Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[articul8]

AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties? How does that work?

 

[Random]

It will make it more worthwhile for activists to go out to campaign for and build smaller left parties because everyone gets to show their support without - as at present- surrendering their ability to influence the outcome and stop an even worse neo-liberal party from winning the seat.

These left activists. If they have no hope of getting anyone actually elected under AV, what difference will the 'demonstration' that there's lots of left voters in an area actually do? It's already well known that in most safe labour seats in working class areas the voters are far far far to the left of the Labour Party leadership.

 

[Random]

AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties? How does that work?

How about "There's barely a credit card's widthof space between them so we might as well vote for the one that'll give the Lib Demos a kick in the teeth"? Or might as well not bother. Unless, like you, we're paid to care.

 

[butchersapron]

AV funnels votes at a later stage, so we may as well stick with a system that funnels them from the off and makes it look like no-one would choose to vote for smaller parties? How does that work?

So you accept that AV funnels votes to the centre? Let's get this clear.

 

[butchersapron]

How about "There's barely a credit card's widthof space between them so we might as well vote for the one that'll give the Lib Demos a kick in the teeth"? Or might as well not bother. Unless, like you, we're paid to care.

Or vote for President Clegg, the kingmaker forever more - no matter what you vote for.

 

[Random]

Or vote for President Clegg, the kingmaker forever more - no matter what you vote for.

Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.

 

[butchersapron]

Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.

Whoever the ERS want to head the labour/lib-dem coaltion (this time) then the lib-dem/tory coalition (next time). Oh what sweet changes, what sweet juicy freedom!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Clegg is going down, isn't he? He'll hop to the tories with a rump faction soonish. Finishing off Lloyd George's work, splitting the already split and shrunken.

If the Libdems win the referendum (and that's the main thing this is a referendum on them, on their aspirations) then they will have a life line, it will reinforce their position and cement Clegg as both leader of the party and kingmaker who can hold the country hostage to the whims of a handful of rich neoliberal elites without any tie to a genuine base (something even the Tories have).

A no vote will at the very least facilitate the destruction of the Libdems in four years time.

 

[butchersapron]

Post #148

So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts....Clegg's failure to get AV... will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down.

Agree with all this too EXCEPT the likely more likely outcome of the LDs getting smashed out of existence is a big TORY majority and the cuts getting worse still.

Whats changed then, why won't his failure to get AV fuck him, his party and the coalition up?

edit: more:

Post#189

A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron. It might be the start of - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.

Today you argue a Yes vote would weaken Clegg and a NO vote would strengthen him. That it could never 100% ever lead to the coalition unravelling. Why have you turned your own argument over 100% in a few months?

Are there any arguments that you've not u-turned on? How about principled ones? Tried them?

 

[Streathamite]

Are there any arguments that you've not u-turned on? How about principled ones? Tried them?

now come on, you're just being daft there....He's a "communist" member of the LP!

 

[articul8]

Post #148

Today you argue a Yes vote would weaken Clegg and a NO vote would strengthen him. That it could never 100% ever lead to the coalition unravelling. Why have you turned your own argument over 100% in a few months?

Clegg will be weaker irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. i don't claim the chief reason to vote Yes is to weaken Clegg. But a Yes vote isnt enough to prop them up either.

 

[articul8]

A no vote will at the very least facilitate the destruction of the Libdems in four years time.

Maybe, but with the Tories as chief beneficiary. AV would see the LDs crushed in Scotland and Wales, even if it worked in their favour in a few seats. AV would *not* result in permanent coalition, so the kingmaker argument is totally bogus as far as AV goes.

 

[butchersapron]

Why will the tories be chief beneficiary?

The lib-dems are getting crushed in those areas no matter what - FPTP or AV - it will not be happening because of AV.

You keep saying this but i see no reason to believe it. And yes, it's been one of your contradictory arguments from the start - that the resulting lab/lib-dem coalition from an AV vote would mean there'd never be a tory majority ever again. It's been your long term thinking for decades - you explicitly said this not a few days ago. Can you really not keep track of your own arguments anymore?

 

[butchersapron]

Clegg will be weaker irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. i don't claim the chief reason to vote Yes is to weaken Clegg. But a Yes vote isnt enough to prop them up either.

Or, he'll be stronger by winning the thing he and his party sold themselves out for.


Also, that wasn't your argument then - it was that a NO vote would "fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down." Why is that not true any longer?

 

[articul8]

it's been one of your contradictory arguments from the start - that the resulting lab/lib-dem coalition from an AV vote would mean there'd never be a tory majority ever again. It's been your long term thinking for decades - you explicitly said this not a few days ago. Can you really not keep track of your own arguments anymore?

No, my argument does not rest on there being any kind of coalition - A tory majority is unlikely because people who voted LD in 2010 are much less likely to support the Tories than Labour (it doesn't matter that people who vote LD now might prefer the Tories, as they are not the key determinant and a % will in any case follow the leadership back to equidistance). This needn't mean a formal coalition.

If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?

 

[Random]

If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?

Tribalism

 

[butchersapron]

No, my argument does not rest on there being any kind of coalition - A tory majority is unlikely because people who voted LD in 2010 are much less likely to support the Tories than Labour (it doesn't matter that people who vote LD now might prefer the Tories, as they are not the key determinant and a % will in any case follow the leadership back to equidistance). This needn't mean a formal coalition.

If the Tories didn't suspect this, why are they all opposed?

Yes it does, you said so explicitly the other night - why can you not keep hold of your arguments anymore? An anti-tory majority forever on the basis of alb/lib-dem coalition. Are you losing it ot something?

 

[articul8]

Yes it does, you said so explicitly the other night - why can you not keep hold of your arguments anymore? An anti-tory majority forever on the basis of alb/lib-dem coalition. Are you losing it ot something?

where did i say this? Not talking about formal coalition but about a shared political rejection of Tory interest from majoirty of Lab and LD voters.

 

[butchersapron]

Post's #55 and #56 here.

And of course, you're not talking about a formal coalition -you wouldn't have the gall today. It's exactly what it says sand means though.

 

[articul8]

No - post #56 says you were right to say that the dominant political strain of support for electoral reform has argued for closer Lib/Lab relations. But I situate my case from the perspective of socialists who argue from a different perspective. Keir Hardie supported PR but as a consequence of his *break* from Lib-Labbery.

 

[butchersapron]

So in fact, yes, i'm correct, you've said so very recently but have a such a problem keeping hold of the many contradictory arguments you're flinging around right now you plum forgot. And also, you were right to both forget and also to say something then that disagrees with what you say now. Because everyone else is a tory.

 

[articul8]

err..no. You failed to understand my first post and then compound the error by alleging I have changed my mind from a position I didn't take.

 

[butchersapron]

Or yes, when i said that the long term plan is a lab/lib-dem coalition and you agree (but by saying i want it to be really radical).

 

[articul8]

It might be someone's long-term plan but not mine.

 

[butchersapron]

You're just here to help implement it. Not my fault guv.

 

[redsquirrel]

where did i say this? Not talking about formal coalition but about a shared political rejection of Tory interest from majoirty of Lab and LD voters.

You don't have the guts or intellectual honesty to argue it explicitly but it is clear implicit in your (nonsense) claim that AV would stop the Tories getting a majority.

A claim made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because all the evidence shows that it is completely untrue - the Liberals in Australia have had majorities plenty of times.

 

[moon23]

You don't have the guts or intellectual honesty to argue it explicitly but it is clear implicit in your (nonsense) claim that AV would stop the Tories getting a majority.

A claim made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever because all the evidence shows that it is completely untrue - the Liberals in Australia have had majorities plenty of times.

Speculating about the outcomes of any voting system is like staring into the crystal ball. The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.

 

[butchersapron]

Speculating about the outcomes of any voting system is like staring into the crystal ball. The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.

And then speculating on the answer. What a twat.

 

[butchersapron]

And who says that should be the question? it's not one your party or its coalition partners have decided to ask it it? So why try and sell this 'miserable little compromise' as if it is? Because you're a twat?

 

[moon23]

And then speculating on the answer. What a twat.

Good evening butchersapron, speculation of the ‘wills’ outcome is different from whether the ‘will’ has been represented.