If you didn't, why be bothered?
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
If you didn't, why be bothered?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So when you say that i couldn't back it you you meant that i could?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Before the election i said that an electoral system that returned coalitions leads not to the smaller party (the assumed smaller party being a left party) pulling the mainstream larger party to the left but to the larger party pulling the smaller to the right and eventually swallowing them up. How do we think the lib-dems experience has played out with reference to this prediction?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he got far many more MPs (or whatever you call them over there0 than the BNP are likely to have, even under PR, let alone AV?
I would begrudgingly accept this as not entirely false.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Because one instance automatically proves a hypothesis valid? If anything the Lab/Ld coalition in Scotland pulled Labour to the left of what New Labour was trying to impose from Westminster (eg. on tuition fees) - so you can't read off the political content of a coalition from the form.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
presumably, millipede and falconer trying to use the courts/procedural rules to cage the proposed bill with the referendum and redrawn boundaries in itI'm being a bit slow today - can someone explain this cartoon to me?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
right now, all things considered, there is no way for it to avoid being a referendum on them, at least in part!
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The voting system you're advocating could fail even more people, while possibly throwing the Lib Dems and the Tories an electoral life line.
Louis MacNeice
... as well as taking proper PR off the agenda for a generation.
The PVV (Wilders' Party) has 24 seats in the 150 seat parliament. In the previous parliament they only had 9. PR undoubtably would give the BNP a lot of seats. But then it would also give the Greens and other small parties many seats. The new Dutch government is extremely unstable with only a majority of 1.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
yes, but the tories are proportionately far, far stronger in England than they are in either Scotland or wales; IIRC, in the last scot assembly elections they finished fourth.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Have the dutch people failed or the dutch political parties? In either case is the form of the electoral system the solution?
Louis MacNeice
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
nothing would take proper PR off the agenda more than a NO vote at this referendum - which would inevitably be spun as a vote of confidence in FPTP.
People like Butchers who don't care one iota about PR don't need to worry about this.
Louis - AV would mean no voter would be unable to indicate their true loyalty because of tactical considerations. That would be a significant step. Not the whole journey of course.
There isn't going to be any lifelines for the coalition whatever the voting system.
That's not a question I feel informed enough to answer. Wilders' popularity is very strong, but has already started to weaken since he's had to make compromises.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The first is pure conjecture; given that many people will oppose AV precisely because it isn't PR there will be room both before and after the referendum, to sing PR's praises, in contrast to the squalid compromise of AV.
The second is wishful thinking; AV allows for/encourages tactical voting in a way that can empower the status quo. PR with a low percentage threshold is a whole different kettle of fish.
The third the Lib Dems may see rather differently to you; as might the Tories depending on how close a run thing it looks like being.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I'm more informed, but still unable to answer.
That's pretty obviously and demonstrably not true, though.
A vote for "yes to AV" would -- pretty much by definition -- take proper PR off the agenda for a generation. Nobody is going to tinker with voting reform every five or ten years. So voting to change to AV would give more than 10 years of AV and realistically more like at least 20 years. That's a generation in anybody's book.
So the result of "Yes" is clear-cut. It will definitely take PR off the table for a generation.
The result of "No" is far less clear-cut. It might be spun as an endorsement of FPTP. Or it might be successfully sold as a cry for proper PR. It's hard to tell at this stage but at least it keeps the game going. Whereas a "Yes" vote ends the game immediately for a generation.
It's far too early to tell, and we won't be able to tell for a couple of years. We really don't know how far Cameron would have had to placate the Tory Right if he'd won an outright - but slender - majority.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
the BNP would prolly get substantially less joy from PR than the Greens, prolly 3-4 seats at most, going by their scores at the last GE
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
too soon to say, give it at least 6 months more. early signs point that way tho
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
The GE results under FPTP may not be a good guide to how many seats would be won under PR, as people may vote completely differently in a PR election, due to not needing to vote tactically.
So nobody really knows for certain exactly how a PR parliament might look.
For example, in the last couple of euro elections (under party list PR) the Greens and UKIP got much higher vote shares and labour,tory and lib dem got much lower shares of votes than "normal".
(even the euros are probably not a good guide though as the turnout is low in euros, and i bet right wing anti-euro types are more likely to turn out)
And I suspect that the lib dems share of the vote is going to collapse regardless of what voting system is used in future.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Nah it's just that I haven't decided whether you're actually wrong or not, it's a very difficult issue, but if you are wrong i would tell you don't worry.I've been wondering about this a lot lately especially in the light of the protests and the fact that many of the people I know who were on the demo were actually pretty shocked by some of what went on, and they're hardly liberal types either. not that im saying that they were wrong and they shouldn't have gone in etc etc because i don't think they were
In terms of direct action stuff though, is there not a risk that it will end up alienating support and end up being, by necessity, elitist and often very limited to single issue stuff - (not that electoral or other stuff won't do that anyway) but in terms of actually getting your programme out there? Im thinking for example of people who work for the council who actually end up having to clean up smashed windows etc (for want of a better example - i'm not satying that stuff doesn't have a place because I think it does). I hope what I'm asking doesn't come across as stupid and I have a ton of respect for a lot of people who go out and engage in many of these actions (altho not all). It's just ... I dunno, I think these are questions we have to think about if you see what I mean?
I don't deride the IWCA - I don't agree with them on everything but actually have a ton of respect for them and a lot of what they've done and managed to achieve.
VP (or anyone else) i'd quite appreciate an answer to this when you've time, ta x
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I reckon one of the blessings of demos (as well as occasionally a curse, of course) is that people have their eyes opened to the reality of the lengths the state is happy to go to in order to suppress dissent (as well as how badly a minority of protesters often behave, although let's leave the inevitable debate about agents provocateurs for another day, hmm?Nah it's just that I haven't decided whether you're actually wrong or not, it's a very difficult issue, but if you are wrong i would tell you don't worry.
) I agree (and it looks like we might have to have the debate about agents provocateurs now rather than later, after all!).
We first need to ask ourselves, though, "what is direct action"? Is direct action a bunch of nudniks leathering a window until it breaks; is direct action, to many people, going on a protest march in the first place; is direct action undertaking an action (within that protest or separate from it) that directly shines a light on issues related to that protest? While I suspect that for some people the label "direct action" encompasses all the above, to me it mostly only encompasses the final point.
Does having to clear up the mess left after a protest mean that people who might otherwise support the protesters could become disenchanted? Of course, but if they're also being affected by the same swathe of cuts, they're likely to just shrug it off, and quite possibly to march in protest themselves.
Is direct action elitist? Well it certainly can be perceived to be, and in some cases, for some causes, I'm sure it is (I'm talking about you, Otis "Hitler Youth" Ferry), but even if it is elitist as a matter of fact, it still often holds the power to attract more people to a wider movement than it alienates.
Same here.
As for agents provocateurs, as quite a few old lags on here will tell you, our beloved state isn't above smashing the first (and second, and third) window in order to cause enough of an air of aggro at a demo that the media can then sound off about "anarchists", "rioters" and the like.
Similar threads
