Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[butchersapron]

The polls have been based on explaining the role of second preferences and so on...that's exactly what's been explained. And when it has been support has dropped.

Your lat last sentence sums it up though - the only winners of a yes will be the lib-dems. That's why people will vote against it.

 

[articul8]

i didn't say that - there are would be other winners in a slow burning way - if the Greens and (potentially) independent lefts or union candidates, and arguably Labour (although in ways that need more unpacking than "smash the Lib Dems"). However, yes in terms of the parliamentary forces the LDs have made a big mistake in isolating themselves, eg. from Scots and Welsh nats.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh yes, the ICM guardian poll has yes and no both on 45%. (this is poll where they ignore that labour have drawn level with the tories in favour of hilarious spin about the cuts)

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I won't be bothering to vote in this pathetic sop of a referendum. Worthless piece of crap: coke or pepsi, small or regular fries, cash or check?

FUCK OFF.

 

[little_legs]

That argument is one that going to be aggressively challenged over the next 10 months. It's had a piss easy ride thus far. All the polling (and that's all it is) shows the when given a breakdown of potential outcomes from AV support drops significantly - into areas where the referendum will be lost.

maybe you are right. we'll see who the lib dems will be using as the public figures/celebrities endorsing the 'yes' vote. it won't be michael caine that's for sure. it'll probably be the klaxons, or mumford & sons, not that that i have anything against them. this AV thing is doable, it takes the right money and the right spin doctor to spin it imo.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes it would

Meanwhile, Mr Clegg has risked antagonising Liberal Democrat activists by insisting that he would not walk away from the Coalition if the country rejects electoral reform.

A referendum on introducing the alternative vote (AV) for parliamentary elections was among the largest concessions Mr Clegg gained from David Cameron in negotiations over their power-sharing deal.

Scrapping the first-past-the-post system has been an article of faith for his party for decades, even if AV falls far short of the full proportional representation favoured by Liberal Democrats.

However, in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow, the Deputy Prime Minister said that winning next year's referendum would not a make-or-break moment for Liberal Democrat participation in the Coalition.

Off you fuck too. You are already dead in the water. Just waiting for cameron's dogs to come pick you up.

 

[butchersapron]

Vote no, Clegg will die.

 

[little_legs]

clegg & co have embarked on lowering the expectations, i am glad he is conceding that he'll stay with his boyfriend regardless of the outcome of the referendum: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/20/nick-clegg-electoral-reform, this is just a polite form of saying i am a power hungry whore and my principles... ah well, fuck 'em.

 

[articul8]

see that the head honcho of the Taxpayers Alliance is fronting up the NO campaign. Makes you think that some vested interests are feeling a bit threatened. A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron. It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.

 

[butchersapron]

Tell me why that a) would be the outcome and b) how that would be worse than what we have now? Cameron couldn't be any fucking stronger as it is!

Again with the childish and insulting you're a tory if you vote against this stuff. I could just as easily point to the neo-liberals in the lib-dems - just as rotten as the tories neo-liberals - supporting this and say a victory for them is a victory for neo-liberalism. I could point out that your position as argued above is amounts logically to an argument in support of the coalition and against any move whatsoever that might bring it down.

You will lose your vote with this approach, so more please

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.

I don't think it will destroy the coalition to be honest, but it will further sow divisions and cause some distraction from the business of governing (IE attacking us) and it will further seriously damage the Liberals. Enough Liberal MPs will stick with Clegg to avoid an election unless Cameron decides to take a gamble.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think it will destroy the coalition to be honest, but it will further sow divisions and cause some distraction from the business of governing (IE attacking us) and it will further seriously damage the Liberals. Enough Liberal MPs will stick with Clegg to avoid an election unless Cameron decides to take a gamble.

...and look at the logic of that claim you're responding to - it means we must support the coalition at all costs lest we get a full tory majority!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

...and look at the logic of that claim you're responding to - it means we must support the coalition at all costs lest we get a full tory majority!

Tbh I don't understand why people think Cameron would risk an early election to form a single party government, when he already has one - that allows him to deflect hatred as well, it would be madness to call an early election.

 

[articul8]

I could point out that your position as argued above is amounts logically to an argument in support of the coalition and against any move whatsoever that might bring it down.

Nonsense. How would a NO vote bring down the coalition? Seems most unlikely.

The principle forces of the NO camp are self-interested elites trying to pass themselves of as the voices of ordinary voters to preserve their privilege (tax payers alliance, former Rothschilds partners, Labour backbenchers in safe seats, Labour TU top dinosaurs like Paul Kenny)

No doubt you think that of the YES camp as well, and perhaps for the most part ( with honourable exceptions!) you are right!!! which makes the question not one of principle, but of strategy and tactics

I don't see any tactical advantage in a no vote - the LDs might crash at the next election but I don't know why the GE would be called anytime sooner. And the net effect is that the Tories romp home in all their safe seats and can concentrate fire in the marginals. Paradoxically, the best bet of shifting the LDs from government is making sure their vote holds up!!!

WHEREAS a YES vote would
- start to disaggregate first preferences from Lab and LD support - so that voters can indicate not just a single effective anti-Tory preference but their real pro Green/Left/Independent preference
- would smash the "voting for smaller parties only lets in the Tories" argument
- would lead to PR for local government in fairly short order and help get better local councillors elected.

 

[butchersapron]

f course a no vote could bring down the coalition - it's preposterous to pretend otherwise. The lib-dems recognise the reality of this and have decided to lock Clegg into the garden shed as regards campaigning for a yes vote. A defeat for the yes vote weakens his position and strengthens those who would ditch him/pull out of the coalition. You damn well know this.

Cab you talk about why you think the coalition needs to be propped up please? The one in your earlier post today.

 

[articul8]

You know full well that is a fatuous distortion of what I said. My argument is that even if the coalition collapsed immediately following a NO vote (which I have no reason to believe it will - you seem to believe this as some kind of article of faith), the resulting election result would be catastrophic for the LDs [one of the key reasons that it won't happen], but precisely for that reason would make a Tory majority more likely because there are more LD/Tory marginals than LD/Lab and there is precious little sign that a future Labour leader will have done enough to recover much of the support they lost between 1997 and 2010.

The key thing is as far as destroying the coalition is to defeat the ideological consensus behind its programme by building a mass movement of resistance to the cuts. And if the LDs crashed to defeat in THOSE circumstances then the Tories would be much less likely to reap the benefit.

There is NO necessary connection between supporting AV and supporting the coalition that has produced the referendum. If the referendum happens back it, but pay no price in terms of political concessions to the coalition And even i would vote against the Bill as it stands anyway so it's yet to be determined whether the referendum will actually come about in May at all anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

You know full well that is a fatuous distortion of what I said. My argument is that even if the coalition collapsed immediately following a NO vote (which I have no reason to believe it will - you seem to believe this as some kind of article of faith), the resulting election result would be catastrophic for the LDs [one of the key reasons that it won't happen], but precisely for that reason would make a Tory majority more likely because there are more LD/Tory marginals than LD/Lab.

The key thing is as far as destroying the coalition is to defeat the ideological consensus behind its programme by building a mass movement of resistance to the cuts. And if the LDs crashed to defeat in THOSE circumstances then the Tories would be much less likely to reap the benefit.

No, it's following through if the logic it contained. Here's your post:

see that the head honcho of the Taxpayers Alliance is fronting up the NO campaign. Makes you think that some vested interests are feeling a bit threatened. A NO vote would weaken Clegg and strenghten the hand of Cameron. It might be the start of the coalition unravelling - but in these circumstances in all probability the first step to a majority Tory government. Great stuff.

A no vote might weaken clegg and be the start of the end of the coalition (something you scoff at a few posts later, love the consistency). This would lead to a tory majority govt, which would be worse. If that's worse then we need to support the coalition. I note also your belated and inaccurate insertion of 'immediately' into my argument - i want the fall out to drag on for months and leave the cutting plans in total disarray in fact.

On the tory majority question - the number of lib-dem/tory margiunals is minute, the same as lib-dem/labour. There would be no tory automatic majority if lib-dems are wiped out.

The last para i just have no idea what you're trying to say. Who would benefit? Who would form the govt, in those circumstances?

 

[articul8]

We agree then that it is likely to persist beyond the defeat rather than smash the coalition. But my claim is that it would start to unravel in the sense that we would have a supremely confident Cameron and a very much weakened Clegg. Now how does that translate to "cutting plans in disarray"? Clegg would be in choppy waters internally and might suffer defections etc. but how does this become the tide that sweeps the Tories out of power?

In terms of that GE without AV - there is a danger that this would be fought in 600 seats after the Tories had pushed through their boundary changes. Of these, the Tories wouldn't need to fight to hold any of their existing seats and could expect to sweep up in places like Eastleigh or Somerton and Frome from the LDs quite easily. So they could massively concentrate resources on Con/Lab marginals - at a time when Labour is still near bankrupt, and the LDs not much better having lost their short money. Labour needs AV to cushion the losses from the boundary changes and to keep LDs competitive in the South. The cleverer types in Labour realise this. But others like the fact that FPTP keeps them as "the only other game in town" even if they are in opposition for the forseeable future.

At the same time AV would spell the end in the longer-term of the armlock Labour has on the left. It would ease the process of seeing forces to its left emerge in greater numbers and help the rebalance the political centre of gravity.

Ultimately this is a question of what kind of Labour party we see develop, what kind of left, and where any of this stands in relation to the electoral whole. But of course it's easier to shoot down everything the coalition does, even the 1% that has something going for it. Why not bank that and attack the other 99%?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not backing 0.00000019% of anything the coalition does. Ever.

I didn't say it was likely to persist, i said a long drawn out death would be preferable - which isn't to say that's most likely. We've already got a supremely confident and a much weakened Clegg - the only things the lib-dems are able to push through is attacks on universal benefits and the extension of means testing, in effect being used by Cameron to defeat the left of his party after he's given the traditional right a good bludgeoning already. You seem to operating on some map for before thge election, some idea that the lib-dems are holding th tories back - they're not. I don't know how much more evidence you need to see this.

The next election won't be fought on those 600 seat boundaries if the no vote wins - you've argued against yourself. It will only be on those boundaries if the yes vote wins. If you're worried vote no.

AV would mean nothing of the sort - it would mean the selling down the river on the lib-dems careerism of any hopes for that to happen - this is the end of PR, yes vote or no vote. It would also mean the labour party inserted forever as the only possible left vote.

I really cannot believe such naivety - i do hope it's professional rather than principled.

 

[i_got_poison]

Yes it would




Off you fuck too. You are already dead in the water. Just waiting for cameron's dogs to come pick you up.

i lol-ed at this.

 

[articul8]

The next election won't be fought on those 600 seat boundaries if the no vote wins - you've argued against yourself. It will only be on those boundaries if the yes vote wins. If you're worried vote no.

This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 irrespective of the outcome of that referendum. Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.

But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better. On the wider question the fact that Lib Dems are advancing this for purely cynical reasons in no way means it isn't worth having for totally other reasons. I genuinely believe that if AV is all that is on offer it is worth taking. A NO vote really would end the chances of PR, whereas a yes would bring PR into being for local government in relatively short order, with HoC following on in due course.

As for just slagging off everything the coalition does that is just silly juvenile posturing. Where they are right (ID cards, prison numbers) we should say so but put it in context of all the other shit they are responsible for. i want to smash the coalition politically/ideologically, but this isn't achieved by voting down electoral reform as even if it weakens Clegg's personal authority it leaves the basic assumptions behind the cuts drive intact.

 

[butchersapron]

This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 irrespective of the outcome of that referendum. Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.

But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better. On the wider question the fact that Lib Dems are advancing this for purely cynical reasons in no way means it isn't worth having for totally other reasons. I genuinely believe that if AV is all that is on offer it is worth taking. A NO vote really would end the chances of PR, whereas a yes would bring PR into being for local government in relatively short order, with HoC following on in due course.

As for just slagging off everything the coalition does that is just silly juvenile posturing. Where they are right (ID cards, prison numbers) we should say so but put it in context of all the other shit they are responsible for. i want to smash the coalition politically/ideologically, but this isn't achieved by voting down electoral reform as even if it weakens Clegg's personal authority it leaves the basic assumptions behind the cuts drive intact.

I'll take the correction on that.

You started out with the horror of a tory majority if there's a no vote - what about the possibility of tory majority if there's a less vote? It looks pretty much the same to me with the lib-dem and tory gerrymandering. Where goes your argument then? If that's the outcome that you hang everything on avoiding why support something that makes it far more likely?

No, it's not a vote on FPTP or something better - you've yet to show how it's better, i think you've been wrong and utterly unconvincing on everything that you've forwarded as a reason (i think the polls show this in the slide from strong support to neck and neck at best) - it's vote for more of the same or more of the same, with either result closing off PR. THat's what will happen.

Nope, not juvenile posturing - political reality, and far more politically effective than understanding hand-wringing. People are angry, they don't want this pathetic look at all sides crap - they want to tear people's heads off and they want to do that by the first option to hand. This vote is lost. And you'll make the loss that easier by calling those voting no tories or accusing them of bringing down the coalition. They want to bring down the coalition. And quite right too - the long term plans of the lib-dems and London thinks-tanks be fucked.

 

[sihhi]

This is wrong on a matter of fact - once the bill establishing a referendum has passed then the boundaries will be redrawn to 600 irrespective of the outcome of that referendum. Which is the main reason I couldn;t vote for the Bill as currently constituted (as I said further up the thread) and would recommend MPs vote NO if that sticks.

But if the referendum happens it's a case for endorsing FPTP or backing something better.

This is where those-who-don't-give and you disagree. We don't think AV is better than FPTP. Both have weaknesses and strengths.
Both have weaknesses and strengths. You've still not made a case - other than "Keep Nick In". Is abstention unprincipled? I will vote how the IWCA encourages or not, btw.

 

[sihhi]

Nope, not juvenile posturing - political reality, and far more politically effective than understanding hand-wringing. People are angry, they don't want this pathetic look at all sides crap - they want to tear people's heads off and they want to do that by the first option to hand. This vote is lost. And you'll make the loss that easier by calling those voting no tories or accusing them of bringing down the coalition. They want to bring down the coalition. And quite right too - the long term plans of the lib-dems and London thinks-tanks be fucked.

Not being funny, but the first option to hand is straight away "Split the Lib Dem MPs away from Cleggites > minority government fail > markets jittery > new elections > auto-Labourism". That's exactly what the Milibands are arguing. Bringing down the coalition and stopping cuts are not one and the same thing.
There's still strong elements of business support for Labour against Tory decimation cuts but more careful restructuring and longer-term cuts - expressed by Blanchflower types.

 

[butchersapron]

Not being funny, but the first option to hand is straight away "Split the Lib Dem MPs away from Cleggites > minority government fail > markets jittery > new elections > auto-Labourism". That's exactly what the Milibands are arguing. Bringing down the coalition and stopping cuts are not one and the same thing.
There's still strong elements of business support for Labour against Tory decimation cuts but more careful restructuring and longer-term cuts - expressed by Blanchflower types.

I'm not arguing vote labour to stop the cuts though - i'm arguing for whatever outcome is most likely to leave the system paralyzed and unable to push through the cuts - new elections after a referendum defeat with the coalition in disarray and riven by infighting, leading to another even more closely balanced outcome is the best we'll get inside parliament.

 

[articul8]

but the win or lose the referendum there will be no GE for a good couple of years at least. People do want to bring down the coalition. Of course. But do they want to replace it with a Tory majority? I doubt it.
This is not to say "keep Nick in" (i have never said that, nor would I). It is to acknowledge that we may as well get what little positive change is on offer at the same time as attacking them for all the shit. And booting him out whilst Cameron stays put isn't a step forward.

To be honest, I don't see any argument that FPTP is better than AV coming from anyone other than vested interest groups affiliated to the Tories or the Prescott type Labourists. AV isn't a major leap forward. But losing the election is death to PR, while AV is a small but welcome step.

Put it another way - why did the vote for the Greens, TUSC and all other small progressive parties get so squeezed? It was the killer argument that voting for anyone but Labour helped the Tories. AV would cut across that. How is that not a gain?

 

[butchersapron]

The tusc/left vote wasn't squeezed - there was no vote to squeeze. It wasn't the system that did for them.

 

[articul8]

well we have no way of knowing. Under AV people could give 1st prefs to the party of their choice whilst being sure they could switch to the best placed candidate to stop the tory, or tory/LD. At the very least we would see if that were true or not.

I think the longer term effects of this could be more significant than you're acknowledging

 

[sihhi]

I'm not arguing vote labour to stop the cuts though - i'm arguing for whatever outcome is most likely to leave the system paralyzed and unable to push through the cuts - new elections after a referendum defeat with the coalition in disarray and riven by infighting, leading to another even more closely balanced outcome is the best we'll get inside parliament.

I know you're not but if you're in a constituency that's 'Labour', which is where a lot of us are, it adds weight to the Labour argument to vote Labour. 'A strong Labour showing is needed to stop the Tories through the cuts'.

Also, as you know, were things to require it, a national government would be formed. The system can't be paralysed by the results of any referendum.

This has happened before in microcosm in the local councils in the 1980s. The Labour councillors - including some very socialist people - had agreed together as a set of a dozen councils to go for deficit budgeting. Then Labour councillors break away from the main Labour groups and ally up with the Conservatives to set the budgets - game, set match.

 

[butchersapron]

well we have no way of knowing. Under AV people could give 1st prefs to the party of their choice whilst being sure they could switch to the best placed candidate to stop the tory, or tory/LD. At the very least we would see if that were true or not.

I think the longer term effects of this could be more significant than you're acknowledging

They could. That would be labour, tory or lib-dem then.