Why the lib-dems are shit

[butchersapron]

Here's Yougov's tracker on AV - since the lib-dem and troy coalition was formed a 10 point lead for AV has turned into a 5 point deficit:

The Constitution Society have also conducted a large poll that supported the idea that the tide is turning against AV, especially after exposure to anti as well as pro arguments. Here. (pdf) This is line with YG's 2 or 3 post-explanation based polls as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

Interesting that the wouldn't vote segment has been relatively stable (sort of) and the D/Ks are very consistent.

 

[articul8]

Yougov's polling methodology is flawed - not that it means anything much this far out anyway.

Butchers - how about you apologise for completely misrepresenting what I'm arguing? Not asking you to agree with me, just acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to oppose the LDs, the coalition and still back a YES vote.

 

[butchersapron]

This is the post explanations bit of the Constitution Societies poll -

The second lot of figures represent:

 

[ymu]

I'm not convinced that the boundary changes will make a lot of difference. Of course the Tories will attempt to gerrymander the boundaries as much as possible, but there's a limit to what can sensibly be done.

Labour do have an electoral advantage in terms of % of the national vote and how this translates into seats, because it just so happens that the smaller constituencies are more likely to vote Labour (presumably because the Tories killed manufacturing in these areas and people had to move away). But Labour voters are also less likely to turn out, especially in safe seats. The Tories have structural disadvantage at least in part because the rich tend to ghettoise themselves in rural and suburban areas. There's a limit to how much the boundaries can be used to split these areas up and distribute the Tory vote more evenly (which matters under FPTP and AV, but much less under STV).

Another headache for the gerrymanderers is what effect the boundary changes will have on turn out. Create more Tory marginals and you create more voters willing to turn out to make sure they don't get in.

I don't have a problem with cutting the number of seats - it is a stupidly large parliament for such a small country. And the one thing I do trust Labour to do is fight blatant gerrymandering that puts them at a disadvantage. I'm not convinced it will make a lot of difference. Labour has a structural advantage because rich people hate living anywhere near poor people, and richer people in more mixed areas are more likely to be socially liberal. It's not unfair, it's just demographics, and I suspect there's very little the Tories can do about it.

 

[articul8]

a) depends what they have been fed by way of a "brief" (this won't happen on polling day)
b) DK's much higher than FPTPers, and more than enough to make the critical difference.

 

[butchersapron]

Absolute 100% misrepresentation of my position - a pretty shabby way of arguing. I am arguing *against* the coalition and the LD role within it - but arguing that it would easier to sweep both parties out of office (a majority Labour government) if voters in Con/LD marginals had the option of demonstrating their political opposition to the LDs and the coalition AND still being able to cast an effective anti-Tory vote - which is where AV comes in.

But of course I'm NOT arguing a Labour majority per se is hardly a guarantee of stopping the cuts or transforming society (as if) , it is just the least worst outcome. Which is among the reasons I want to see a mass movement outside parliament emerge NOW (*not* wait until the next general election) to build an irresistable force that shifts Labour to the left. And I'd like to see independent left candidates, trade union candidates, single issue protests etc have the room to stand without automatically being squeezed by the tactical wish to avoid splitting the Labour vote and letting in LD/Cons.



Attacking the coalition yes, but doing it intelligently - seizing on something that is *tactically* useful that the contradictions of the coalition have brought forward, while keeping up political opposition.

If you want to disagree with me - fine - but do it on the basis of what I'm actually arguing not some fantasy "don't attack the liberals" position that is a million miles away from my position.

That's the political logic of your position. It's one you're relentlessly outlined over the last few days. You've argued over and over that a defeat in the AV referendum would mean a weakened lib-dems clinging tighter to the coalition. Yet when i say this is your position you deny that it is. Now, you might not be either willing or able to recognise the logic of your own position but it's pretty clear that those not taken in by this lib-labbery can and have reacted accordingly. Here it is in your own words

A No vote will make the LDs cling harder than ever to the Tories, out of desperation to make the public think the coalition has "worked" and compensate for losing their "trophy" of electoral reform.

 

[butchersapron]

a) depends what they have been fed by way of a "brief" (this won't happen on polling day)
b) DK's much higher than FPTPers, and more than enough to make the critical difference.

a) you've already decided - hence your claim that the methodlogy was flawed. Based on what?
b) Not true. DKs are well behind pro-FPTP in both polls. Why assume they're going to go your way anyway? You should recognise the real danger staring you in the face - that the FPTP votes are coming directly from those who were previously pro-AV.

 

[articul8]

Yes, I'm saying I don't think a NO vote would have the effect you think it will. But it doesn't follow that I'm backing a YES vote because I want to strenghten the LD's within the coalition. It's you that are making the effect on the LDs the litmus test of whether to support or not to support AV, not me. I'm baffled why you can't see that this is not the basis on which I'm arguing.

I don't think either a YES or a NO will have a decisive effect on the coalition one way or the other. [where it will have an effect is whether the Tories emerge on the other side of the election which I expect to be in 4 years time - if you want to bring down the coalition it's a full general strike not a faustian pact with the Tories you need. Good luck with that - I'm all for it. But I don't think we can bank on it happening.

 

[articul8]

a) you've already decided - hence your claim that the methodlogy was flawed. Based on what?
b) Not true. DKs are well behind pro-FPTP in both polls. Why assume they're going to go your way anyway? You should recognise the real danger staring you in the face - that the FPTP votes are coming directly from those who were previously pro-AV.

You don't cite their findings that when segmented by certainty to vote, AV has a *lead* over FPTP among the three deciles most certain to vote. Methodology flawed based on sample size, reliance on telephone/web based responses (demographically unrepresentative), etc.

 

[butchersapron]

baffled quite frankly. Yes, I'm saying I don't think a NO vote would have the effect you think it will. But it doesn't follow that I'm backing a YES vote because I want to strenghten the LD's within the coalition. It's you that are making the effect on the LDs the litmus test of whether to support or not to support AV, not me.

I don't think either a YES or a NO will have a decisive effect on the coalition one way or the other. [where it will have an effect is whether the Tories emerge on the other side of the election which I expect to be in 4 years time - if you want to bring down the coalition it's a full general strike not a faustian pact with the Tories you need.

If you're baffled it's by your own incoherence mixed with maximalist posing. Why make the incorrect point that a no vote would weaken the lib-dems and strengthen the coalition directly against arguments that it would weaken the lib-dems and the coalition if it's not your position? And why do it over and over?

 

[articul8]

A NO *would* weaken the LDs and lock the MPs even tighter to the Tories - I do think this. But it doesn't follow that I want to see a YES vote to strenghten the LDs. They are already so weak that a victory would only be pyrrhic for them. They will slip back anyway at the next GE with or without AV. I therefore think the main electoral battle is to contain the Tories come the next GE not to smash the LDs (who are just being useful idiots for them) out of sight.

 

[Streathamite]

NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition

oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs

 

[frogwoman]

oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs

what a beautiful sight

 

[butchersapron]

You don't cite their findings that when segmented by certainty to vote, AV has a *lead* over FPTP among the three deciles most certain to vote. Methodology flawed based on sample size, reliance on telephone/web based responses (demographically unrepresentative), etc.

Nor did you. Nor did you say that the FPTP/AV split on the certain to vote segment is 59/62 with the DKs on 23 (with very similar results in the next two segments). Which, unless i'm mistaken means the DKs are a long way from being larger than the FPTP. (certain to vote section is only 46% of the total as well as well

I think you need to do more than a generic anti-polling critique if you want to dismiss these specific findings.

 

[butchersapron]

oh yes it would. It would leave a sizeable proportion of the LDs (albeit a minority) asking themselves "just why are we still in this coalition, and to what end?", and that most likely would see the start of a civil war within the LDs

We know this. The voters know this. The lib-dems certainly know this - hence their attempts to disassociate Nick Clegg from the yes campaign and to lay the ground for the coming defeat not meaning that much after all. I suspect that articul8 knows this as well.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I doubt many ld voters, as opposed to members, give a toss about the outcome of this referendum.

 

[articul8]

But even supposing you're right, why would it trigger their MPs to commit hari kari and pull out of the coalition when the public hates them? Surely their only option is to grit their teeth and hope that some economic miracle saves their bacon. Which it wouldn't so they will be wiped out. But the main beneficiaries of that will be the Tories (who will have played a blinder by getting the Libs to agree to the gerrymander), and who will sweep the board in the South and start picking off Labour held marginals.

it's better to let them slowly die on the vine and slip into permanent irrelevance than watch them collapse and deliver a Tory walkover.

 

[butchersapron]

I doubt many ld voters, as opposed to members, give a toss about the outcome of this referendum.

I wasn't talking about the dwindling number of pro lib-dem voters (11% last night) but those voters who want to punish the lib-dems, those voters who are behind the collapse in their polling figures. I think it's a fair enough conclusion that the drop in AV support is connected directly to the drop in lib-dem support.

 

[butchersapron]

But even supposing you're right, why would it trigger their MPs to commit hari kari and pull out of the coalition when the public hates them? Surely their only option is to grit their teeth and hope that some economic miracle saves their bacon. Which it wouldn't so they will be wiped out. But the main beneficiaries of that will be the Tories (who will have played a blinder by getting the Libs to agree to the gerrymander), and who will sweep the board in the South and start picking off Labour held marginals.

A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.

 

[articul8]

I think you need to do more than a generic anti-polling critique if you want to dismiss these specific findings.

I don't particularly - it's too far out to be meaningful. I didn't mean to type that DKs are bigger than FPTP, I meant bigger than def won't vote - and by some margin. Which means there is approx 25% up for grabs, as these are all people who in principle might vote YES. Obviously they need to be won over in greater numbers. But I think that's doable.

 

[articul8]

You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.

They are already weakened and damaged - and will be by terrible council results anyway. It doesn't need a NO vote in the referendum to deliver that. The problem is that - combined with the effects of the boundary changes - FPTP would turn bad results for the LDs into catastrophic ones at the next General Election - raising the hurdle to be jumped in order to kick out both coalition parties. There's no way they could avoid this - even by a series of total u-turns and Cable going into full anti-Bankers mode couldn't avert their doom

 

[butchersapron]

They are already weakened and damaged - and will be by terrible council results anyway. It doesn't need a NO vote in the referendum to deliver that. The problem is that - combined with the effects of the boundary changes - FPTP would turn bad results for the LDs into catastrophic ones at the next General Election - raising the hurdle to be jumped in order to kick out both coalition parties. There's no way they could avoid this - even by a series of total u-turns and Cable going into full anti-Bankers mode couldn't avert their doom

So damage and weaken them some more. That they're already weakened is no argument whatsoever.

No, that's your problem with the no vote, because you're arguing an auto-labourist position. You're still operating on the assumption that the lib-dems are still somehow better than the tories, to the left of them, so that a lib-dem victory over the tories substantively means something. The last 6 months should have disabused you of this notion. You should by now, have worked out the complete compatibility of the aggressive neo-liberal agendas of the lib-dems and the tories. Cathc up with the rest of us.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

They're getting a bollocking on QT right now - as expected. Tessa Jowl was fucking shit on the question. Dave Willettes = absolute filth. Looks like some sort of weasal cunt out of The Thick Of It. Oh fuck, now Wax Hastings is wobbling his jaw. Carpet bomb them flat I say.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It was labour that appointed that fucking clown Lord Browne. Oh fuck, Tessa Jowl is so fucking shit. Just shut the fuck up please you fucking cretin.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I really hate all these people. Tweedle Dumb, Tweedle Dumber and Tweedle Even Fucking Dumber. Imagine not even being able to nail the Libdems balls to tbe walls on something so fucking simple. Fuck me.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

"Scholarships" - cunts.

The point of education is educate, not to take people who are already "clever" (i.e. got good 'A' levels - its not the same fucking thing).

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The Libdems = the Quail Chocolate Cake of UK politics.

 

[articul8]

You're still operating on the assumption that the lib-dems are still somehow better than the tories, to the left of them, so that a lib-dem victory over the tories substantively means something. .

No, I'm operating on the assumption that if they busy fighting each other at the next election that avoids the situation of a Tory walkover in the South allowing them to concentrate their cash on marginals that Labour needs to win if both coalition partners are to be swept out. Unless, we think that a formal electoral pact is a real possibility...?

I think the LDs are just opportunists through and through - they can mutate into whatever form suits their perceived self interests in any particular time or place. It's like some political version of V! I'm all for damaging and weakening them - but they aren't the overriding consideration on everything under the sun. Why cut off anti-coaltion noses to spite the LDs? Only the Tories win if you take that line. AV would allow for clever opposition to the LDs that would help maximise the chances of getting rid not just of Clegg but of Cameron too.

 

[frogwoman]

the fact is though, while labour would have been better than the tories, the whole idea that OMG ITS THE TORIES AND WE MUSTNT LET THE TORIES WIN is just stupid tbh. do you think labour, if they'd won the election, wouldn't have been imposing the cuts? there were going to be cuts whoever won. despite being in opposition milliband is saying he's willing to work with the tories to introduce them ffs. obviously im not too happy that the tories have won, but you are seeming to see everything from the perspective of getting labour back, as tho this would change everything and make everything better. it wouldn't.

i'd never vote labour after what they did in Iraq tbh, or if i did, there'd have to be such a big change that it wouldn't recognisely be the same party