Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[articul8]

and meanwhile despite all the chatter - YouGov's latest poll shows the Yes support 8% up - a dramatic closing of the gap making the two options neck and neck.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-080211.pdf

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, as the tories start to realise that it's in their interest. Exactly as i've argued and you have argued against.

 

[articul8]

Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, but it's the tories doing what i said. They are the wind beneath your wings.

 

[articul8]

I'd like to see some evidence for that.

 

[butchersapron]

Your own backfiring gloating link above. Uk poll sum it up as:

Looking at the breakdown of support in this most recent poll Liberal Democrat supporters, always strongly in favour of AV, have become even more pro-AV, with 84% saying they would vote in favour of AV, Conservative supporters while still opposed to AV were also slightly less hostile, with the proportion of Tory voters saying they would back AV rising to 28%.

Almost a 1/3 of tories supporting AV - why?

 

[nino_savatte]

Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).

Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.

 

[Streathamite]

Not necessarily - it could be from swing voters being put off the No camp by the spectre of unelected Labour peers trying to bloc democratic reform (as they would see it - the reality being somewhat more complex).

"could be" means "you don't know"

 

[articul8]

Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.

No but in this context, it is the Labour MPs that are perceived (not entirely fairly) to be blocking the will of the elected chamber. The Libs and Cons are seeking to rubber stamp the will of the commons. (obviously there is more to it than that, but the press maybe having an effect).

 

[articul8]

Almost a 1/3 of tories supporting AV - why?

Firstly there is a big difference between tory MPs, cllrs, activists (who are almost unanimously against - the Yes campaign has even been excluded from the right to (pay them) to go their conference such is their hatred of reform.
In terms of voters - it is true that there is a layer of people who voted Tory at the last election who don't judge every issue through the prism of party interests - as may would have voted for Blair previously. It is these swing voters, that Labour needs to win back in order to kick out the Tories, that appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system,.

 

[nino_savatte]

No but in this context, it is the Labour MPs that are perceived (not entirely fairly) to be blocking the will of the elected chamber. The Libs and Cons are seeking to rubber stamp the will of the commons. (obviously there is more to it than that, but the press maybe having an effect).

Yes and I remember the Thatcher and Major governments using their inbuilt Lords majority in the same way.

 

[butchersapron]

Firstly there is a big difference between tory MPs, cllrs, activists (who are almost unanimously against - the Yes campaign has even been excluded from the right to (pay them) to go their conference such is their hatred of reform.
In terms of voters - it is true that there is a layer of people who voted Tory at the last election who don't judge every issue through the prism of party interests - as may would have voted for Blair previously. It is these swing voters, that Labour needs to win back in order to kick out the Tories, that appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system,.

So when i say it's grass roots and doesn't need formal recognition i'm right?

Layer? Odd that your own organisation, the ones that produces your wages, the one who you used to argue brought together your personal views and your professional life but now say that they're separate things, brought out a study attacking the fact that these people are central to the electoral process - that 13 000 people decide the outcome. Now you want to target and use them.

Also, why waffle about how and what labour needs to do to win? I asked you why 1/3 of tories are now supporting AV. Have you an answer? I have. It's because they're starting to recognise that AV will help them.

 

[Streathamite]

Are they any different to unelected Tory and Lib Dem peers? Just asking.

Yeah....the Labour ones aren't inbred etonians with ownership of half of shropshire

 

[Random]

appear to be less than convinced by the tribal rejection of a fairer system.

Lol.

 

[butchersapron]

I like this tribal thing, what is it? Does it mean hating the lib-dems?

 

[articul8]

So when i say it's grass roots and doesn't need formal recognition i'm right?

Every indication is that the official Tory associations and the Tory core support are very much for a No. This is a shift in the opinion of swing voters. If - as the NO camp in Labour hope - we are still left with a FPTP system, then alienating these people is a deeply stupid thing to do.

 

[butchersapron]

You mean yes, you're right. Not interested in your labour waffle.

 

[articul8]

no you're wrong

 

[butchersapron]

Every indication is that the official Tory associations and the Tory core support are very much for a No. This is a shift in the opinion of swing voters. If - as the NO camp in Labour hope - we are still left with a FPTP system, then alienating these people is a deeply stupid thing to do.

What in the poll makes you say that it's a shift in swing voters?

 

[butchersapron]

no you're wrong

I'm wrong to say that the tory vote for AV has increased whilst the overall vote for AV has gone up. I wonder why. The poll you linked to to support your argument is wrong?

 

[bonathanjishop]

unlikely, as there's simply too many "anti" Tory & Labour MPs for it to pass the necessary commons vote

I don't know if any of you know, but the judiciary has ruled that manifestos 'carry no legitimate expectations' - in other words they are not worth the paper they are written on or the bytes of memory they consume.

This was Labour's Manifesto for the General Election last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_04_10_labour_manifesto.pdf

If you search for 'Alternative Vote' you'll see they made a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum on AV. It was a Labour Government that set up the Jenkins Inquiry which proposed AV, and they were in government for three terms until adding it to their manifesto. AV wasn't in the Tories' manifesto, but their MPs will be asked to vote for - why won't Labour MPs? Instead of opposing the Bill, maybe they could try to improve it?

 

[butchersapron]

The Jenkins report recommend AV+ not AV.

 

[articul8]

No, you're wrong in the implication that the voters in question are long-term Tory identifiers rather than swing voters. We have our own much more extensive internal polling (based on a 10,000 strong sample - unprecedented in public polling) which shows us who these people are. Is stands to reason that these are the people most prepared to defy a position backed almost unanimously by the Conservative parliamentary party. This isn't the blue rinsers!

 

[Streathamite]

Instead of opposing the Bill, maybe they could try to improve it?

The ONLY way to improve it is with PROPER PR

 

[butchersapron]

No, you're wrong in the implication that the voters in question are long-term Tory identifiers rather than swing voters. We have our own much more extensive internal polling (based on a 10,000 strong sample - unprecedented in public polling) which shows us who these people are. Is stands to reason that these are the people most prepared to defy a position backed almost unanimously by the Conservative parliamentary party. This isn't the blue rinsers!

(note the 'long term' introduced). So what you're saying is that you have the proof but it's such good proof we can't see it.

I'm not wrong to say then that the tory vote for AV has increased whilst the overall vote for AV has gone up?

Why have you ignored the points about your groups attacks on the idea of appealing to swing voters whilst adopting a swing voter approach?

 

[articul8]

How are we going to get "proper PR"?

 

[butchersapron]

"we"?

 

[articul8]

(note the 'long term' introduced). So what you're saying is that you have the proof but it's such good proof we can't see it.

We're hardly going to publish the entire goldmine of info that shows us which demographic groups we need to target in order to win the referendum. The reasons for this are pretty bloody obvious.

Why have you ignored the points about your groups attacks on the idea of appealing to swing voters whilst adopting a swing voter approach?

it's FPTP that makes that logic inevitable - a YES/NO plebiscite is like a FPTP contest in a 2 horse race from that respect. But we want to *reform* the system so the whole of politics doesn't operate by this logic.

 

[bonathanjishop]

I'll be voting NO.

I don't know how I'm voting for certain yet - I want to hear the debate. My thinking at the moment is I would like equally sized constituencies, but with two MPs instead of one in order to introduce competition so the MPs' monopolies end and mean they have to work harder to 'gain market share' to secure re-election next time. But that is not what is on the table.

AV won't deliver this, as it only works with single member constituencies, which means that AV is not proportional representation, it is more like the current first-past-the-post-system but you don't just one chance to vote, meaning 'every vote will count'. Lib Dems don't really want AV, they want 'Single Transferable Vote' like they use in Northern Ireland and Scotland and in some parts of the EU for election to the European Parliament (Governments were given a choice between STV and the list system - ours chose the list system - under this it is more difficult for the public to have influence and the bigger parties are therefore better off).

While AV will give the public the opportunity to vote for their preferred party and tactically at the same time, meaning if you wanted to stop the Tories and Lib Dems getting in and you were a socialist but not to keen on Labour you could vote Socialist Labour 1, Plaid 2, Labour 3, then if Socialist Labour got the lest votes, you vote would go to Plaid, then if Plaid got the least votes your vote would go to Labour. It may mean that in the next rounds Labour would get over 50% of the votes - more votes than the Tories and Lib Dems - so would get elected. However, it could also mean that people could vote Socialist Labour first without the fear of the Tories or Lib Dems getting in because of they vote being worthless as it is under the current first-past-the-post system, as AV would mean the party with over 50% of the vote would get elected. The same applies to other minor parties, such as the BNP, which should make us consider the consequence of voting yes, even if it gives us more freedom to vote for who we want.

I don't know why the big parties want it, it will give the public more freedom to vote.

 

[Streathamite]

How are we going to get "proper PR"?

not this way, if British History is any guide.And please don't identify me with you