Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[articul8]

I have to say that your first paragraph smacks of emotional blackmail. It's also a pretty nasty smear; "You don't vote for AV and you're just like the Tories" is the subtext to all of this..

That might also be true(!) but it wasn't the point I'm making. *If* you believe that having PR would be a good thing, then the very least you need to be aware of is the likelihood that Tories will use a NO vote in the referendum to justify abadoning plans for PR in the Lords. Voting NO to AV becomes a vote against PR by default.

AV will abolish the dilemma between voting for your 1st pref, and voting for someone who might win - it abolishes tactical voting to that extent. It won't reverse the effect of the boundary changes but it will *mitigate* them. FPTP will do nothing whatsoever on this score. The changes are now in train.

 

[articul8]

The existence of a mass Labour party, with affiliated trade unions, which the CP was initially barred from joining and latterly became proscribed, might have had rather more to do with it, or the cold war, or the machinations of the Soviet party...but you keep grasping at straws in your own thoroughly disingenuous way.

Louis MacNeice

Did I say FPTP "was solely or chiefly responsible" for the failure of the CP to build a mass base in the UK? No. I said it didn't help. Which is no reason why the CP has historically been committed to scrapping FPTP.

 

[articul8]

The British CP didn't help the British CP to become a mass party. You've got no arguments you fucking hack.

The fact you can come out with nothing coherent beyond ill-informed abuse is becoming fairly evident.

 

[Streathamite]

You're adolescent (or should that be infantile - as in Lenin's phrase) vitriol towards Labour and Labour voters just confirms the sad irrelevance of your position on the political sidelines.

Oh,REALLY? That'll be the same Labour Party that had a truly disastrous GE 6 months ago? Whose membership fell from 405,000 to 176,000 during the Blair/brown years?
Might that not indicate a very large amount of people sharing PT's feelings about what Labour have become?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Did I say FPTP "was solely or chiefly responsible" for the failure of the CP to build a mass base in the UK? No. I said it didn't help. Which is no reason why the CP has historically been committed to scrapping FPTP.

No, but you didn't cite any of the much more telling reasons for the failure of the CPGB to become a mass party like some of it's European counterparts; being partial with the truth is just a disingenuous as your early bare faced lies.

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

I'm not saying that people can or should have forgotten about the many undoubted failings of the last or previous Labour governments. But that isn't the same as spewing vitriol and bile towards Labour party members and voters as a whole.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

That might also be true(!) but it wasn't the point I'm making. *If* you believe that having PR would be a good thing, then the very least you need to be aware of is the likelihood that Tories will use a NO vote in the referendum to justify abadoning plans for PR in the Lords. Voting NO to AV becomes a vote against PR by default.

AV will abolish the dilemma between voting for your 1st pref, and voting for someone who might win - it abolishes tactical voting to that extent. It won't reverse the effect of the boundary changes but it will *mitigate* them. FPTP will do nothing whatsoever on this score. The changes are now in train.

For crying out loud, can't you put finger to keyboard without spinning a yarn. A vote against AV can be portrayed as a vote in favour of the current system, a vote in favour of PR, a vote against AV; the only time you'll be able to judge the electoral support for PR is when it's put on a ballot paper. Every outright lie, every half truth, every misrepresentation makes you and your case look more and more shoddy.

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

No, but you didn't cite any of the much more telling reasons for the failure of the CPGB to become a mass party like some of it's European counterparts; being partial with the truth is just a disingenuous as your early bare faced lies.

Louis MacNeice

I have not lied once on this or any other thread.

 

[articul8]

For crying out loud, can't you put finger to keyboard without spinning a yarn. A vote against AV can be portrayed as a vote in favour of the current system, a vote in favour of PR, a vote against AV; the only time you'll be able to judge the electoral support for PR is when it's put on a ballot paper. Every outright lie, every half truth, every misrepresentation makes you and your case look more and more shoddy.

Louis MacNeice

If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber. This is just a matter of political reality.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Fuck Labour

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I have not lied once on this or any other thread.

AV is majoritarian. STV is proportional.

You lied; at least have some guts after the event.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. or do you want to say you made a mistake and they are not the same in principle as the ERS has pointed out?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber. This is just a matter of political reality.

Belief stated as fact doesn't make it fact...just spin.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have not lied once on this or any other thread.

So, more than once, then?

 

[Streathamite]

I have not lied once on this or any other thread.

You have been -to put it mildly - incredibly misleading.
Spinning at its' most desperate

 

[Streathamite]

If you vote NO the net effect is to make PR less likely for the reformed second chamber. This is just a matter of political reality.

No it ISN'T:There are so many other variable factors which need to be considered,that NO-ONE can say what the net effect will be

 

[articul8]

Will a vote to keep FPTP for the Commons make it more or less likely to see it retained for the 2nd chamber? It's not rocket science.

 

[articul8]

AV is majoritarian. STV is proportional.

You lied; at least have some guts after the event.

p.s. or do you want to say you made a mistake and they are not the same in principle as the ERS has pointed out?

No lie, No mistake. Where did I suggest that AV was proportional? Precisely nowhere (although it is arguably not necessarily more disproportionate than FPTP on average). What I did say is suggest is that - since both AV and STV are based on around the ability of voters to transfer preferences - they work along the same lines.

 

[articul8]

So, more than once, then?

 

[Streathamite]

Will a vote to keep FPTP for the Commons make it more or less likely to see it retained for the 2nd chamber? It's not rocket science.

You can't tell. You simply can't.
You're presenting it as a foregone conclusion,and it isn't.

 

[Proper Tidy]

You can't tell. You simply can't.
You're presenting it as a foregone conclusion,and it isn't.

He has a memo

 

[articul8]

I'm not saying that PR will automatically be lost for the Lords if there is a No to AV. But there is a danger that it will empower Tories to use it as "evidence" that - when asked - the public will have no truck with other ways of voting. You don't need a crystal ball to see this coming.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not saying that PR will automatically be lost for the Lords if there is a No to AV. But there is a danger that it will empower Tories to use it as "evidence" that - when asked - the public will have no truck with other ways of voting. You don't need a crystal ball to see this coming.

Right, but that is NOT what you originally said. "A Danger" is a very different kettle of fish.

 

[weltweit]

So, what do you think articul8 to the poll on the other thread?

Urban75 may not be representative of the wider public, but it is representative of something.

And despite your best efforts, the vote was decisively against AV.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not saying that people can or should have forgotten about the many undoubted failings of the last or previous Labour governments. But that isn't the same as spewing vitriol and bile towards Labour party members and voters as a whole.

You really don't realise how massively let-down by Labour people feel,do you?
13 years and fuck all except for 2 wars?

 

[articul8]

You really don't realise how massively let-down by Labour people feel,do you?
13 years and fuck all except for 2 wars?

Yes but it also more complex than that - It's a long discussion probably best done in another thread. More than happy to engage there. Labour will reap the benefits from public opposition to the coalitions' unpopularity to a very large extent.

 

[articul8]

despite your best efforts, the vote was decisively against AV.

The same as it would be if I spent time trying to put the case to a bunch of Tories. Basically it shows that people on here find it difficult to see past the turning it into a referendum on the Lib Dems. Which I understand, but think it's a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating position for the left to take. But then some of the people voting NO are people who rejecti involvement in elections and representative democracy per se.

I don't think U75 is demographically representative (if it was the Tories wouldn't be the largest party) - there's also an element of faux-macho ultra-left posturing which sees rejection of anything associated with "parliamentary" or "reform" as somehow inherently like class traitordom.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No lie, No mistake. Where did I suggest that AV was proportional? Precisely nowhere (although it is arguably not necessarily more disproportionate than FPTP on average). What I did say is suggest is that - since both AV and STV are based on around the ability of voters to transfer preferences - they work along the same lines.

You said they were the same in principle; not they work along the same lines. The electoral principle of STV is PR; the electoral principle of AV is majoritarian. Your principles are either on holiday, bought off or non-existant.

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

I said the same basic principle of preferences transferring existed, not that AV was a proportional system. You ought to check your facts before casting aspersions. It's a lie to say I claimed AV was PR.

 

[redsquirrel]

Politicians answer - it was quite clear what you were trying to imply. Just it's clear what your "it'll stop the Tories" getting a majority nonsense implies.

The fact that you're pretending that it isn't just shows how you've been bought and paid for.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

articul8: STV is just AV in multi-member seats. The general principle in the same.

ERS on STV: There are many systems of PR. STV is just one of them. Most PR systems are designed to give each party representation that reflects how many votes have been cast for that party. (ERS 2011)

ERS on AV: AV is not, however, a proportional system. In some elections it could even produce more distorted results than our present first-past-the-post system. AV would not guarantee a more representative parliament or one better able to hold the government to account. (ERS Feb 2010)

The reason the ERS, along with undergraduate politics, government and policy text books, deal with STV and AV separately, is because they are different in principle.

The reason you try to unsuccessfully and dishonestly to shoehorn them together is because you're desperate; it's not a pretty sight (nor a very useful one on your own terms).

Louis MacNeice