Who said it was a 'miserable little comrpromise'?
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
Who said it was a 'miserable little comrpromise'?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What's that go to do with anything i said? In fact you decided to ignore my asking you why the question you place as central (The question should be does the system better represent the will of people voting in it.) is not being asked at all. Because you lot did that.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nick Clegg.
Are you kidding? Are you really so unaware of the facts on this? You don't even know what your glorious leader called AV before the election? Before he turned to embrace it as the best democratic thing ever?
So why should something Nick Clegg says be taken as a self-evident truth?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you calling Nick Clegg a liar?
You really didn't know did you?
Oh poor little moonie.Are you calling Nick Clegg a liar?
You really didn't know did you?
I'm pointing out that Clegg's word is not divine gospel. So what if he said AV was a miserable little compromise when engaged in gesture politics to barter for voter reform. Who the fuck cares? This is now about what the voter wants.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well was he right or not?
Maybe the voter doesn't want 'gesture politics' (thank you for this neat summation of the lib-dems though - and so cynical).
I find it a little odd that you can dismiss the public lies of the leader of your party as ''gesture politics' that he could junk as he wished - as lies. That means this vote is 'gesture politics' - meaningless stuff just designed to make them look better? Is that right?
Is it ok to just lie now? Is that the official lib-dem line? Or is that just 'gesture politics'?
It's as simple as a child complaining they don't want an apple when they think they can hold out for an ice cream. Clegg was just trying to barter to win some voting reform against two political parties that have been stuck in their self-interested ways for many many years.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Was he right or was he not? Is AV 'a miserable compromise'? Clegg was not trying to win anything, this had nothing whatsoever to with the bargaining after the election. It's what AV is to someone who wants a proportional system.
Not interested in your little farmyard homilies btw.
So, OK to just lie then? As long as you call it 'gesture politics'? Answer that one.
Not interested in your little farmyard homilies btw.
So, OK to just lie then? As long as you call it 'gesture politics'? Answer that one.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Steel Icarus
we move
So, to sum up: the scales are falling from Moon's eyes, even if he doesn't know it yet & it's leaking out in his language. Clegg is a lickspittle turncoat and someone who lies like a child to get what they want. Lovely.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
I've never claimed that AV would make it impossible for the Tories to win a majority - but that it would be less likely than under FPTP, because they have a toxic brand to voters from other parties.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's amazing that all the arguments that you've put forward over a 1000 or so posts you never actually put forward. And when you didn't you were right not to, expect when you did- when you were right to. And then 5 posts later you return to making the same argument that you simultaneously didn't make earlier and were right to/not to make when you didn't.
You are all over the bloody shop.
You are all over the bloody shop.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Notice you don't point to any of these alleged inconsistencies - I have argued that AV would make a Tory majority *at the next election* less likely. I have not argued that it would prevent them from getting a majority in pereptuity, although it would make it harder for them on balance. Which is why none of their MPs support anything other than a No vote.
This is all very clear.
This is all very clear.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I have pointed them out on thread after thread after thread. You really cannot seem to remember anything that you or other contributors have posted from one minute to the next.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Every single time you've backtracked, changed you arguments, misrepresented what you've earlier said or denied the logic of your arguments i've pointed it out. Countless times across three threads. Why else have I had to ask why you seem unable to recall your own posts so often? I don't think anyone whose read any of these three long threads will deny this.
Why have you just chucked in another argument that's got nothing to do with the post that you're replying to? Have you forgot what you said again?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
You have systematically misintepreted what I've said, imposed some arbitrary interpretation that has little if anything to do with the argument I've made, attributed positions to me that I haven't taken (and wouldn't), and accused me of inconsistency without ever point to an example of it when challenged.
My position is very clear - AV would disadvantage the Tories and allow the real first preference of left voters to be properly registered not squeezed out of existence at present. I've argued this from day one and continue to make the same case. Now you can object to these things if you like. But don't tell me that the logic of what I'm arguing is something totally different.
My position is very clear - AV would disadvantage the Tories and allow the real first preference of left voters to be properly registered not squeezed out of existence at present. I've argued this from day one and continue to make the same case. Now you can object to these things if you like. But don't tell me that the logic of what I'm arguing is something totally different.
So your argument is not based on the merits of AV per se at all? It's just based on (what you imagine) it will do to the Tories?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or, you've attempted to weasel out of the logic of you position. i.e you admit that the long term aim of the AV supporters is to make a tory majority impossible by firming up support for the lib-dems and labour (leaving aside whether it will do this or not) and pretend that this doesn't mean lab/lib-dem coalitions. sheer dishonesty. Plenty of other examples too.
And really, after your performance across these three threads (you're tory, you love tories, you love david cameron) i'm pretty sure i'll not be taking any lessons from you. You've been an absolute shambles.
And really, after your performance across these three threads (you're tory, you love tories, you love david cameron) i'm pretty sure i'll not be taking any lessons from you. You've been an absolute shambles.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
It will disadvantage the Tories *because* it is a more democratic system that better reflects the majority of people's attitudes towards them
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It might be for now, wait a few hours and it'll change back to something else.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Here - another example. I've already said that AV would *not* mean that a Tory majority was impossible. Nor would AV necessarily produce more coalitions.
My argument that AV would be more likely to work against Tory interest is based on the belief that Labour is better able to reach out to a majority of the voters. This doesn't just mean winning over LDs voters (the kind for eg. who opposed the war and fees) but also Greens, SNP, Plaid, independents, smaller left forces etc.
But it does *not* require formal, or even informal, Lib-Lab coalitions (although some supporters of AV may wish to see this). But you want to insist this is my agenda - despite the fact it is not what I'm arguing.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Can you fucking read? I didn't say that you said AV would make a tory majority impossible. I said that "you admit that the long term aim of the AV supporters is to make a tory majority impossible ". (You denied admitting this as well actually until i dug out the exact quote where you admitted it. This was yesterday and i was forced to ask you even then why you couldn't seem to remember large chunks of your posts/arguments from only a few days previous - now i have to do it again, and on the same topic. Absolute shambles).
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Jesus wept!!!
Making a Tory majority impossible *politically* is a good thing, yes. This needn't necessarily be through formal coalition, and AV isn't necessarily going to lead to that - although some of our supporters, perhaps a majority, would like to see it as beginning a process that would. But even then there are different forms of coalition possible, even different forms of Lib/Lab politics.
Where have I deviated from this position?
Making a Tory majority impossible *politically* is a good thing, yes. This needn't necessarily be through formal coalition, and AV isn't necessarily going to lead to that - although some of our supporters, perhaps a majority, would like to see it as beginning a process that would. But even then there are different forms of coalition possible, even different forms of Lib/Lab politics.
Where have I deviated from this position?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
It matters cos he's now selling it to us - hard - as a "meaningful reform",having shown before he doesn't think it is
love detective
there's no love too small
Indeed - in Nigel Copsey's new book on the BNP he makes a similar point:-
Moreover, the potential introduction of an alternative vote (AV) elecotral system will make it even harder for the BNP to capture a parliamentary seat, simply because it will require the BNP to poll at least 50 per cent of the vote in any constituency. The AV system also does away with the possibility of winning a seat on a minority vote share (25-33 per cent) in either a four-way or three-way contest. That the BNP might have gained its first ever Member of Parliament on the basis of a one-quarter or one-third vote share was a possibility that did occasion some concerns in the run up to the 2010 general election.
Similar threads
