Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Streathamite]

how? I'm for a realignment of the left where the labour left, greens, dissident liberals, radicalised students etc. .

what, there IS a 'labour left' still going. Where?
e2a; in fact, the biggest obstacle to real growth and progress for the left, is the Labour Party, full stop

 

[butchersapron]

It's in the LRC, who just voted for a NO vote.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because such an argument doesn't exist. It can't exist.

It's an argument that can only be made after the fact of it proving (or not) to be superior. Everything articul8 has said on this thread is based on (quite possibly well-informed) speculation. All the polls in the world can only apprise you of possibilities. Every poll is merely a snapshot of opinion at a certain time. He doesn't know how effective AV might be at achieving anything. He's just got his fingers and toes crossed, hoping that he's right.

It's all a bit 'suck it and see' or throw it against the wall and see how well it sticks.

 

[nino_savatte]

MML? You mean MMP?

Yes I agree! But since it's not on the ballot paper it's a question of inching forward or endorsing the status quo.

Typo. If it's not on the ballot paper, then there isn't much of a choice. it reminds me of the referendum the British forced onto the Iraqi people in 1920 (?). Do you want to be ruled by a king? Yes or no?

 

[articul8]

Oh REALLY? So labour party members now find it acceptable to sneet at inner city state comprehensives, do we?

Hardly - I went to a state comp/inner city FE college. In so far as i was sneering it was at your attempt to show that the Liberals didn't shoot themselves in the foot in the early 30s

 

[Streathamite]

Hardly - I went to a state comp/inner city FE college. In so far as i was sneering it was at your attempt to show that the Liberals didn't shoot themselves in the foot in the early 30s

you utter fucking liar.Why single out schools for working class kids in Streatham?That's the sort of remark people expect from Tories,full stop.

 

[Streathamite]

How is voting for what the Tories want putting them in a weaker position? And you say my logic is tortuous!

Because-obviously-it may strain the coalition

 

[Streathamite]

Anything that reduces the squeeze of left votes (allowing the votes of the big parties to disaggregate ) and increases the number of target seats and the volume of voters who preferences are needed weakens this effect.

But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that

 

[butchersapron]

But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that

You must trust a8 on this.

Do you?

 

[Streathamite]

You must trust a8 on this.

Do you?

That's a hard one....
<thinks for a microsecond>
why,that wise, visionary seer of our times,A8?
That's a "NO" vote, then!

 

[articul8]

But there's no guarantee, no certainty, that AV will do that

Don't take my word for it

By by definition - if two thirds of MPs currently are elected on less than 50%, and under AV 100% would need the support of over 50% in the final round - then more people will get to determine the outcome.

On saftey of seats - show me one psephologist who says that the number of safe seats would be totally unaffected by AV

 

[articul8]

Why single out schools for working class kids in Streatham?

I didn't - you are the only member of the Streatham school for the terminally backward I was referring to.

 

[Streathamite]

a possible slight improvement is simply not enough

 

[Streathamite]

I didn't - you are the only member of the Streatham school for the terminally backward I was referring to.

such wriggling....

 

[articul8]

a possible slight improvement is simply not enough

No it isn't enough. But is it worth spurning?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes

 

[Streathamite]

No it isn't enough. But is it worth spurning?

For the chance of destabilising the libdems, plus holding out honourably for the real thing? YES-a thousand times 'yes'

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No it isn't enough. But is it worth spurning?

Yes. It guarantees nothing whilst strengthening the coalition. Oppose the coalition and pursue PR.

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

It guarantees keeping in place a system that benefits the Tories - that's why they are financing the NO campaign and virtually all on board with the NO vote. Oppose the coalition - take the reform that's on offer. Come back for more.

 

[articul8]

YES-a thousand times 'yes'

I knew I'd win you round in the end. Basically you are paying a massive backhanded compliment to the Lib Dems by saying that what is tactically damaging to them in the short term trumps what is in the interests of the voters (albeit relatively marginally so).

 

[butchersapron]

So what?

I note the 'we' effect is running one more. "we" know what's really good for you. How? Because we are we

 

[butchersapron]

Oh no a massive backhand compliment to the lib-dem dems!!!

I shall change. Lest i offer a false picture.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It guarantees keeping in place a system that benefits the Tories - that's why they are financing the NO campaign and virtually all on board with the NO vote. Oppose the coalition - take the reform that's on offer. Come back for more.

By shoring up one of its central planks?

The reform that might prove to be regressive in terms of proportionality?

Defer what you actually want to the distant future?

These are your arguments for voting yes?


Good grief - Louis MacNeice

 

[Streathamite]

I knew I'd win you round in the end. Basically you are paying a massive backhanded compliment to the Lib Dems by saying that what is tactically damaging to them in the short term trumps what is in the interests of the voters (albeit relatively marginally so).

No,I'm not. I'm saying damaging the coalition is more important than a miniscule gain,which may itself delay real change

 

[articul8]

It isn't a central plank, at all. Clegg doesn't really give a shit to be honest. He can always jump ship to the Tories anyway.

It is no less proportional as a system than FPTP. Individual outcomes can occasionally (where there is a dramatic swing) be less proportional than under FPTP. But with AV there can, and usually would, be more prortional results.

I see no basis whatsoever for seeing AV a step backwards from FPTP.

Streathamite - your argument is essentially that of the Spart - the NHS and the welfare state just delay real revolutionary change we need.

 

[Streathamite]

Streathamite - your argument is essentially that of the Spart - the NHS and the welfare state just delay real revolutionary change we need.

jesus, wept you're doing it again.
For the umpteenth fucking time, I really don't care who you bracket me with-my mind is my own,likewise my arguments.DO YOU READ ME?
And that's a ridculous fucking comparison-Those 2 things were massive breakthroughs for the workers,this is a breakthrough for no-one,other than your employers that is
And you wonder why I don't rate your grasp of UK history....

 

[Streathamite]

It isn't a central plank, at all. Clegg doesn't really give a shit to be honest. He can always jump ship to the Tories anyway.

As far as, oooh, about 75% of the LD's membership were/are concerned, It was THE key plank-and more so with every day of terrible polls.
THAT is what counts

 

[moon23]

There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins. Personally I think AV is a better system though as you get to rank candidates, and MPs need to win a popular vote.

 

[Streathamite]

There is a decent chance of another Tory/LD coalition under FPTP so it's not the end of the world if the no vote wins. Personally I think AV is a better system though as you get to rank candidates, and MPs need to win a popular vote.

ahh...so you personally prefer cosying up to Tories!
Quel Surpris - NOT!

 

[articul8]

The prinipal beneficiaries of keeping FPTP are....? The Tories. The No campaign gets most of its cash and staff from...? The Tories.

To the extent that a No vote hits the coalition, it does so in a way which the Tories stand to gain most from.