YES in the first place.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

It's like arguing with a backwards child .  I *haven't* attacked UKPR - I've objected to someone using data they openly admit is crude and unreliable as though it was any kind of evidential basis for undermining my argument.  

Get it now?

By definition it's conjectural to argue about how people will vote in the event of  General Election being called, given that you'd have to factor in the effect of the campaign, in which the Tories could probably outspend Labour by a factor of 5:1.  



> For Ed Miliband the most commonly picked phrase was “out of his depth” (41%), followed by weak (28%). Below that came smug (22%), “out of touch” (22%), weird (21%) then indecisive (18%) – all negative words. The most commonly cited positive words or phrases were determined (16%) and fair, likeable and principled (all down on 14%).



Does this polling evidence suggest that Ed is likely to be next PM in the event of a GE?  Interesting that you were the one lining up with the Tories to keep in place a system that meant they spent more time in government in the UK during the 20th Century then the Communists spent running Russia in the same period!  And I'm supposed to be the one in the wrong!  Ha, what a joke.


----------



## lighterthief (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Show me the polls that tell you the Tories would win an election called tomorrow.


It's a bit of an irrelevant question though isn't it?  An election won't be held tomorrow.  Just because one party is ahead in the polls now does not mean they will be ahead when the time comes for people to actually vote.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

You don't even know enough to know why you are an embarrassment.

Here's a great tip for getting better at stuff: When someone offers you information, it will be of the greatest value to you if you consider the possibility that it might be right and study it before reaching a conclusion. If it's wrong you'll know why, and if it's right, you were wrong and you now have a better-informed opinion of the world.

In my world, you're one of the people that can't get published because they have no credibility. People who think they can prove what they want to prove, work for drug companies, who harm people for profit and through sloppiness. People who know that truth matters when it's medical research, expose the reckless incompetents like you, who kill millions with their stupidity.

So think on if you think you're impressing anyone with this nonsense.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> It's a bit of an irrelevant question though isn't it?  An election won't be held tomorrow.  Just because one party is ahead in the polls now does not mean they will be ahead when the time comes for people to actually vote.


 

Been there. Done that. Read thread.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 13, 2011)

articul8 - given what we have now re voting thingies, how would an AV-style voting system have impacted on any forthcoming GE, as you see it?


----------



## lighterthief (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Been there. Done that. Read thread.


Still an irrelevant question.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

I SAID READ THREAD. You don't know what you don't know. Try reading summat and you might know more.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> articul8 - given what we have now re voting thingies, how would an AV-style voting system have impacted on any forthcoming GE, as you see it?


 
Well obviously if it happens before 2014/2015 - no direct effect whatsoever (as the Tories made it dependent on the boundary changes clearing through in time).   But it would have made an early election less likely in any case because the Tories would have read it - correctly - as evidence of an incipient anti-Tory consensus.  You can see the smugness exude from Cameron now he knows the anti-Tory vote will remain divided come the next election - and the effect of the boundary changes won't offset - giving them maximum impact.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I SAID READ THREAD. You don't know what you don't know. Try reading summat and you might know more.


 
typing in capitals - the last refuge of someone who has to shout as though it made their irrelevant questions any more valid.


----------



## lighterthief (May 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I SAID READ THREAD. You don't know what you don't know. Try reading summat and you might know more.


How about you stop being such an arrogant, patronising and pompous arsehole? I don't need to trawl through 4000+ often tedious posts to know that much.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

lighterthief - is Skøyen really where you live? If yes, poor bastard.


----------



## lighterthief (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> lighterthief - is Skøyen really where you live? If yes, poor bastard.


It is.  There are reasons other than personal preference for doing so.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Working in Lysaker?

e2a - sorry, we can take this to pm so we don't rot the thread entirely.


----------



## trampie (May 13, 2011)

FPTP always had over 50% of the vote, if you use the same criterior as AV.


----------



## trampie (May 13, 2011)

Why no vote to decide on which system to take on FPTP, nobody wanted AV, PR may have won the day, AV was the worst system I have ever seen, initial third or fourth placed parties being able to win, my left foot.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> How about you stop being such an arrogant, patronising and pompous arsehole? I don't need to trawl through 4000+ often tedious posts to know that much.


 
How about you stop demanding that people repeat their answers to the exact same question they wasted time on before, just because you are too lazy to read?

Now that's arrogant.

If you're told it's on the thread, it's on the thread. I'm not wasting my time repeating myself for a petulant child that can't be arsed to do its homework.

If you want respect, you'll have to give it too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2011)

trampie said:


> Why no vote to decide on which system to take on FPTP, nobody wanted AV, PR may have won the day, AV was the worst system I have ever seen, initial third or fourth placed parties being able to win, my left foot.


 
That paticular objection is a matter of taste, I think. AV tends to lead to the least disliked candidate getting in. I think there is a case for saying that where an MP goes on to represent the whole constituency, not just the sector of the electorate that thought they were the best candidate, a system that leads to the least disliked candidate getting in is preferable. 

On balance, this is what I think. Even though, like you, I think AV is a shit system too, I think it's marginally less shit than the current system, which just makes no sense to me where you have more than two candidates. I can't think of a single comparable situation where this current system is used - no organisation coming up with a system from scratch would dream of using this one. That said, this isn't exactly an overwhelming argument in favour of AV by any means.


----------



## trampie (May 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That paticular objection is a matter of taste, I think. AV tends to lead to the least disliked candidate getting in. I think there is a case for saying that where an MP goes on to represent the whole constituency, not just the sector of the electorate that thought they were the best candidate, a system that leads to the least disliked candidate getting in is preferable.
> 
> On balance, this is what I think. Even though, like you, I think AV is a shit system too, I think it's marginally less shit than the current system, which just makes no sense to me where you have more than two candidates. I can't think of a single comparable situation where this current system is used - no organisation coming up with a system from scratch would dream of using this one. That said, this isn't exactly an overwhelming argument in favour of AV by any means.


 
An example I dreamed up, AV supporters dont seem to understand that the winner under AV does not always get over 50% of the vote, for example the winner under AV gets over 50% of the vote compared to second place if it comes down to the final two, to give a fair comparison using the same criterior the winner under FPTP allways gets over 50% of the vote also, when you compare the winner under FPTP to second place and disregard everyone else, that is what AV is doing, the winner under FPTP also gets over 50%.

A 100 people vote and in the first round A gets 20 votes, B gets 19 votes, C gets 18 votes, D gets 17 votes, E gets 16 votes and F gets 10 votes, F gets kicked out, two of F votes go to E and the other 8 votes are binned as the voters only made one choice.
D get kicked out in round two {A-20, B-19,C-18,D-17,E-18, 8 discounted votes}, one of D votes go to E and the other 16 votes are binned as the voters made no second choice.
C gets kicked out in round three {A-20,B-19,C-18,E-19, 24 discounted votes}, one of C votes go to E and the others are binned.
B gets kicked out in round four {A-20,B-19,E-20, 41 discounted votes}, one of B votes go to E and the others are binned.
E beats A in the fifth round {A-20, E-21, 59 discounted votes}

Not only did the initial fifth place party win, but only 21% of the turnout voted for them, of which only 16% voted for them as their first choice , if the turnout had only been 50% then only 10.5% of the total electorate in the ward would have voted for them, every winner gets over 50% of the vote under AV, my left foot it does.

In the example given A only had 20%, the winner E only had 21% {16% only as voters first choice}, 59% of voters were discounted in the final analysis, E had 51.2% in the final round compared to A 48.8%, as all other votes were discounted at that stage, to compare like with like under FPTP, if you compare the top two parties only in any given seat and discount all other votes the winning party in FPTP always gets over 50% of the vote compared to the second placed party.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2011)

Yep. You are correct. You'd only be guaranteed more than 50% of the vote if voters were compelled to place a preference against all the candidates. 

It's all academic now anyway. From my point of view, I can only hope that this no result leads to division in the govt that stops them from implementing some of their worst ideas. Time will tell, and of course we'll never know what a yes vote would have done to the govt.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can only hope that this no result leads to division in the govt that stops them from implementing some of their worst ideas. Time will tell, and of course we'll never know what a yes vote would have done to the govt.


 
There will be some token stuff - but only where the Tories choose it.  I think NHS reforms might well be one of them - because Cameron is aware that being seen as anti-NHS would be toxic, and without the support of at least some sections of healthcare professionals they will fail to sell it.   They'll still go for some kind of greater internal market but not on so drastic a scale.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2011)

Lordy, such ruthless liberal bubble efficiency - no wonder YES won by such a huge margin.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 2, 2011)

I'd be the first to admit the Yes campaign wasted cash - but these figures do prove it was outspent by the Tory-backed NO campaign


----------



## Belushi (Dec 2, 2011)

It doesnt matter one way or another, you never had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the referendum.

Your tragedy is that you still don't understand why.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I'd be the first to admit the Yes campaign wasted cash - but these figures do prove it was outspent by the Tory-backed NO campaign


You had more money and you spent less. No way out.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

How do you work that out?  As to Belushi - in retrospect I don't think it was winnable.  For a number of reasons.  But the way the LDs mis-managed the campaign meant it was lost by a greater margin than could othewise have been the case.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How do you work that out? As to Belushi - in retrospect I don't think it was winnable. For a number of reasons. But the way the LDs mis-managed the campaign meant it was lost by a greater margin than could othewise have been the case.


From the figures released during the campaign - we even talked about it on this bloody thread.

You cannot separate you and the lib-dems in this - take some responsibility. The arguments you offered and the way they were offered mirrored theirs completely, you actually provided the radical veneer to them. You've been told this throughout the thread and campaign but you just won't accept it. As louis said earlier during your immediate post-defeat foot-stamping, you lost the battle and now seem intent on losing the post-mortem with these rather squalid and transparent attempts to wriggle out of taking any responsibility.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

I would have thought that a bit of humility is in order from your end - considering you argued throughout that a NO victory would weaken the coalition and begin to undermine the cuts agenda.  I think my counter-argument that it would further bind the LDs into coalition and strengthen the Tories (including, and perhaps particularly, at the next GE is unfortunately vindicated).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I would have thought that a bit of humility is in order from your end - considering you argued throughout that a NO victory would weaken the coalition and begin to undermine the cuts agenda. I think my counter-argument that it would further bind the LDs into coalition and strengthen the Tories (including, and perhaps particularly, at the next GE is unfortunately vindicated).


I argued that a NO victory was the only possible outcome that had any _potential_ to undermine or weaken the coalition, not that it immediately would,not that it would briong down the coalition or force another general election - as you know damn well as you spent hundreds of posts disagreeing. And as it goes, the fallout from the defeat allied with the local elections hammering has led to the lib-dems being forced to re-position themselves on austerity and brought the underlying conflicts to the fore - that's not the greatest of returns at this minute but has _potential_ to become very important as opposition to the austerity program develops.Whereas you and your lib-dem mates have handed the tories another electoral advantage through the reduction of seats/boundaries etc, a concrete return. Cheers for that.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

You can fuck off with that - I argued clearly and at length that the boundary changes shouldn't be included in the AV bill and that I would urge a vote against it insofar as they were combined. That was dreadful Lib Dem tactics and backfired totally. I'm surprised to see you arguing that the the LDs are "repositioning themselves on austerity" btw - I see precious little evidence of this, particularly amongst the Cleggite tendency in the leadership.

I never said you argued the coalition would immediately fall, but you did say that it would begin to unwind the coalition and expose divisions - which it hasn't to any marked degree.

[edit - and I don't accept that the YES campaign had more money - especially when you count the huge "donation in kind" from the Tories]


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> You can fuck off with that - I argued clearly and at length that the boundary changes shouldn't be included in the AV bill and that I would urge a vote against it insofar as they were combined. That was dreadful Lib Dem tactics and backfired totally. I'm surprised to see you arguing that the the LDs are "repositioning themselves on austerity" btw - I see precious little evidence of this, particularly amongst the Cleggite tendency in the leadership.
> 
> I never said you argued the coalition would immediately fall, but you did say that it would begin to unwind the coalition and expose divisions - which it hasn't to any marked degree.


No i can't. That argument holds as much water as saying _well yes i voted for thatcher in 1979 but i made clear that i didn't agree with any of her policies. _Another attempt to avoid responsibility. You only got your wretched and oh so important referendum because of the boundary changes. A rhetorical condemnation of them whilst proceeding to work with the results is worthless opposition.

I'm not saying they've turned anti-austerity, i'm saying they've become much more aware of the effects that the cuts are having on their parties and their individual reputations and standing and how this might impact on their future careers, which reveals a contradiction within the coalition that can be played on opposition to austerity develops. (And in case anyone gets the wrong idea, i mean as a small part of the movement and in a purely instrumental manner, i'm not arguing for a parliamentary or electoral based approach)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No i can't. That argument holds as much water as saying _well yes i voted for thatcher in 1979 but i made clear that i didn't agree with any of her policies. _Another attempt to avoid responsibility. You only got your wretched and oh so important referendum because of the boundary changes. A rhetorical condemnation of them whilst proceeding to work with the results is worthless opposition.



It's _nothing_ like saying that because I argued *against* voting for the AV bill as put forward by the Tories, but once that had gone through we had to make the best of it.



> I'm not saying they've turned anti-austerity, i'm saying they've become much more aware of the effects that the cuts are having on their parties and their individual reputations and standing and how this might impact on their future careers, which reveals a contradiction within the coalition that can be played on opposition to austerity develops. (And in case anyone gets the wrong idea, i mean as a small part of the movement and in a purely instrumental manner, i'm not arguing for a parliamentary or electoral based approach)



But by and large this is *not* the lesson they've taken from the AV defeat - which is that their fortunes are totally bound up with the coalition being perceived as a) necessary and b) successful in reducing the deficit.  Insofar as they are worried it's because their austerity is fucking up economic growth and the tory bullshit about private sector stepping in to the breach isn't working.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> It's _nothing_like saying that because I argued *against* voting for the AV bill as put forward by the Tories, but once that had gone through we had to make the best of it.



No, you and the political naifs you were working for/with had other options - you could have told the lib-dems you would not work for the YES vote, for their referendum, that you would actively campaign for a NO vote if the boundary proposals were accepted as the price. But you didn't - you meekly went along with it just adding a merely rhetorical attack on the boundary proposals whilst laying the groundwork for them to happen.



> But by and large this is *not* the lesson they've taken from the AV defeat - which is that their fortunes are totally bound up with the coalition being perceived as a) necessary and b) successful in reducing the deficit. Insofar as they are worried it's because their austerity is fucking up economic growth and the tory bullshit about private sector stepping in to the breach isn't working.


So when we (some of the anti-yes people) argued that the humiliating failure of the referendum and the austerity plans,  allied with personal and party advantage would lead to the lib-dems maneuvering away from pro-austerity we were _wrong_, when you argue that they are doing that because of the failure of the austerity plans alone then you're _right_? Odd world ain''tit?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

But the NO vote means they are in a double-bind. They have to cling to the Tories even though they are increasingly coming to see what that means. I suppose this is where we differ - you seem to think that a strengthened Tory party is a price worth paying for punishing the LDs, whereas I was prepared to see the LDs make temporary gains if it meant weakening the Tories.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> But the NO vote means they are in a double-bind. They have to cling to the Tories even though they are increasingly coming to see what that means. I suppose this is where we differ - you seem to think that a strengthened Tory party is a price worth paying for punishing the LDs, whereas I was prepared to see the LDs make temporary gains if it meant weakening the Tories.



Just a thought from me - again and again, it was this that was pushed by the yes to AV people at the time - as if a Yes To AV vote was a vote against neo-liberalism!

Also remember the "the BNP want to vote No - will you?" campaign?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

That was a bit cack-handed, but a response to the blatant lie from the NO campaign that AV meant BNP votes counted more than once


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> That was a bit cack-handed, but a response to the blatant lie from the NO campaign that AV meant BNP votes counted more than once


How the hell is treating the voters like little children and patronising them a response to that?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

As I say, it was badly done.  But it was reasonable attempt to highlight that if the BNP thought AV would help them (as Warsi et al alleged) then they wouldn't be opposing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> As I say, it was badly done.  But it was reasonable attempt to highlight that if the BNP thought AV would help them (as Warsi et al alleged) then they wouldn't be opposing it.



Where did it do that then?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

well it emphasised the message that BNP were voting NO - which they wouldn't very well do if they thought they'd benefit from AV


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> well it emphasised the message that BNP were voting NO - which they wouldn't very well do if they thought they'd benefit from AV



The BNP are also pro-Proportional Representation, by the way...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> well it emphasised the message that BNP were voting NO - which they wouldn't very well do if they thought they'd benefit from AV



hmmm


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

yes as I said


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> yes as I said


Can't really see it being a response to anything tbh, just looks like an embarrassing lazy finger wagging exercise. If it was a response then it was far beyond being simply cack handed...


----------



## articul8 (Dec 3, 2011)

Any reputable psephologist would agree that AV is the system least likely to see the BNP prosper (I don't think this is the main criteria for an electoral system by the way) - but to see Tories heavily implying that this would make the BNP more powerful was blatant scare mongering.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Any reputable psephologist would agree that AV is the system least likely to see the BNP prosper (I don't think this is the main criteria for an electoral system by the way) - but to see Tories heavily implying that this would make the BNP more powerful was blatant scare mongering.


I'm quite sure they would. I'm also quite sure they wouldn't undermine their case by a bout of patronising paternalistic finger wagging...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

There's no such thing as a "reputable psephologist".


----------



## trampie (Dec 4, 2011)

The vote was a no brainer, AV is a pathetic system, the AV people tried to say that the winner of AV always gets over 50% of the vote, do me a favour, using the same criterior of looking at the top two then the winner under FPTP always gets over 50% compared to second place, i showed an example i dreamed up of AV with 6 runners, with the winner originally winning with only 16% of the vote and finishing 5th out of 6, but going onto win the race under AV.

Pure PR or something close to pure PR fine, but FPTP over AV anyday.

What were the Lib-Dems thinking with this AV sh*t, PR or Porthcawl surely.


----------



## Santino (Dec 4, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Any reputable psephologist would agree that AV is the system least likely to see the BNP prosper (I don't think this is the main criteria for an electoral system by the way) - but to see Tories heavily implying that this would make the BNP more powerful was blatant scare mongering.


And yet you were banging on about AV opening up a space for a left alternative. How could it help the radical left but at the same time not help the extreme right?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 4, 2011)

Well I would say this was among the weaker arguments put forward, and I've never argued this should be a main criterion for judging the voting system (which is why I'd support PR).  Mind you, there is no inevitable reason why the far left and far right should rise or fall together as far as greater electoral opportunities go.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2012)

From articul8's own mag:

Don’t Take No for an Answer: How not to run a referendum campaign



> The resulting impression was not an authentic ‘people’s campaign’, but rather the disingenuous creation of a left‑liberal bubble, obsessed with celebrity endorsements from people like Stephen Fry and Joanna Lumley. Its literature was bereft of content, making claims that were excessive and lacked credibility, and alienated many potentially supportive MPs – precisely those whose support would influence people turning out to vote. In short, an object lesson in how not to run a referendum campaign.


 
Is Callum Michaels a pseudonym of yours articul8?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2012)

Why, what difference would that make?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 13, 2012)

That's a yes then!

Seriously though, that's not a review of the book, rather tha a brief rundown of the books conclusions about how the Yes Campaign was run, though it fails even to give a satisfying picture of that!

Is this book a decent account of a failed political campaign? Because if it is useful I will probably get it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes it's a decent account - a little generous in places (!), but mostly accurate


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Why, what difference would that make?


Difference to what?

I'd just find it rather funny/telling if you were reduced to using the same conclusions and language in your criticisms of the YES campaign that we used here against you and that you aggressively rejected. I'd find it doubly hilarious if you decided to use a pseudonym to do it, and trebley funny if you were caught in the act. Is it you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 13, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes it's a decent account - a little generous in places (!), but mostly accurate


 
Cheers, the generosity is OK I think I can counter that with this thread.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 13, 2012)

It's fairly transparent so- not much detective work there Hercule (my reasons for the pseudonym were partly contractual).  In retrospect some of the criticisms made on here were telling (though the Labour side of the operation was much less guilty than the main Yes umbrella group as directed by the LibDems).   I would still defend that in some respects even insofar as a Yes vote would have represented a rejection of FPTP it was worth having, just.


----------

