The Alternative Vote (AV)

[Ferret]

Ok Zoe, you carry on arguing that black is white! Can I offer you a shovel?

It has been outlined to you countless times what would have happened had the Lib Dems not have formed a coalition, either formal or informal. I really cannot see why it's so difficult to grasp!

 

[Zoe]

It has been outlined to you countless times what would have happened had the Lib Dems not have formed a coalition, either formal or informal. I really cannot see why it's so difficult to grasp!

If there had not been a coalition then there would be the possibility of an election before 2015 and I expect the LibDems would be more popular than they are now. Clegg has moved the party to the right.

 

[HST Power]

This is becoming ridiculous now.

 

[Ferret]

If there had not been a coalition then there would be the possibility of an election before 2015 and I expect the LibDems would be more popular than they are now.

There would have been an election before last Christmas, and there was a real risk of that leading to a majority Conservative government!

HST Power - I quite agree!

 

[Zoe]

There would only have been an election if either a vote of no-conficence had been passed or Cameron had decided to call one. Cameron until the new legislation is passed still has the ability to call an election and if last year he thought he could get a majority he may well have called an election. It's possible Cameron could still use this option after the AV vote if the new legislation has not passed but this is not likely now looking at the polls.

 

[Ferret]

There would only have been an election if either a vote of no-conficence had been passed or Cameron had decided to call one. Cameron until the new legislation is passed still has the ability to call an election and if last year he thought he could get a majority he may well have called an election.

Which is exactly what he would have done!!!

 

[thefab444]

Oh well, at least this argument is slightly less tedious than the one about the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain/the United Kingdom, which Zoe brings up on a regular basis.

 

[Seacook]

Harriet Harman was recently interviewed and asked about what Labour would do if they were in power to tackle the debt. She failed to name a single cut or saving they would implement, and told the reporter, 'Labour would consolidate back room functions.' What does this mean? Nothing.

Miliband is no better. He too has given us no economic policy, and no indication of what Labour are going to do if they are voted in come the next election. He calls the coalition a sham, and he calls it a tragic mistake, but it's blatantly clear that he's running an already tarnished party even further into the ground.

He says he'll save the Police from cuts. He say's he'll save the NHS. But he won't tell us how he'll do it, because Labour don't know how they'll do it.
All mouth, no trousers.

A few points here:

1. Harman and Miliband minor are politicians.
2. Opposition parties in Britain traditionally concentrate on how badly the government is doing - policies are for elections.
3. Public opinion is moving away from the government (because no one likes increased taxes, higher inflation, high unemployment and cuts in public services).
4. Saying what they would do if they were in power is a tactically stupid thing to do for the opposition. Far better to lie low and say nuffin'.
5. Harman and Miliband are not that stupid.
6. Cameron is not that stupid either: he did not say what he would have done differently when he was in opposition.

 

[HST Power]

A few points here:

1. Harman and Miliband minor are politicians.
2. Opposition parties in Britain traditionally concentrate on how badly the government is doing - policies are for elections.
3. Public opinion is moving away from the government (because no one likes increased taxes, higher inflation, high unemployment and cuts in public services).
4. Saying what they would do if they were in power is a tactically stupid thing to do for the opposition. Far better to lie low and say nuffin'.
5. Harman and Miliband are not that stupid.
6. Cameron is not that stupid either: he did not say what he would have done differently when he was in opposition.

A few points in reply.

1. Yes? Your point being?
2. Of course. But why should you vote for somebody else if they won't actually give the policies? How does that tell you that they will do any better?
3. Would Labour be doing any differently?
4. Then why show backing to the opposition? You can talk all you like, but if you haven't got the bullets to load your weapon, what's the point? Why should you be backed?
5. Really?
6. He did.

 

[Ferret]

In response to point 6 specifically - Cameron was very shrewd in opposition. You knew full well that he was going to cut spending and generally bring the UK's finances in order, you knew full well he wanted to cut immigration which were both likely to appeal to the core Tory support but he never came out with real specifics. This way he managed to dodge the charge of nobody knowing what he stood for. The problem for the two Eds is that they have been so vague that the charge has been far easier to level at them, and they've ended up looking quite ridiculous! It's clearly a strategy to try and hoover up the votes of those who are totally anti-cut, but will it work in the long term? Therein lies their gamble!

 

[me123]

You don't need to have a majority coalition to form a government.

Agreed. We have managed now for one term in Scotland with a minority government. As Parliament is now dissolved up here, that government will have successfully survived a full year. And somehow Scotland struggled through the last four years.

It can be done. It requires compromise, but it can work, and very often in Scotland you see good bills strengthened with an increased contribution from the other side of the house. This will also work the other way; the worse policies will struggle to get through without a majority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

6. Cameron is not that stupid either: he did not say what he would have done differently when he was in opposition.

It's hard in opposition, though, because the opposition doesn't necessarily have all the details. This was the problem with Cameron; to be fair to him, he gave an idea of what he was going to do (and he's lived up to that), but simultaneously he didn't have the full details, so he couldn't at that time give exact details of what he's going to cut and what's going to remain in place.

Cameron did say he was going to publish all necessary documentation (at least within Parliament) so that the opposition can make more of a contribution in this way; I don't know if this has been done.

 

[Ferret]

Agreed. We have managed now for one term in Scotland with a minority government. As Parliament is now dissolved up here, that government will have successfully survived a full year. And somehow Scotland struggled through the last four years.

It can be done. It requires compromise, but it can work, and very often in Scotland you see good bills strengthened with an increased contribution from the other side of the house. This will also work the other way; the worse policies will struggle to get through without a majority.

It couldn't have been done by Labour and the Lib Dems in the situation they were in last year, and it couldn't have been done by the Tories either. Comparing a small devolved Parliament like Scotland with a Parliament like the UK's is beyond laughable.

 

[Seacook]

A few points in reply.

1. Yes? Your point being?
2. Of course. But why should you vote for somebody else if they won't actually give the policies? How does that tell you that they will do any better?
3. Would Labour be doing any differently?
4. Then why show backing to the opposition? You can talk all you like, but if you haven't got the bullets to load your weapon, what's the point? Why should you be backed?
5. Really?
6. He did.

1. Politicians are all shadow and no substance. It is naive to expect any of them to give straight answers.
2. From a political point of view, you don't need to convince voters of anything until the general election. It is far better tactically to be noncommital until it actually matters.
3. Was that not the original question? Labour are not saying.
4. See 2.
5. Yes, really. That is not to say that they (or any other politician) is admirable or other than self-serving.
6. When? Mostly Cameron just hung around, concentrated on keeping his foot away from his mouth and waited for the electorate to vote Labour out (see 2). It is a measure of his competence that the electorate did not vote him in.

 

[me123]

It couldn't have been done by Labour and the Lib Dems in the situation they were in last year, and it couldn't have been done by the Tories either. Comparing a small devolved Parliament like Scotland with a Parliament like the UK's is beyond laughable.

...and we're (Scotland) not the only country to regularly return hung parliaments!

There's a rather bizarre feeling that a majority government is somehow better, and I don't really think it's true. It seems to create stability in the markets, but otherwise I'm not sure it achieves anything. Dozens of countries around the world regularly return "hung parliaments" and most of them are coping at least as well as we are; indeed, many are doing a lot better! Interestingly, despite the thread title, I'm not supporting hung parliaments for the purposes of AV/PR, but to get back on topic it shows that even if a voting system increases the chances of a hung parliament, it's not necessarily a bad thing no matter how much the two main parties will try and tell you it!

And as for your jib at the Scottish Parliament, may I remind you that most of the decisions affecting our life up here originate in Holyrood? Most taxation, most economic policies, defence, international policy and immigration are still reserved. All important matters. But the issues that affect our day to day lives, such as transport, health, education, local government, and justice are all devolved. Hardly a small workload! I don't see why a parliament in Scotland with such a great control over our day to lives cannot be compared to a parliament in Westminster that does the same for England, even when you add on the reserved matters.

(Of course, I've only given a small sample in each case).

 

[imagination]

But for me, politics shouldn't be some mind-bending exercise. It's about what you feel in your gut

Nice quote from David Cameron about the AV debate, basically saying that he doesnt want people to actually think before casting their vote. Why? Because he knows that if people actually use their brains they will be voting YES.

 

[Greenback]

It has been said that there will be no such thing as safe seats under AV. That is enough for me. I long for the day when smug, self satisfied politicians cannot be dropped in to a safe seat, knowing they can continue their career if they have toed the party line yet been unseated elsewhere.

 

[table38]

I don't know why they trot out all these rent-a-quote celebs and luvvies, what do they know about voting reform?

The fact that Eddie Izzard thinks its a good idea is enough for me... I'll be voting no, 'cos I can't stand the guy!

(and for a few more considered reasons too )

 

[SS4]

It has been said that there will be no such thing as safe seats under AV. That is enough for me. I long for the day when smug, self satisfied politicians cannot be dropped in to a safe seat, knowing they can continue their career if they have toed the party line yet been unseated elsewhere.

I don't think that's entirely true, some safe seats will remain especially if a party decides not to field a candidate in a given seat. I just think there will be a lot fewer safe sears which is good enough for me too especially since it means we should get a local candidate.

I don't know why they trot out all these rent-a-quote celebs and luvvies, what do they know about voting reform?

The fact that Eddie Izzard thinks its a good idea is enough for me... I'll be voting no, 'cos I can't stand the guy!

(and for a few more considered reasons too )

Celebs will do anything if the price is right so I don't take their messages seriously.
In sport there are winners and losers, speaking of sport how did Arsenal v Liverpool end up yesterday?

 

[HST Power]

In sport there are winners and losers, speaking of sport how did Arsenal v Liverpool end up yesterday?

It was one all! I agree as far as the celebrities are concerned. Give them a cheque and their fake smiles can lighten up your campaign in minutes!

 

[thefab444]

It has been said that there will be no such thing as safe seats under AV.

That's not strictly true, all the uber-safe seats where the one party gets more than 50% of the vote, for example both the New Forest constituencies, will remain safe. There aren't all that many of these though.

 

[me123]

Unfortunately, my constituency will still be safe (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, safest seat in the UK!), but it will make a huge difference for people who live on other seats. Removing the safety net for some of the politicians can only be a good thing. Living in a safe area, I know how pathetic campaigns for General Elections up here are. No one bothers. The safe party assumes that we'll get their vote, the others just don't waste their money. On the other hand, Scottish Parliament elections are much more fiercely contested because the regional seats (elected under the Additional Members System; a form of PR) mean everyone has at least one vote that counts. I think with the switch to AV, more constituencies will see a fiercer election battle, more people will be encouraged to vote, and that can only be good for democracy.

 

[starrymarkb]

I don't know why they trot out all these rent-a-quote celebs and luvvies, what do they know about voting reform?

The fact that Eddie Izzard thinks its a good idea is enough for me... I'll be voting no, 'cos I can't stand the guy!

(and for a few more considered reasons too )

Eddie Izzard has been campaigning for some time for Political and Electoral reform.

Some celebrities have more inteligence then you give them credit for and some genuinely beleive in their causes and contribute to the debate.

Though I don't see why a celebrity endorsement is such an essential requirement for any such thing.

 

[Ferret]

AV really won't solve the safe seat curse - we'll only ever solve that with full PR. And what are the chances of Labour and the Tories allowing that to happen?!

 

[table38]

Eddie Izzard has been campaigning for some time for Political and Electoral reform.

Some celebrities have more inteligence then you give them credit for and some genuinely beleive in their causes and contribute to the debate.

Though I don't see why a celebrity endorsement is such an essential requirement for any such thing.

This would be the same Eddie Izzard who "insisted Britain's failure to join the euro will damage our economy while Europe thrives" whilst in reality we are doing rather better than, oh let's say, Ireland, Portugal or Greece.

In fact we now hear people crediting Gordon Brown for his foresight and resolve in keeping us out of the Euro.

No, I think I am crediting him with just about the right level of intelligence

 

[HST Power]

Well according to BBC News yesterday, the public are being tipped to go against Alternate Vote. Though not according to our poll!

 

[table38]

Well according to BBC News yesterday, the public are being tipped to go against Alternate Vote. Though not according to our poll!

I remember the run-up to the Congestion Charging / TIF vote in Manchester.

The pundits said it was all "knife edge" and "just ahead" or "just behind" until the actual result which delivered a resounding 80% against.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U for more details on Balanced Surveys

 

[HST Power]

I remember the run-up to the Congestion Charging / TIF vote in Manchester.

The pundits said it was all "knife edge" and "just ahead" or "just behind" until the actual result which delivered a resounding 80% against.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U for more details on Balanced Surveys

I know there's the unreliability issue. But this is the BBC. I wouldn't have written that if I'd seen it in News of The World (not that I read such a ghastly newspaper!!)

 

[table38]

The problem as I see it is the lack of truly independent information or advice.

The Tories will tell you FPTP is fairer because they have a better chance of power with a "no" vote, especially after any boundary changes.

The Lib Dems would have told you AV is a "grubby little compromise" but now see it as their best chance of a change to proper PR and will tell you AV is fairer because they have a better chance of power with a "yes" vote.

New New Labour would have told you "no" up until their recent election defeats and now seem to have had a deathbed conversion to "yes". (Although some of Old New Labour such as Margaret Beckett are still saying "no")

The Electoral Reform Society who you might have assumed to be independent would have told you "no" up until about 4 years ago, now they say "yes" partially because they see it as a stepping stone to proper PR and partially because of ‘increased business opportunities’ for their commercial subsidiary Electoral Reform Services Ltd.

The Institute for Public Policy Research was saying "no" right up until last year, but now say "yes", coincidentally after the Joseph Rowntree group donated £70,000 to the IPPR. (The Joseph Rowntree group are coincidentally one of the Lib Dems major financial backers).

So I'm still voting "no" because I don't like Eddie Izzard. Job done

 

[SS4]

The problem as I see it is the lack of truly independent information or advice.

The Tories will tell you FPTP is fairer because they have a better chance of power with a "no" vote, especially after any boundary changes.

The Lib Dems would have told you AV is a "grubby little compromise" but now see it as their best chance of a change to proper PR and will tell you AV is fairer because they have a better chance of power with a "yes" vote.

New New Labour would have told you "no" up until their recent election defeats and now seem to have had a deathbed conversion to "yes". (Although some of Old New Labour such as Margaret Beckett are still saying "no")

The Electoral Reform Society who you might have assumed to be independent would have told you "no" up until about 4 years ago, now they say "yes" partially because they see it as a stepping stone to proper PR and partially because of ‘increased business opportunities’ for their commercial subsidiary Electoral Reform Services Ltd.

The Institute for Public Policy Research was saying "no" right up until last year, but now say "yes", coincidentally after the Joseph Rowntree group donated £70,000 to the IPPR. (The Joseph Rowntree group are coincidentally one of the Lib Dems major financial backers).

So I'm still voting "no" because I don't like Eddie Izzard. Job done

All true (except the last sentence of course). Yet a lack of independence in the media goes far beyond AV which is why any well informed person will collate sources from both at home and abroad and from both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes I wonder if Goebbels would have approved of our "free" media...

I shall be voting yes as a stepping stone to PR and because a no vote would kill any change of electoral reform (IMO badly needed) for around a century.

 

[me123]

I remember the run-up to the Congestion Charging / TIF vote in Manchester.

The pundits said it was all "knife edge" and "just ahead" or "just behind" until the actual result which delivered a resounding 80% against.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U for more details on Balanced Surveys

Of course, they're far from perfect. The General Election showed that; no-one would have guessed (at that time anyway) that the Lib Dems were to lose seats despite Nick Clegg's sudden popularity rise. Indeed, no-one believed the exit polls until they were proven correct! People do funny things in elections that can't really be accounted for in the run up. Regardless of what the polls say in the run up to the vote, a last-minute scaremongering campaign from either side could tip the scales.

The polls have reliably shown two things, though. One; it's going to be close. The margin between "yes" and "no" has never been particularly large, so there's room for either side to win. Two; the number of "don't knows" has remained pretty steady, which again indicates that there's all to play for. These undecided voters may not vote, but those who turn up can still be influenced either way. This group are generally distinct from people who "will not vote".

None of the companies are perfect. One of the biggest, YouGov, is a very successful company. But they only target people who have internet access, so are missing a sizeable chunk of the community. Also, by its very nature, online polls are more susceptible to inaccurate results, as I'm sure there are people who just click whatever button they see first just to get their cheque at the end of it. Ipsos MORI use a greater variety of techniques, but "cold-calling" is almost always going to get a negative response (especially as they'll need demographic information), so I don't think it's quite as wide-reaching as they claim.

At the end of the day, these surveys are always very interesting, and the reputable ones (and there are plenty of them out there) do give a fairly accurate snapshot of public interest. In particular, they're better at showing trends over a period of time rather than actual numbers. However, no poll can come close to the election itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I shall be voting yes as a stepping stone to PR and because a no vote would kill any change of electoral reform (IMO badly needed) for around a century.

That is an excellent point. There is a huge appetite in this country for electoral reform. Those who are saying no to AV just because they want change but would prefer PR are actually shooting themselves in the foot. A no vote will send out the wrong message to politicians, and electoral reform will sink back to the bottom of the policy pile. A yes vote might not get the best system in the world, but (IMO) it's better than what we've got, and it will show the appetite that the public has for electoral reform.