Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Will you vote for Alternative Vote?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you vote for Alternative Vote?

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aww, bless. You still think that reframing the argument into a question is going to work outside the playground. If you think that calling each other liars and threatening legal recourse is a sign of the new politics you've been championing, you're even more of an oaf than I thought.

 

 

I'll frame things any damn way I want to.

 

I don't give two fucks what people have been saying, how is it relevant? People say all kinds of shit, it doesn't mean they can't work together towards a common goal.

 

The maturity lies in working together despite disagreements. I know these very public disagreements shatter the myth that the left wants to perpetuate about the closeness of the coalition partners, but that's too bad.

 

Firstly, let me clear up some of your ignorance. i don't want them to happen, and I've never said anything that suggests or implies that I want them to have catastrophic ramifications.

 

 

Well I hope that's true.

 

Secondly, a fair amount of my predictions are already coming true, just a year into government.

 

 

Can we have a list?

 

Thirdly, why do you keep terming your half-arsed predictions as if they're facts?

 

 

What's sauce for the goose and all that. If you can make predictions about the future, so can I.

 

Finally, I think a more relevant question is, what are people like you, who are desperate for these ideologically driven cuts to be enforced, going to do if my predictions are carried out to their fullest extent?

 

 

Well, first of all, I wouldn't describe essential cuts as "ideologically driven". It's a £160bn deficit, I hope anyone in their right mind would want to reduce that, irrespective of what ideology they subscribed to.

 

And if the cuts fail to have the desired impact? Well, it'll show that all three of the parties got things badly wrong, since all three planned deficit reduction measures that were broadly similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don

Any form of proportional representation is better than the current system. Under the current system, generally in a UK election, just 30% or so vote for the 'winning' MP.

 

Under PR, that wont happen. It will also mean effectively the 'losing' 70% of voters in a constituency are not immediately disenfranchised. For example, if the MP returned is a tory, he's hardly going to listen to labour voters who want him to vote in the Commons against Government policy. Same with a labour or liberal MP.

 

Its wrong in this day and age that we stick with the anachronism that is first past the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
I'll frame things any damn way I want to.

 

I didn't say you couldn't, did I? Just that not credible to do so.It just makes you look like you've got something to hide. Which, of course, you have.

 

I don't give two fucks what people have been saying, how is it relevant? People say all kinds of shit, it doesn't mean they can't work together towards a common goal.

 

You don't seem to be able to comprehend the point being made here. You were bellowing about this coalition being about new, 'grown-up' politics, but this isn't new politics, it's slimy, sleazy old politics that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It's politicians taking shots at each other and obfuscating the real issues.

 

The maturity lies in working together despite disagreements. I know these very public disagreements shatter the myth that the left wants to perpetuate about the closeness of the coalition partners, but that's too bad.

 

What the hell! Working together isn't threatening with legal action and calling your bedfellows liars. This coalition has been destructive, in a massive way, I don't want any part of that particular brand of new politics. I want a real new politics, the ones the Lib Dems speak about, not the one they're part of at the moment.

 

Well I hope that's true.

 

It'd be utterly ridiculous to suggest anything else. I know full well what your brand of economic illiteracy will do to people all around this country, there's no way I want that to be catastrophic. If they're catastrophic, I'd be deeply unhappy. That's the difference between me and those driving these cuts; I actually give a fuck about people.

 

Can we have a list?

 

Is that the royal 'we', because the only person I see here arguing your corner is you, a psuedo-tory. I'm not listing predictions I've made. Being somebody who bases his comments solely on facts, I'm sure you wouldn't have made your previous remarks about my 'expect[ations]/want' without already knowing what I've said, would you?

 

What's sauce for the goose and all that. If you can make predictions about the future, so can I.

 

Again, you seem to have a problem with comprehension here. Stating that it's a matter of 'when', not 'if' isn't a prediction. It's an assertion. Again, it doesn't make it any more real.

 

Well, first of all, I wouldn't describe essential cuts as "ideologically driven".

 

This is a massive lie. Not in your case, as you're just parroting what has been said by people who are perpetuating it. I wouldn't describe essential cuts as ideologically driven, either. It's the none-essential cuts that I have a problem with. Cuts that are slowing the economy and restricting growth. Cuts that will see many tens, or hundreds of thousands of people out of work. That, to me, is a catastrophe.

 

It's a £160bn deficit, I hope anyone in their right mind would want to reduce that, irrespective of what ideology they subscribed to.

 

It's not something to get massively bent out of shape over, that's for sure. It's a problem, it needs to be addressed, but you and your ilk are scaremongering.

 

And if the cuts fail to have the desired impact? Well, it'll show that all three of the parties got things badly wrong, since all three planned deficit reduction measures that were broadly similar.

 

Yeah, broadly. You know, in the same way that rock and opera are broadly both musical genres. However, I do think all parties have got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Any form of proportional representation is better than the current system. Under the current system, generally in a UK election, just 30% or so vote for the 'winning' MP.

 

Under PR, that wont happen. It will also mean effectively the 'losing' 70% of voters in a constituency are not immediately disenfranchised. For example, if the MP returned is a tory, he's hardly going to listen to labour voters who want him to vote in the Commons against Government policy. Same with a labour or liberal MP.

 

Its wrong in this day and age that we stick with the anachronism that is first past the post.

 

That's all very well, except that AV isn't proportional representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like what? Drug policy reform? Nuclear weapons? Tuition fees? Banking reform (all went a bit tits-up after the Torygraph's hatchet job on Cable didn't it?) So what else?

 

Your party has been steamrollered at every single turn. This isn't a coalition, it's slavery.

 

I told him this would happen, many said they would pay for joining in the coalition and giving the Tories power they didn't deserve, it was clear that the Tories were too powerful and rich for the Libs to have a chance. Had Nick grown a pair stood on his own two and fought his parties corner and rejected the coalition that no one voted for then then everyone would still be saying 'I agree with Nick' (Remember that!) AND the other two parties would look like the 'same old same old' and the Libs could have come out of it stronger as credible, brave and mature people standing up for what they beleive in. The we could have come back to it after 6 months perhaps and another round of voting it would only have empowered more people to vote for them. No one wanted Brown or Cameron but Clegg had to be strong, reject the offers to dilute their strength and show the public they weren't intimidated by the big two.

As soon as they flopped under pressure, sold out and entered the coalition they signed their own death certificate and many said it. SD was all about the markets and was all for the grabbing a small peice of tossed crumbs of power due to either hunger or greed but basic all they needed was a bit more discipline than the average baby. He was wrong about that and continues to justify it, blinded by the lights, blinded by the lights.

Maybe they wouldn't have won an outright majority but I would put my money on them coming out of it with a whole lot more support, stronger and going forward a platform to build on and win the respect of an politically apathetic public and AV would have been a breeze. Even the media would not have been able to smear them so easily as public would have seen through it whereas now it's hard to distinguish. All those disenfranchised students and public over the tuition fees who protested or supported the protests would be behind the Libs as would the likes of these tax avoidance protestors etc, etc.

 

SD I don't care whether you think the coalition will last 5 years or not, I make no predictions on that front as it depends on small details for me, however long it lasts, 5 years or 3 decades, just as soon as the public are given their own crumb of power back to make their choices in a vote then you will suffer a massacre at the polls. Forget AV, a mere drop of dirty water to wash down those crumbs of power that would fail to slake you thirst as you won't get it anyway now, no one wants to back the party that beleives it has done a good thing for the country when in actual fact it is a traitor to the public, nobody likes a liar, to them you are like the smackheads, lying and stealing for the opiates of power, they are going to lock you away so you go cold turkey. Only then can you reinvent yourself and that will be a long time away.

Edited by dennis tooth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way politicians twist words when it comes to these things really gets on my tits. Chris Huhne on Sky saying someone standing in the first past the post system could become MP 'even if 70% of their electorate had voted against them'. Bollocks that really isn't it? They haven't voted against him, they've just voted for other people. That's a big fucking difference.

 

Instead they'd rather have a system where we elect someone we 'don't mind'. Tories have their first choice but then put down Lib Dem at number 2 because they prefer that to Labour, and Labour voters do the same. So we end up with an MP nobody particularly wanted, but just disliked the least compared to the alternative.

 

What a load of bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
The way politicians twist words when it comes to these things really gets on my tits. Chris Huhne on Sky saying someone standing in the first past the post system could become MP 'even if 70% of their electorate had voted against them'. Bollocks that really isn't it? They haven't voted against him, they've just voted for other people. That's a big fucking difference.

 

Well, technically speaking, nobody votes against anybody else, but you are in real terms rejecting them in favour of somebody else. There's certain degrees of rejection, of course. For example, I reject less of Lib Dem policy than I do Conservatives, and less again than the BNP.

 

FPTP is a dreadful system. Don't forget, the ruling party - albeit propped up by others - had only 36% voter support (for the things they promised - much less for the things they didn't).

 

AV is shit, but it's less shit than FPTP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way politicians twist words when it comes to these things really gets on my tits. Chris Huhne on Sky saying someone standing in the first past the post system could become MP 'even if 70% of their electorate had voted against them'. Bollocks that really isn't it? They haven't voted against him, they've just voted for other people. That's a big fucking difference.

 

Instead they'd rather have a system where we elect someone we 'don't mind'. Tories have their first choice but then put down Lib Dem at number 2 because they prefer that to Labour, and Labour voters do the same. So we end up with an MP nobody particularly wanted, but just disliked the least compared to the alternative.

 

What a load of bollocks.

 

The 70% thing is true, Secsh. Ssay 30% vote tory, 29 lab, 29 lib and the rest green then tory win and surely if you don't vote tory in this case then you vote against them. It's a binary thing - you have 2 settings for or against.

In AV you don't have to put a 2nd choice if you don't want too - i don't really see your issue with AV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone see that advert for the Yes campaign with Dan Snow trying to explain the system via the method of a group of friends trying to choose which pub to go to? Of dear - patronising = 20, to make matters worse, I actually understood the theory until I saw that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the 'No Campaign' isn't run by the tories but it is the tories predominantly supporting it so I had to laugh when I received some of their junk mail this morning.

 

"AV leads to broken promises. The Lib Dems and Nick Clegg would always be part of government".

 

"AV would lead to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises such as the Lib Dems' U-turn on tuition fees".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not even justifiable on an evidential basis. Of the four bodies not elected by FPTP that we already have in this country, the Lib Dems are in power on, er, zero of them.

 

I understand Liverpool will probably vote heavily against electoral reform tomorrow, underlining its reputation as one of the most (small c) conservative places in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not even justifiable on an evidential basis. Of the four bodies not elected by FPTP that we already have in this country, the Lib Dems are in power on, er, zero of them.

 

I understand Liverpool will probably vote heavily against electoral reform tomorrow, underlining its reputation as one of the most (small c) conservative places in the country.

 

Would you not think some of those are a protest against your lot joining the coalition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it wasn't. I agree the vast majority of the 'No campaign' has been bullshit and that AV is a slightly fairer alternative to FPTP.

 

The reason I found it funny was the 'No campaign' is predominantly made up of your coalition partners. I would suggest this gives an insight into how they value the libs role in the coalition. And as I suggested in the very beginning the second they thought they could get an outright majority on their own they'd drop you in double quick time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TK-421

"AV leads to broken promises. The Lib Dems and Nick Clegg would always be part of government".

 

"AV would lead to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises such as the Lib Dems' U-turn on tuition fees".

 

How can a voting system cause a broken promise? A broken promise causes a broken promise. Silly billies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???

 

The referendum was agreed on the understanding that the Tories would fight it tooth and nail. Not sure how this says anything other than that they are against electoral reform, which we already know.

 

Did Cameron not agree to take a back seat during the campaign?

 

Which is besides the point, all political parties are power hungry, any party in a coalition would dump their 'partner' if they though they could go it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting yes.

 

If this helps us get away from the two party system we currently have, then we owe it to future generations to help put such a system in place.

 

Got my 'no to AV' card through today, and the points being made are juvenile. I don't mind more coalitions, in fact I think it's fucking healthy that politicians are made to work with people who don't necessarily agree with them. They are, after all, politicians and should be able to work with other people, like we all have to.

Another shitty aspect was the point made about the BNP, and how some parties will 'pander to the BNP vote'. Well, it's already been happening for years, this isn't changing that. Besides which, much of the Tory manifesto could quite conceivably have been BNP prose, really not much difference.

 

What strikes me is that this country is ready for change, we drum up the courage to vote Green or Lib Dem, or any other minority party, and then get downhearted when the same outcome is announced, your vote was wasted. In the same way the 'no to AV' group try to scare people with the BNP thing, it's worth remembering that the Green party and such like are also very important here, and so their views will also have to appear on the radar of the reds and blues if they want Green voters' second vote.

 

I think the AV is exciting and the only way forward, and a great way to knock the heads of political parties together. Listen to us, you fuckers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting yes.

 

If this helps us get away from the two party system we currently have, then we owe it to future generations to help put such a system in place.

 

Got my 'no to AV' card through today, and the points being made are juvenile. I don't mind more coalitions, in fact I think it's fucking healthy that politicians are made to work with people who don't necessarily agree with them. They are, after all, politicians and should be able to work with other people, like we all have to.

Another shitty aspect was the point made about the BNP, and how some parties will 'pander to the BNP vote'. Well, it's already been happening for years, this isn't changing that. Besides which, much of the Tory manifesto could quite conceivably have been BNP prose, really not much difference.

 

What strikes me is that this country is ready for change, we drum up the courage to vote Green or Lib Dem, or any other minority party, and then get downhearted when the same outcome is announced, your vote was wasted. In the same way the 'no to AV' group try to scare people with the BNP thing, it's worth remembering that the Green party and such like are also very important here, and so their views will also have to appear on the radar of the reds and blues if they want Green voters' second vote.

 

I think the AV is exciting and the only way forward, and a great way to knock the heads of political parties together. Listen to us, you fuckers.

 

PR?

 

Otherwise good points well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...