Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

articul8 said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Numerous pms of support.

So you're doing it, but you have to. Actually, you don't this is a referendum. You're confusing your ERS brief with your labour brief.
 
Streathamite said:
not this way, if British History is any guide.And please don't identify me with you
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have done you that honour. How are you going to get PR then? Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case. When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR". So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.
 
I don't want PR or AV because they will always result in a coaltion. FBTP may not be perfect, but at least the winning government can act on their manifesto pledges or be held to account. In a coaltion no parties manifesto can be honoured. which would render manifesto's pretty pointless, & with us having no idea what any party stood for.
 
butchersapron said:
You're confusing your ERS brief with your labour brief.
Click to expand...

No confusion - what is good for Labour is what helps position the party in the best possible place to win over disillusioned Lib Dems and Tories at the next GE at the same time as mobilising its core vote. So, campaign against the cuts, campaign for a fairer voting system that makes MPs work harder to reach out to a wider section of the community.
 
flicy said:
FBTP may not be perfect, but at least the winning government can act on their manifesto pledges or be held to account. In a coaltion no parties manifesto can be honoured. which would render manifesto's pretty pointless, & with us having no idea what any party stood for.
Click to expand...

Hung parliaments, hence coalitions, are here to stay even under FPTP. It's a result of the fracturing of the old two party duopoly. IPPR demonstrated this in their recent report.
 
articul8 said:
I shouldn't have done you that honour. How are you going to get PR then? Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case. When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR". So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.
Click to expand...
as usual,you are both a)wrong,and b)stunningly ignorant. Will answer in full later
 
i look forward to hearing how black is in fact white and I'm so wrong and ignorant in saying otherwise. The Speakers conference of 1931 recommended AV and the House of commons backed that recommendation. let's hear how that didn't happen..I'm all ears. Let's have History CSE from the Streatham school of the terminally backward.
 
articul8 said:
Jesus, how many more times? - the boundaries are *not* affected by the referendum outcome. If the Bill passes, the boundaries changes/reduction in MPs will already be set in stone. The AV bit is all that remins up for discussion.
Click to expand...

Whatever. The Tories have tied the two together in any event, and Lib Dems have lied and lied again in painting Labour opponents to seat gerrymandering as opponents of AV (which they wouldn't be, necessarily, if the two aspects were separated).. The gerrymandering thing on its own would persuade me to vote against AV on principle -- when it comes with such cynical pro-Tory shit preloaded in with it.

And the Lib Dems still need a kicking :p
 
butchersapron said:
Not true.
Click to expand...
No? where then? I might ocassionally slip into "we the Labour left"...but I don't intend to blur any distinctions. I am anti-cuts, anti-coalition and pro-reform of the electoral system. This is not an eccentic position to take (viz. Billy Hayes, Jon Cruddas, Caroline Lucas, Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn, Mark Serwotka?, John McDonnell?...)
 
articul8 said:
I shouldn't have done you that honour. How are you going to get PR then? Actually British History (why the capitals?) proves the opposite of your case. When MPs voted to introduce AV the (liberal) Lords through it out becuase it would block the way to "proper PR". So we made no progress whatsoever and were lumbered with FPTP for eight more decades.
Click to expand...
Right, now to re-educate quite possibly the least valuable employee the ERS has ever had!
1) If you knew anything about British history - and you clearly do NOT - beyond the odd snippet you've gleaned from the ERS website - you would appreciate that the pace of electoral & constitutional reform in this country is glacally slow; it took until 1832 for any but gentry to be enfranchised, and until 1918 for women to follow suit. Therefore, introducing NOT-PR, which is what AV is - in other words, slightly-improved FPTP, and no real progress whatsoever, will most likely delay REAL PR by anything up to 100 years.
2) The '31 vote...oh dear. An amendment was passed, and the bill continued, but then - as you'd know if you knew British history - the government fell, and the legislative schedule with it, as is customary, (Erskine May, who you'll also not have heard of) before the third reading could happen.
3) again - AV is NOT progress. It's a sham.
4) do you actually understand the difference between making a speech, and voting? The one is no guide to the other.
5) It also doesn't follow the bill's successful passage woulda led to PR
God, why do they pay you.
BTW, your resorting to pathetic, laughable insults shows you've lost the debate
 
One highly misleading account amongst a whole heap of unsubstanitated assertions and irrelevances.

Re 1931 - "the bill continued" is a laughable way of saying "was bogged down by opposition in the Lords who after undue postponement passed a hostile amendment meaning that it would have had to be revoked in the Commons producing interminable constitutional ping pong" These were the days before the Salisbury convention so "the bill continuing" to face opposition in the Lords would effectively mean potentially holding up the entire legislative programme of the government. In other words the opportunity for the Bill to go through was lost *in the passing of a wrecking amedment* not in the fall of a government.

The idea that wrecking AV because it makes PR more likely has been tried - and found wanting - before. Nothing in the above post suggests any reason why it would work this time when it failed in 1931. The ERS - which was on the side of the Lords on that occasion - has thankfully learnt its lesson. This is why the pre-eminent body campaigning for PR is for a Yes vote on AV. For all your laughable personal insults (I haven't heard of Erskine May? Reallly?...) the reality is that your position is intellectually threadbare and is most certainly not based on historical experience.
 
Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?

Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it. Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.
 
articul8 said:
Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.
Click to expand...

Your continued presence on this thread and anothers supports that contention.
 
articul8 said:
Streathamite - how about you actually deal with the substantive point in #1127 about history showing that your position is utterly futile and counter-productive?

Frankly the arguments for a yes vote are winning out so far - our detailed internal polling shows it. Urban 75 is *nothing at all like* the electorate at large so I'm not going to cry myself to sleep worrying about not having persuaded a few people on here who offer no coherent justification for the positions they are taking.
Click to expand...

lol
 
the headline message is not a secret - it's the detailed results as profiled by demographic groups that I won't be leaking here :). It doesn't mean we're being remotely complacent. Support for a NO vote tends to harden in the final weeks so
 
articul8 said:
No confusion - what is good for Labour is what helps position the party in the best possible place to win over disillusioned Lib Dems and Tories at the next GE at the same time as mobilising its core vote. So, campaign against the cuts, campaign for a fairer voting system that makes MPs work harder to reach out to a wider section of the community.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that a Labour government would not introduce very similar cuts? The austeity policies aren't here because the Conservatives and Lib Dems are evil (although they are) but because the capitalists who run the UK have decided that now is a good time to get the knives out and gut the working class. A labour soft cop government will be bringing in the same or similar cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Sheffield school incident 1st May 2024
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
TopCat
  • Poll
WPGB or LP
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
4K
redsquirrel
R
Magnus McGinty
Apparently I no longer have an NHS dentist
Replies
24
Views
846
newme
newme
Kid_Eternity
No thanks app - boycotting Israel with a tap of a button
Replies
4
Views
366
existentialist
existentialist
editor
Bournemouth beach deaths, May 2023
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
andysays
andysays
Back
Top Bottom