Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Lock&Light]

Say something. Please. Say something.

You are the performing monkey on these boards.

 

[articul8]

Have you even been on this thread? Are you so intellectually voracious that you can't remember anything? The argument is that is will hit the lib-dems, and so the coalition and accentuate internal contradictions (based on either self interest or principles - doesn't matter) that will stalemate cuts on the parliamentary front. You've had this argument explained to you countless times on this thread. Why pretend otherwise? Why insult us so?

How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts? I just don't begin to see this. In reality, if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority. Some step forward. The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote. If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!

 

[articul8]

The one articul8 wants just with tories changed for labour. And the disaggregation of course.

so it makes no difference, we might as well have Tory government?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How is voting down AV attacking the Tories - who are only too happy to see it fall.

The coalition consists of two parties and it is both parties that are enabling the vote on AV. The LD's need some big ticket item to keep any supprters on board. The Tories need the LD for voting numbers and as a whipping boy. The defeat of AV will hurt both coalition partners, because it hurts the coalition.

I notice you didn't answer my question; I not at all surprised. Would you like to have a go at it now?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts? I just don't begin to see this. In reality, if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority. Some step forward. The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote. If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!

What?

 

[butchersapron]

How would losing "AV" stalemate the cuts? I just don't begin to see this. In reality, if the coalition broke up under circumstances where the Tories had reduced the number of MPs to 600 but left FPTP in place, the logic is that the coalition is more likely to be replaced by a Tory majority. Some step forward. The Tories are more than happy to for there to be a NO vote. If they thought it would undermine the possibility to push through the cuts they want, why would they do it?!!

How many times do you need this telling? It's bizarre, it really is. It's all in brief in my post above anyway - either engage with what it says or don't. Don't just say that you don't see it. As to a 100% sure tory majority under a FPTP gen election right now - are you mad? And you really really need to stop the tories vote no approach. Socialist vote no. Now what? Neo-liberals vote yes. Now what?

 

[butchersapron]

so it makes no difference, we might as well have Tory government?

Here we see the AV funnel working in all it's glory.

 

[butchersapron]

If you've got a spare 20 minutes say over a cup of tea and a sarnie, do re-read the thread. It's interesting. (yes it is)

 

[articul8]

I've read the thread and *nowhere* have you've explained *how* voting down AV would undermine the coalition without *at the same time* strenghtening the hand of the Tories.

 

[nino_savatte]

That AV won't eliminate every safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal. How does keeping FPTP help?

No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.

What makes you think that it will "eliminate" safe seats?

You say "No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV" but neither you nor Take Back Parliament has put forward a cast iron argument that demonstrates that AV is a superior system to the current one.

 

[articul8]

As to a 100% sure tory majority under a FPTP gen election right now

The UK elected a Tory majority government twice after the recession of the early eighties and the miners strike, including after the poll tax. Yes, there is mass opposition to the cuts. But don't underestimate the strength of the Tory core vote and the tabloid press.

I'm not saying that you have to be a Tory to vote No. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for the Tories to uninamously support and help finance something that they didn't believe would work in their party's interest.

 

[nino_savatte]

I've read the thread and *nowhere* have you've explained *how* voting down AV would undermine the coalition without *at the same time* strenghtening the hand of the Tories.

It's fingers in the ears time! Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!

 

[articul8]

What makes you think that it will "eliminate" safe seats?

Read my post? I specifically acknoweldge that it "won't" eliminate safe seats. But that doesn't mean it isn't a step forward from FPTP.

 

[articul8]

What?

Labour loses more from the reduction/equalisation of seats if FPTP is in place than if AV is in place. That's what.

 

[nino_savatte]

Read my post? I specifically acknoweldge that it "won't" eliminate safe seats. But that doesn't mean it isn't a step forward from FPTP.

Sorry but I don't buy that one either. It's funny how you ignored my point about my local constituency, which is a marginal that is only contested by the 3 main parties with some input from UKIP and the BNP. Where's the 'choice' there?

 

[articul8]

It's fingers in the ears time! Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!

Well kindly repost this devastating argument that I evidently missed

 

[articul8]

Sorry but I don't buy that one either. It's funny how you ignored my point about my local constituency, which is a marginal that is only contested by the 3 main parties with some input from UKIP and the BNP. Where's the 'choice' there?

there would be *more* marginals under AV. It won't make every seat a marginal

 

[nino_savatte]

Well kindly repost this devastating argument that I evidently missed

It makes more sense that your weak 'argument' in support of AV, which is not proportional nor will it lead to PR. Indeed, your mind has been closed to any points that have been put to you.

Try again.

 

[nino_savatte]

there would be *more* marginals under AV. It won't make every seat a marginal

So where's the much-vaunted 'choice' then?

 

[articul8]

The defeat of AV will hurt both coalition partners

Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them? They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.

 

[nino_savatte]

<Taps watch>

Choice?

 

[nino_savatte]

Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them? They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.

Because they're about to redraw electoral boundaries that favour them.

 

[articul8]

So where's the much-vaunted 'choice' then?

There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal. That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.

And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out. That is a "choice" that doesn't exist at present.

 

[butchersapron]

Why are the tories campaigning for something that will hurt them? They might be nasty but they aren't stupid.

They're not.

 

[articul8]

Because they're about to redraw electoral boundaries that favour them.

yes, and? If that meant they didn't care whether AV went through they wouldn't need to even go through the motions of campaigning against it, let alone lining up unanimously, seconding staff and getting big-hitters like the Taxpayers Alliance involved in stopping it.

 

[butchersapron]

There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal. That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.

And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out,

In these seats there can be a disaggregation then a vote for the lib-dems. Fantastic.

 

[butchersapron]

yes, and? If that meant they didn't care whether AV went through they wouldn't need to even go through the motions of campaigning against it, let alone lining up unanimously, seconding staff and getting big-hitters like the Taxpayers Alliance involved in stopping it.

Are you a tory nino? You sure sound like one. Tories oppose AV (in name) so do you. QED.

 

[nino_savatte]

There is more choice for people who find that formerly safe seat has become more marginal. That all safe seats don't fall into this category doesn't mean their aren't real gains for who do.

And *all* voters have the opportunity to vote for their genuine first preference, rather than the tactically necessary option eg. in LD/Con seats Labour/Green supporters can vote meaningfully for their own party without surrending their ability to influence the outcome in keeping the Tory out,

So what if there is no 2nd or 3rd preference? My constituency has always been a marginal as long as I can remember. There's no indication that AV will change that.

 

[nino_savatte]

Are you a tory nino? You sure sound like one.

Er, surely you should address that question to a8?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If the big parties all believed that, then no-one would waste time and energy opposing it. But the Tories are against it practically to a man or woman - Cameron will call for a NO vote, the Taxpayers Alliance have lent their chief exec to head it up, climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance it. Which kind of suggests they are less than relaxed about it?



#

IMO you're mistaking annoyance at a change in the electoral status quo with a fear of some mythical loss of power and influence under AV. Conservatives (small or large 'c') have that moniker for a reason.