The Alternative Vote (AV)

[passmore]

If AV isn't fair, then why do the major political parties use it to elect their leaders?

It depends what you view as 'fair', like I said, the fair/unfair argument is purely subjective and there is no straightforward right/wrong answer.

The major political parties obviously view AV as a 'fair' system to elect their leaders. That doesn't mean we the public share the same opinion.

 

[Zoe]

Also, no party is likely to support a system that will likely result in them winning less seats. It's not suprirse that the LibDems want a system that would result in them getting more seats and the Tories don't want it as they'd lose seats.

 

[SS4]

Also, no party is likely to support a system that will likely result in them winning less seats. It's not suprirse that the LibDems want a system that would result in them getting more seats and the Tories don't want it as they'd lose seats.

Exactly, it's the same as gerrymandering which the Tories have done on the sly

 

[HST Power]

There's always Alternate Vote Plus!


(this does exist)

 

[Oswyntail]

Exactly, it's the same as gerrymandering which the Tories have done on the sly

And Labour didn't? And when did the Tories do this? The last boundary review (IIRC) was in about 2005 (under, let me see, Labour). I know that the current Labour policy (since about 1990 to be honest) is to state that Tories are spawn of Satan and plan to eat all small children, but whatever Mandelson may put about it ain't all true.

 

[SS4]

And Labour didn't? And when did the Tories do this? The last boundary review (IIRC) was in about 2005 (under, let me see, Labour). I know that the current Labour policy (since about 1990 to be honest) is to state that Tories are spawn of Satan and plan to eat all small children, but whatever Mandelson may put about it ain't all true.

And? Two wrongs don't make a right!

Fair enough, they will do so in the future with the plans to reduce the number of MPs. Naturally this will mean boundary changes favourable to the Tories.

 

[thefab444]

There's always Alternate Vote Plus!

Yes, essentially AMS with AV for the constituency MPs rather than FPTP. Now that *is* too complicated in my opinion.

 

[Ferret]

And? Two wrongs don't make a right!

Fair enough, they will do so in the future with the plans to reduce the number of MPs. Naturally this will mean boundary changes favourable to the Tories.

It should hardly come as a surprise that the Tories wish to redress the balance after Labour's gerrymandering. What do you expect them to do? Leave things as they are?!

 

[Zoe]

The London mayoral election also has a different system: You state a first and second preference and when all the first preference votes have been counted if no-one has a majority of first preference votes then the top two candidates go through to a second round where the second preference votes are added to their totals except where the vote has a first preference for one of the remainign two candidates and a second preference for the other.

 

[SS4]

It should hardly come as a surprise that the Tories wish to redress the balance after Labour's gerrymandering. What do you expect them to do? Leave things as they are?!

Labour wished to redress the balance after Tories' gerrymandering and so on which is why we need an independent body to decide boundaries. Only a very naive person will expect them to go back to a "neutral" state

 

[HST Power]

I know that the current Labour policy (since about 1990 to be honest) is to state that Tories are spawn of Satan and plan to eat all small children

So true. The stick I got at school for being a Tory was unbelievable.

 

[Ferret]

The Tories must have done an excellent job of gerrymandering in 1997 to concede a 170 seat majority!!!

 

[Greenback]

No it isn't, if people just give up now there will never be electoral reform.

What I mean is that it's too late to talk about AV, I have not given up on electoral reform!

Sadly I agree with Greenback, it is a bit irrelevant to talk about it now. The British public have voted and have declined AV.

When all is said and done, whether or not that means they reject any electoral reform of any kind is up to the politicians and how they interpret the result. Campaigning for AV long after the horse has clearly bolted, which some on here are still doing, is as pointless as it can get.

You are correct. It's also speculating what would have happened if AV had been used instead of FPTP. People may have voted differently under a different system, we will never know!

Yup - the AV horse has well and truly bolted, and I'd say we've just made it a nailed on certainty that we'll never use that system here in our lifetimes. I don't agree that the media were responsible for the result, but the media can be responsible for starting the ball rolling to get full PR. It'll take time, but I think it could be done....

It will be several years at least before there will be any more discussion on reform. After a referendum defeat on devolution in 1979 it took nearly twenty years for the issue to be brought back up in a similar manner.

If AV isn't fair, then why do the major political parties use it to elect their leaders?

There may be better systems than AV. Perhaps it is time to think a little more radically!

 

[Mojo]

Safe seats render those who have a different point of view's vote pointless. If you lived in a safe Labour seat you may as well stay at home on polling day than vote Conservative. Only those in marginal seats will have a chance to really affect the composition of government and since they are relatively rare it's hardly democratic.

What about Enfield Southgate? Even in 1992 Michael Portillo got over 50% of the vote and lost come the next election. Might be a rare case, but shows it's not impossible and chances are that AV would have meant no difference.

 

[Bonemaster]

I have not given up on electoral reform!

I have for anytime before I'm drawing a pension in 30 years time, this was the one and only chance on electoral reform, had there have been a "Yes" vote, I have no doubt that there would have been the PR question within 10 years. Sadly the Yes campaign was doomed before it started with the alternative system not even being supported by the reformists, something I'm sure the Tories were more than aware of when it was offered as a concession to the coalition.

Lets not forget that PR is not without its pitfalls as its used at the moment, in the European Elections you can guarantee that the names who top the list for Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats will all be elected, leaving a couple of people to be elected. If there was a duckpond buying, useless member of parliament you would stand more chance of getting them out by FPTP, and as such moving the selection of your representatives from a joint Elector, offices by the Thames, over to almost solely offices next to the Thames.

I hope I'm wrong and we can move to an open list PR system (as used in the likes of Sweden, Slovakia, and the Netherlands) before I'm drawing a pension but I doubt it

 

[passmore]

I haven't given up on electoral reform of any kind. I hope that isn't a misguided wish and that they will look at reform more seriously and offer up proper PR voting.
I agree with Bonemaster. The 'Yes' campaign was more or less over before it got going

 

[313103]

And Labour didn't? And when did the Tories do this? The last boundary review (IIRC) was in about 2005 (under, let me see, Labour). I know that the current Labour policy (since about 1990 to be honest) is to state that Tories are spawn of Satan and plan to eat all small children, but whatever Mandelson may put about it ain't all true.

Dame (now revoked) Shirley Porter was one who gerrymandered illegally, Despite being made to pay £42 million. She finally settled at £12 million, now imagine what that extra £30 million could have done to the budget of the country!

 

[SS4]

Dame (now revoked) Shirley Porter was one who gerrymandered illegally, Despite being made to pay £42 million. She finally settled at £12 million, now imagine what that extra £30 million could have done to the budget of the country!

A couple of days over Libyan skies. £30 million isn't all that much and it suits the Tories to overplay the scale of the deficit since it allows them to make ideological cuts

 

[HST Power]

£30 million isn't all that much and it suits the Tories to overplay the scale of the deficit since it allows them to make ideological cuts

I'm sorry SS4, but this is utter, completely ridiculous rubbish. Do you think the Tories want to be making cuts? Do you think David Cameron wants to wake up every morning, knowing his party are going to get a kicking for cutting libraries and youth services? Really?

If you want to thank somebody for the mess we are in, you can send an email to the Labour Party.

And if you think that the pen pushing, paper blotting fool, otherwise known as Ed Miliband, is honestly going to do any better, then please find me a list of his policies for the economy, which don't include garbage about the Tories kicking away ladders and murdering pensioners.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It did make me laugh when I heard David Blunkett comment that Sheffield City Council would now have to make cuts becasue the previous Lib Dem/NOC council had left it in a mess. Maybe he should look (I know he can't do that) about what the outgoing Sheffield council party and the Tories are having to do on a national scale because of his party.

 

[313103]

I'm sorry SS4, but this is utter, completely ridiculous rubbish. Do you think the Tories want to be making cuts? Do you think David Cameron wants to wake up every morning, knowing his party are going to get a kicking for cutting libraries and youth services? Really?

.

'Do you think that the tories want to be making cuts?' I think they do because it suits their agenda. You see their agenda is to keep the minions at work on low salaries whilst they live the life of reily.

 

[Oswyntail]

Dame (now revoked) Shirley Porter was one who gerrymandered illegally, Despite being made to pay £42 million. She finally settled at £12 million, now imagine what that extra £30 million could have done to the budget of the country!

She was accused of gerrymandering, but not by altering boundaries - more by trying to build up support in critical areas

'Do you think that the tories want to be making cuts?' I think they do because it suits their agenda. You see their agenda is to keep the minions at work on low salaries whilst they live the life of reily.

That is utter tripe. Sorry, but it sounds right out of the 19th century (or current Labour "thought"). Where is your objective evidence? A proper analysis of the policies to which you refer, please. Why do you think so many "working class" voters vote Conservative? Or do you deny that as well?

 

[Ferret]

Ah, swallowing the Labour propaganda hook, line and sinker I see 313103.

 

[passmore]

I'm sorry SS4, but this is utter, completely ridiculous rubbish. Do you think the Tories want to be making cuts? Do you think David Cameron wants to wake up every morning, knowing his party are going to get a kicking for cutting libraries and youth services? Really?

If you want to thank somebody for the mess we are in, you can send an email to the Labour Party.

And if you think that the pen pushing, paper blotting fool, otherwise known as Ed Miliband, is honestly going to do any better, then please find me a list of his policies for the economy, which don't include garbage about the Tories kicking away ladders and murdering pensioners.

The Tories are seemingly making cuts due to the 'largest structural deficit inherited from Labour', or that's how George Osbourne painted it on Andrew Marr this morning. Cutting public services has always been, to some degree, a Tory policy so I don't see how David Cameron doesn't want to 'wake up every morning and not cut anything'.
I also don't believe Miliband would've done any different. We needed an emergency budget and we need, to some degree, public sector cuts. Which public sector services and how deep depend on how cynically you view the parties in power. Cutting too much is always perceived as a Tory policy, and cutting too little to save money for the most important public services such as health and education has always been perceived as a Labour policy.
I would be very surprised if we don't last the full 5 years without some degree of substantial privatisation or cuts, all in the name of 'reducing the structural deficit'.

 

[Ferret]

Yes Passmore, that's a pretty accurate take, though it's always struck me that Tory policy is to live within your means - not sure why this is viewed as a bad thing. Labour have form for leading us to the IMF with a begging bowl in hand too, and I think they'd have come close to doing it again. As regards Tory cuts, it's amazing how the things the public want to see cut never actually are. I know Littlejohn of the Daily Fail is a bit of a clart, but I have to agree with his rants about the jobs pages in the Guardian. Super-salaries far in excess of what I get for being a Guard and for ludicrous job-titles which benefit next to nobody. Why is it Libraries that bear the brunt, and not some of this nonsense?

 

[HST Power]

'Do you think that the tories want to be making cuts?' I think they do because it suits their agenda. You see their agenda is to keep the minions at work on low salaries whilst they live the life of reily.

Before you comment, you'd better learn to distinguish between truth and propaganda sparked up by Labour.

Yet another example of pathetic Tory stereotyping.

The Tories are seemingly making cuts due to the 'largest structural deficit inherited from Labour', or that's how George Osbourne painted it on Andrew Marr this morning. Cutting public services has always been, to some degree, a Tory policy so I don't see how David Cameron doesn't want to 'wake up every morning and not cut anything'.
I also don't believe Miliband would've done any different. We needed an emergency budget and we need, to some degree, public sector cuts. Which public sector services and how deep depend on how cynically you view the parties in power. Cutting too much is always perceived as a Tory policy, and cutting too little to save money for the most important public services such as health and education has always been perceived as a Labour policy.
I would be very surprised if we don't last the full 5 years without some degree of substantial privatisation or cuts, all in the name of 'reducing the structural deficit'.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant.

Cuts are essential. They have to take place. Every Tory in the land knows that. No matter who is in power, we will still experience them, so savings can be made and the deficit cut. I have never denied that cuts are not needed.
They have to happen. End of.

As far as Miliband goes, again, you misunderstood my post. The policies of the Labour Party have been blank ever since that man took over. He shouldn't even be running them, his brother should. And he would be if it weren't for Labour's connection with the trade unions.
In answer to what you wrote, what would Labour be doing had they been elected? Miliband has not given us any economic policy or financial solutions at all. Harriet Harman was interviewed a few weeks ago, and failed to name a single cut or saving the Party would make. It's got to a point where people are fed up and very cross with Labour. They sit around conning the Tories left, right and center, but do they have their own solutions? No.

Everyone was expecting the Conservatives to be crushed at this weeks council elections, but in fact, it's Cameron who has come out smiling.
Miliband has the leadership skills of a lost donkey. Half his Party have gone against him, as demonstrated by the AV saga, and it really is no surprise.

The day Labour give us their Economic policy is the day they can question the coalition cuts and savings. Right now though, their policy fails to extend beyond labeling the Tories as the spawn of the devil and the children of Thatcher. Hardly a great recipe.

If we don't step up to the plate and make proper cuts now, then in ten years time, the schools of the UK won't even be able to buy pencils, yet alone structure a proper educational system.

 

[passmore]

The day Labour give us their Economic policy is the day they can question the coalition cuts and savings. Right now though, their policy fails to extend beyond labeling the Tories as the spawn of the devil and the children of Thatcher. Hardly a great recipe.

If we don't step up to the plate and make proper cuts now, then in ten years time, the schools of the UK won't even be able to buy pencils.

I certainly don't view the Tories as 'spawn of the devil and the children of Thatcher', but their mantra has always been to me, cut fast and cut hard, and yet, ironically, the 'working class' seem to vote for them.

I fully agree with your last statement as well, we need to make proper cuts to avoid drastic changes to our most basic of public services. But which service and by how much is where the dividing lines are drawn, and where I fear, most of this 'it's Thatcher all-over-again' criticism levelled at the Tories comes from.

 

[HST Power]

I certainly don't view the Tories as 'spawn of the devil and the children of Thatcher', but their mantra has always been to me, cut fast and cut hard, and yet, ironically, the 'working class' seem to vote for them.

As far as the 'children of Thatcher' goes I was actually quoting Mr Miliband himself, speaking in the House!!! Certainly, the working class do appear to vote Tory. To say that working class vote Labour now seems just a stereotype as saying all Conservatives are rich! Labour no longer seem the party of the working man, and if Anon Mouse comes to this thread, I'm sure he'll back me up on that, as a Labour voter himself.

I fully agree with your last statement as well, we need to make proper cuts to avoid drastic changes to our most basic of public services. But which service and by how much is where the dividing lines are drawn, and where I fear, most of this 'it's Thatcher all-over-again' criticism levelled at the Tories comes from.

The economy grew 0.5% recently. Not great, but a starting point. There's a long way to go, but I'm confident we'll get a result from this Government. Very confident.

 

[Ferret]

Ah yes, I remember that exchange with Miliband and Cameron. Something about rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown! I don't pay too much attention to PMQs because it's often about theatre rather than substance, but that was a great put down.

Some of the working class have voted Tory, because Labour seemingly abandoned them! Certainly I no longer have any time for Labour because they have ceased to stand up for the working man. Maybe one day they'll remember that the clue should be in the name of their own party.....

 

[SS4]

Before you comment, you'd better learn to distinguish between truth and propaganda sparked up by Labour.

Yet another example of pathetic Tory stereotyping.

All stereotypes have a basis in fact. If cutting the deficit is so important then why was inheritance tax maintained? Why was the threshold for paying capital gains tax increased? Why haven't the bankers being brought to book? Why is there no effort being made to close the tax gap? Why did the Tories fight tooth and nail against increasing the threshold on which income tax is paid (one of only two real concessions to the Lib Dems - the other the ill fated AV referendum)? Answer - all these policies benefit the rich - tradition Tory backers and voters.

Cuts are essential. They have to take place. Every Tory in the land knows that. No matter who is in power, we will still experience them, so savings can be made and the deficit cut. I have never denied that cuts are not needed.
They have to happen. End of.

Of course if these cuts affect the poor more than the rich all the better. Nobody is denying cuts are essential. What is disputed is the speed, scale and areas they're being made in - everyone has said they plan to cut "middle management" (a term almost as vague as "Big Society") yet how come nobody has ever managed it? Is it those unions demanding the Proletariat rise against the Capitalist overlords marching through Red Square with the hammer and sickle? :roll:

As far as Miliband goes, again, you misunderstood my post. The policies of the Labour Party have been blank ever since that man took over. He shouldn't even be running them, his brother should. And he would be if it weren't for Labour's connection with the trade unions.
In answer to what you wrote, what would Labour be doing had they been elected? Miliband has not given us any economic policy or financial solutions at all. Harriet Harman was interviewed a few weeks ago, and failed to name a single cut or saving the Party would make. It's got to a point where people are fed up and very cross with Labour. They sit around conning the Tories left, right and center, but do they have their own solutions? No.

Since you've said Labour are in the Union's pockets (no doubt in much the same way the Tories are in the bankers' pockets) surely you can take the unions' ideas which is mainly through closing the tax gap.
It may also have escaped your attention that Cameron was especially vague while in opposition - it's a sad fact of our system that the opposition is allowed to be extremely vague.

Everyone was expecting the Conservatives to be crushed at this weeks council elections, but in fact, it's Cameron who has come out smiling.
Miliband has the leadership skills of a lost donkey. Half his Party have gone against him, as demonstrated by the AV saga, and it really is no surprise.

I never thought anything of the sort, it was clear to anyone that the Lib Dems would take the flak for any and all coalition policies - everyone expected this off the Tories but it's the Lib Dem's betrayal that has seen them slaughtered in the polls. Traditional Tories can scarcely believe their luck, those in the middle have gone to Labour - in England and Wales Labour made most gains. Those on the left have recognised Cameron using Clegg to his own evil ends.

It should be noted that a majority of the electorate did not want a Conservative government, such is the folly of FPTP. Labour know it just as well since FPTP only ever benefits a two party system.

The day Labour give us their Economic policy is the day they can question the coalition cuts and savings. Right now though, their policy fails to extend beyond labeling the Tories as the spawn of the devil and the children of Thatcher. Hardly a great recipe.

No doubt that's Tory propaganda. Let's compare Cameron to Thatcher - economic recession, new Tory government. Cameron even has a nice war like his predecessors Thatcher and Blair.

If we don't step up to the plate and make proper cuts now, then in ten years time, the schools of the UK won't even be able to buy pencils, yet alone structure a proper educational system.

With free schools there will only be a proper educational system for those with money and bigots will be able to set up schools expounding their bigotry (look how many free schools are religious - the biggest example of bigotry and brainwashing going) without interference or accountability: "Welcome to the St George's School - Sponsored by McDonalds"

I fail to understand how the Tories can improve education while cutting funding to local authorities. We've learned from the trains and utilities that private companies are only in it for themselves and profit will always come before the service they're meant to provide. The Tories didn't see this in the 80s and they don't see it now
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some of the working class have voted Tory, because Labour seemingly abandoned them! Certainly I no longer have any time for Labour because they have ceased to stand up for the working man. Maybe one day they'll remember that the clue should be in the name of their own party.....

Why would one vote Tory if one was working class? Even if Labour are Tory Lite it beats Tory full for the working class