Do you want AV for the UK? Cast your vote here!

[Santino]

I look forward to the court case for defamation.

 

[ska invita]

We need less legitimacy for bigger parties, not more. AV just gives the big three more excuse to pronounce public support for their policies. Proportional Representation or nothing. Overall AV is a step backwards.

 

[articul8]

What i am interested in the lack of declaration of financial interest on the part of the ERS who are practically the yes campaign alongside the lib-dems, what this means about how far you can trust them or their motives - and how similar it all sounds to pre-election New Politics Lib-dems when they were already manouvering to simply get power for themselves behind the scenes.

ERS is operationally independent of ERSL - they have different staff and a different decision making structure. The policy of ERS was determined by ordinary ERS members - who voted to back AV on the basis of the political arguments, since they have no financial stake whatsoever in ERSL. Members are not shareholders of ERSL.

 

[articul8]

I look forward to the court case for defamation.

yes, because getting us to spend our limited resources on a costly legal case wouldn't at all be a victory for the No campaign?

 

[butchersapron]

ERS is operationally independent of ERSL - they have different staff and a different decision making structure. The policy of ERS was determined by ordinary ERS members - who voted to back AV on the basis of the political arguments, since they have no financial stake whatsoever in ERSL. Members are not shareholders of ERSL.

'Operationally independent', yes, this was the line of defence the internal document advised taking as it recognised the danger of this lack of declaration of interest. Was it mentioned at last nights or this mornings briefing? Who was giving that btw - the lib-dem campaign director for ERS?

 

[Santino]

yes, because getting us to spend our limited resources on a costly legal case wouldn't at all be a victory for the No campaign?

But you would definitely win and be able to make the defendants pay your costs, and thereby embarass the NO campaign.

 

[Streathamite]

yes, because getting us to spend our limited resources on a costly legal case wouldn't at all be a victory for the No campaign?

'limited resources'? With all that Wonga coming from that ERSL client list?
That's a good one, keep 'em coming...

 

[Streathamite]

ERS is operationally independent of ERSL - they have different staff and a different decision making structure. The policy of ERS was determined by ordinary ERS members - who voted to back AV on the basis of the political arguments, since they have no financial stake whatsoever in ERSL. Members are not shareholders of ERSL.

the ERS is the majority shareholder in ERSL.That means, your guv'nors have the final say.That's how businesses work.

 

[Random]

ERS is operationally independent of ERSL - they have different staff and a different decision making structure. The policy of ERS was determined by ordinary ERS members - who voted to back AV on the basis of the political arguments, since they have no financial stake whatsoever in ERSL. Members are not shareholders of ERSL.

Sorry to personalise this, but you have a financial stake in ERSL. The ESRL's work is what pays your wages.

 

[articul8]

I didn't say I don't have a financial stake in ERSL. I said that ordinary members who determine ERS policy don't have a financial stake as individuals.

 

[articul8]

But you would definitely win and be able to make the defendants pay your costs, and thereby embarass the NO campaign.

Any victory would in all likelihood come after May 5th and therefore be of no use to the campaign - whilst a lot of time and money would be caught up in fighting it.

 

[Santino]

Any victory would in all likelihood come after May 5th and therefore be of no use to the campaign - whilst a lot of time and money would be caught up in fighting it.

So I suppose all we'll get is an explicit and detailed official rebuttal from the ERS?

 

[articul8]

So I suppose all we'll get is an explicit and detailed official rebuttal from the ERS?

Why should we waste our breath when the upshot of this "scandal" is that the Electoral Reform Society supports electoral reform?

 

[butchersapron]

Whilst failing to declare it's financial interest in doing so - as other bodies/groups and individuals are required and expected to do - and all in the name of greater accountability.

 

[butchersapron]

Why should we waste our breath when the upshot of this "scandal" is that the Electoral Reform Society supports electoral reform?

Because it would stop this terrible smear in its tracks. Because none of the responses thus far have managed to do that. Mainly because the substantive details is true and the failure to declare a financial interest by the pious pluralists is indefensible.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd imagine it would be reformed fairly quickly tbh as it would be a master of none law which no one liked...

and you can fuck the fuck off dictating what my principals are cunt, aren't there some EDL supporters you need to quote you plastic anti fash...

You what?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You what?

you heard...

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, i asked you in the urban demotic what you meant by it. What did you mean by it?

 

[articul8]

Whilst failing to declare it's financial interest in doing so - as other bodies/groups and individuals are required and expected to do - and all in the name of greater accountability.

There is no direct financial gain to be made by ERSL, let alone by ERS - and the NO camp know this. But it's all sand to kick into the eyes of the public.

 

[butchersapron]

Apart from the financial gain the ERSL admitted they might stand to suffer of course.

 

[articul8]

No such admission from ERSL. There is speculation based on an document allegedly leaked from an allied organisation. But there is no basis for the claim about counting machines, even if they stand to profit from general public education about voting systems.

 

[butchersapron]

So the internal document that you're all pretending doesn't exist that says:

“it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).”

is wrong? Or are you sticking by the claim that the document is a forgery?

 

[articul8]

I never said it was a forgery. Since I haven't seen the thing, I could hardly justify that. I saidif it existed it was of dubious provenance.

And yes there may be increased business opps. As a result of people thinking more about voting systems, and wanting to use AV for their own internal ballots. But it's hardly corrupt - ERS exists to sell the benefits of electoral reform.

 

[butchersapron]

So why aren't you lot making a big thing of it if there's even a hint of it being fake? Because it's true and because it says:

“it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).”

which destroys your claim that there is no such admission from the ERSL.

Are they lying in the document? Id the document forged? Have you really not see it as it was prepared to make sure people like you were equipped to deal with situations such as this? Are you lying?

What have they said about the internal document at your workplace - have they said it's fake? Confirmed it existed?

 

[articul8]

The alleged document is not alleged to come from ERSL in any case(it's supposed to be an ERS document - which is not the same thing by a long chalk).

Why is the Spectator (aided by the Daily Mail) trying to make this an issue?

 

[butchersapron]

The alleged document is not alleged to come from ERSL in any case(it's supposed to be an ERS document - which is not the same thing by a long chalk).

Why is the Spectator (aided by the Daily Mail) trying to make this an issue?

So you, as someone employed by the ERS to deal with the stuff the document this is about would have been expected to see it (aside from it indicating the ERS ansd ERSL bosses awareness of the dogy nature of what is going on).

Same questions (all some issue switching tory stuff and some mail flannel in, i don't care)

Are they lying in the document? Id the document forged? Have you really not see it as it was prepared to make sure people like you were equipped to deal with situations such as this? Are you lying?

What have they said about the internal document at your workplace - have they said it's fake? Confirmed it existed?

 

[articul8]

This is not a document I've ever seen. It is alleged to come from ERS - a different organisation to ERSL. I know for a fact that ERSL won't be counting on a YES vote leading to the need for counting machines - for the very good reason they aren't needed!!

So what we have is "electoral reform society supports electoral reform". Jeez it's scandal of the year.

 

[butchersapron]

No we have a group that pays your wages to argue for AV admitting that “it is possible that ERSL [of which ERs are the majority shareholder] will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).” without the minimum standards of declaration of interest expected.

 

[articul8]

No2av haven't declared any of their major donors. ERS support for Yes campaign on the public record. Right wing press smears won't deflect from this.

 

[butchersapron]

No2av haven't declared any of their major donors. ERS support for Yes campaign on the public record. Right wing press smears won't deflect from this.

I couldn't give to fucks about NO2AV. I know that your main donors and the people directing the campaign failed utterly to meet basic minimum standards of declarations of interests that would be laughed out of a parish council. And i know that you lot knew this beforehand and drew up a plan to deal with any potential fallout if you ever got caught.

And you have been caught.