butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Did you really just say that? Bizarre and arrogant, a winning brew.
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
Did you really just say that? Bizarre and arrogant, a winning brew.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
how the FUCK will a left vote do that? Comprehensive justification of this please
Let's congratulate moon23 for his brilliant long-running troll, but this madness must end now.
You seem unable to make the basic distinction between what I say and the entire party.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You are just taking the first part of this sentance out of context, it's only bizzare to insist Lib Dems keep their promises if you are also suggesting the should have forced a coalition partner to introduce STV.
No i'm for MPs having soverginty over public promises, rhetorical capture, careerism , orgainesd lobbies and tribal loyalty
You also said that MPs are 'too bound' by public promises. It is clear that you think pragmatism and dirty little compromises should trump THE PROMISE THAT THEY USED TO GET ELECTED. This is beyond parody. You are not a troll because no troll would dare be so unfathomably spineless.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
brilliant. So nothing your MPs say is worth believing in or taking on trust, and they can say anything they like to get elected, without feeling obligated to stand by it afterwards. So why should we ever take a single word you say seriously, ever again?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
So you are against democracy; your prefered MPs would not be accountable to the public, to campaigners or to the parties who helped them get elected. This is idiotic stuff even by your standards.
Louis MacNeice
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
This is where supporting the Lib Dems gets you - arguing that politicians don't lie enough
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think people who are angry should get involved in the parties and make them lie more.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
. he'll never see how that's where his argument is leading him inevitably tho'. cows will dance on the moon firstSaying MPs are *Too* bound, is not the same as arguing they should be unaccountable. If you read my post it's in reference to their ability to read legislation and form their own opinions. This is what should happen around debated in the house.
We do not elect people to simply parrot a load of pledges, and party lines we elect individual people who should be allowed some freedom of thought, independence and critical faculties with which to examine legislation. Ultimately if you dislike someone’s decision making you can then vote them out of power.
Here is the vital part of my sentance you miss out. and are not just permitted but implicitly encouraged in our system's logic to make up their minds afresh on the issues before them as they learn more and have to compromise with reality.
MPs should not be bound to ignore reality as new information emerges and compromises need to be made.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
sorry, but that's utter bullshit. The whole reason why MPs make promises, is to get votes. That's what a 'manifesto' means - a platform you should have to stand by.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The system makes us lie. It doesn't.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Why are they such better "learners" in government? Only in government can you find out what's best? By that logic Castro should be a feckin genius.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You want them to be less accountable (they don't have to make good on promises). You are happy to limit popular involvement to one day every five years (no lobbying, no pressure via their local party). You are are against the already sharply limited democracy we currently enjoy.
Louis MacNeice
No Louis once again you misrepresent me, MPs can still be engaged with and people can still lobby them we just should expect automatically that they are bound by a promise when circumstances change.
Honetly Labour must be glad they lost the election, people can knock the lib dems but just look at the factors involved in why the coalition was formed:
1. Cameron's been trying to move the Tories to the centre. He saw the Coalition as a way of doing it and even AV wouldn't hurt.
2. Clegg was also trying to move the LibDems to the centre, due to the influence of David Laws.
3. At the same time, for the LibDems, it was the first real opportunity to get rid of the crappy electoral system we have in something like 80 years. A supply & favour arrangement with an incredibly weak minority Tory govt would not have achieved this.
4. Likewise, the LibDems would also have much more influence over the Tories if they were in Govt.
5. With the largest deficit in Europe (bar the one Greece lied about) and the credit crunch applying to countries too, it's easy to see the UK ending up like Ireland. It may still happen - which would probably create a global depression. The Tories and LibDems had a duty to form a coalition. I'm inclined to think that Clegg took this more seriously than Cameron but who knows.
6. Clegg hated NuLabour and what it did to this country. Maybe Cameron did too. And most of the damages to our rights and the checks & balances on Govt have yet to be rectified.
7. Cameron would have survived regardless as a Labour coalition was impossible.
8. Lastly, both the Tories and LibDems would be blamed for anything that went wrong if they failed to form a Govt.
If anything, I'd say Clegg was more motivated than Cameron.
Cameron had already repeatedly stated he preferred majority government. It's been shown that Clegg tricked Cameron into offering AV, although Cameron may have accepted anyway.
AV is undoubtedly more proportional than FPTP. There was a poll in 1997 that showed Labour getting even more seats under AV. But the same polling company showed Labour getting more seats under FPtP too... and as we know, they were wrong.
In fact all but one polling company made this mistake. They still hadn't fixed their half-assed polling that gave Labour a majority in 1992.
The furthest back I've been able to trace this research is here:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/mvc.pdf
If AV is "self-serving" for the LibDems and LibDem 2nd votes would split equally for the Tories and Labour, then AV is clearly more proportional.
STV would be even more "self-serving", but for reasons stated above I don't think it was ever on the cards.
I personally think AV hugely outweighs the tuition fees issue. The Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country. AV ensures reform of the parties themselves - for their own survival.
STV has its own problems - we could easily see UKIP wagging the dog and would probably let in the BNP. Nonetheless, my preference is for a quadrennial rolling STV system. This would move the electorate's focus away from national politics towards the qualities of local candidates and make them even less accountable (which you are arguing is a bad thing)
Honetly Labour must be glad they lost the election, people can knock the lib dems but just look at the factors involved in why the coalition was formed:
1. Cameron's been trying to move the Tories to the centre. He saw the Coalition as a way of doing it and even AV wouldn't hurt.
2. Clegg was also trying to move the LibDems to the centre, due to the influence of David Laws.
3. At the same time, for the LibDems, it was the first real opportunity to get rid of the crappy electoral system we have in something like 80 years. A supply & favour arrangement with an incredibly weak minority Tory govt would not have achieved this.
4. Likewise, the LibDems would also have much more influence over the Tories if they were in Govt.
5. With the largest deficit in Europe (bar the one Greece lied about) and the credit crunch applying to countries too, it's easy to see the UK ending up like Ireland. It may still happen - which would probably create a global depression. The Tories and LibDems had a duty to form a coalition. I'm inclined to think that Clegg took this more seriously than Cameron but who knows.
6. Clegg hated NuLabour and what it did to this country. Maybe Cameron did too. And most of the damages to our rights and the checks & balances on Govt have yet to be rectified.
7. Cameron would have survived regardless as a Labour coalition was impossible.
8. Lastly, both the Tories and LibDems would be blamed for anything that went wrong if they failed to form a Govt.
If anything, I'd say Clegg was more motivated than Cameron.
Cameron had already repeatedly stated he preferred majority government. It's been shown that Clegg tricked Cameron into offering AV, although Cameron may have accepted anyway.
AV is undoubtedly more proportional than FPTP. There was a poll in 1997 that showed Labour getting even more seats under AV. But the same polling company showed Labour getting more seats under FPtP too... and as we know, they were wrong.
In fact all but one polling company made this mistake. They still hadn't fixed their half-assed polling that gave Labour a majority in 1992.
The furthest back I've been able to trace this research is here:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/mvc.pdf
If AV is "self-serving" for the LibDems and LibDem 2nd votes would split equally for the Tories and Labour, then AV is clearly more proportional.
STV would be even more "self-serving", but for reasons stated above I don't think it was ever on the cards.
I personally think AV hugely outweighs the tuition fees issue. The Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country. AV ensures reform of the parties themselves - for their own survival.
STV has its own problems - we could easily see UKIP wagging the dog and would probably let in the BNP. Nonetheless, my preference is for a quadrennial rolling STV system. This would move the electorate's focus away from national politics towards the qualities of local candidates and make them even less accountable (which you are arguing is a bad thing)
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
You haven't won "AV" out of the coalition yet. You've won a referendum that the Tories will move heaven and earth to see defeated. If you want to win this referendum you'd better shut up with arguments like this on fees - you might "personally" think that but no-one outside the LDs will agree.
a) STV would do no such thing b) you can't have a rolling STV system - it has to be "all up" [unless some weird hybrid system]
Corax
Luke 5:16
Fucking astounding. How about they don't make promises that they know they won't be able to keep?
Signing a 'pledge' for the cameras wins a few votes though eh?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
There are so many ill-informed opinions in here, presented as facts, I'm sure others will be along to point them out. I'll satisfy myself with highlighting a couple of the most obvious outright fabrications and confusions:
1. The crappy electoral system has not be done away with; areferendum has been secured which was already on offer.
2. Cameron may well not have survived as PM in a minority Tory government as that government might have failed.
3. AV can be less prportional than FPTP; any basic research on lectoral systems would recveal this.
4. Attempting to exclude UKIP and the BNP by means of AV (or FPTP) is applying an organisational fix to a political problem and a potentially very risky one.
At core of your confusion and dishonesty is your appreciation that 'the Labour/Tory duopoly is starting to cause huge problems for this country'; the duopoly isn't the big problem it is the shared politics, the post 79 TINA politics which the Lib Dems also share with a visible enthusiasm.
Louis MacNeice
Most people who signed that pledge didn't think about what the consequences might be if they then had to try and negotiate a coalition. That’s certainly a lesson in the future for politicians not to make promises if they think it’s likely they might have to be compromising on them.
On offer by whom though? How else could a workable majority have been achieved that would have seen a bill for an AV referendum pass through parliament? You would only need one or two Labour rebels (e.g. those who are patrons of the NO2AV campaign to rebel)
Possibly it might have, but then again it might have been very populist for a few months and then call a snap election. It's impossible to tell for certain.
It would be interesting to have a look at this research, I think AV is better at reflecting the will of people, and it also gives people more choice and infulence in an election.
Likewise, so is introducing an electoral system that will give them a big advantage.
I agree shared policies are quite a big problem, what do you think the main causes of this are?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Moon, how can you claim that AV is "more proportional than FPTP", when AV is actually nothing more than a re-tooled version of FPTP? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Furthermore what do you have to say about the coalition's plan to redraw the electoral boundaries?
You say,
How does AV do any of these things? You use the word "choice" here as though the electorate were going to a supermarket to make a choice between brands of breakfast cereals.
You say,
How does AV do any of these things? You use the word "choice" here as though the electorate were going to a supermarket to make a choice between brands of breakfast cereals.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Astonishing - your lesson from the tuition fees disaster is not don't lie, it's don't get caught lying.
Similar threads
