Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Entrench them? Presumably after your support for a position that allows and help them to grab the land to start digging? That's the logic of your (well, one of your many) positions - don't fight now, the real battle is at the next election, not now, prop up the lib-dems until then. But look busy, look like you're fighting.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
What...? Look, I'm all in favour of action to stop the cuts, but a NO vote on AV doesn't achieve that but would be a massive shot in the arm for the Tories which could easily help them at the next election. The LDs are - rightly - going to get a kicking at the locals. Why not hit the organ grinder rather than the monkey?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why not come up with a new line? A NO vote has the clear potential to help block cuts by applying pressure to currently hidden conflicts - a YES vote doesn't. Simple.
That articul8, is what we call politics.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Block cuts? A No would do no such thing. It would put the LDs entirely at the mercy of the Tories since an early GE would see them absolutely hammered.
If the cuts are to be checked it will follow from battles won outside the purely electoral field - this is about what kind of government follows after the next election, not about short term tactical judgements.
This, Butchersapron, is what we call political strategy.
If the cuts are to be checked it will follow from battles won outside the purely electoral field - this is about what kind of government follows after the next election, not about short term tactical judgements.
This, Butchersapron, is what we call political strategy.
I suppose the point would be voting for any of the big three parties won't change anything. Sure, in opposition they are different, but in power they're all essentially the same as they all answer to the same group of people who are really in charge (bankers, New International etc, etc) once they get into government.
If I had to say at this point in time that any one was worse than any of the others I'd say Labour were the worst; but that's probably only because the current lot haven't been in for long enough to top what Blair and Brown did in the last decade.
Voting Labour to punish the Lib Dems won't make the next government any better. Vote for who you actually believe in, rather than wasting your vote on a big three c*** just to punish another big three c***. Or if there is nobody standing you like why give any of them legitimacy by voting at all?
Ditto for AV. If you really think it's worse than FPTP vote against it, if you don't then don't. But why cut of your nose to spite your face; all you'll do is piss off one c*** (Clegg) and make another bunch of equally c***ish people (the Tories) very happy and possibly deny yourself a small improvement in the electoral system - if you actually believe it is. I was gonna vote no just to spite Clegg too. But when I leave those emotions out I have to conclude that AV is a little better, apparently it leads to more hung parliaments, that's gotta be an improvement.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
At the mercy? They're driving the cuts? They're behind the cuts. Helping them to stabilise their position within the coalition by giving them a victory is pro-cuts position.
There are no possible anti-cuts outcomes of a YES/lib-dem victory. None whatsoever. A NO vote has the potential to work on, to deepen and to exacerbate hidden contradictions and conflicts between the lib-dems membership and leadership, MPs and centre and the lib-dem component of the coalition and the tories to the benefit of the anti-cuts movement.
What you call a strategy is the boy in the bubble imagining he's seeing the world.
Perhaps, but he hasn't done it yet. So on that basis alone he's slightly less bad than Labour... For now...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This is AV - Stephen Fry having a laugh with Nick Clegg at a £10 grand a pop private Paul McCartney show stamping on your face forever:
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Let me get this right, you're arguing that a Tory majority would be to the left of the coalition? Really?
You think that in the event of a Yes vote all the LD's will unite in saying "hurrah for the coalition", even as 500 of their councillors are turfed out on the arses, and that no tensions will rise to the surface? Now it's you arguing that electoral reform has a significance beyond everything else!
What is your desired outcome, or least unfavoured outcome after the next GE?
You remind me of people who said "at least you new where you stood with Maggie".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who mentioned a tory majority? That's your fantasy that you're attempting to beat others over the head with - wit little success.
I don't think they will no, i think they'll be unhappy but that this un happiness would be made much worse by a lib-dem defeat in the referendum. Pretty simple.
Same as last time - no one able to form a govt, legislative gridlock, ongoing lack of legitimacy. You're not going to able to force everyone into supporting labour - this is just the flipside of your if you vote NO you're a tory schtick. Again, noticeably unsuccessful so far.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What do you all the people who are so politically inept that the human shields known as the lib-dems use them as human shields?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Hopelessly muddled - you want another hung parliament?! but you want to see the LDs wiped out (thus making majority government - and Tory majority in particular) much more likely. How does that work?
You think Labour isn't set to make major council gains? (wrong again..)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I want to see the cuts stopped - priority #1. A potential way forward is to bring down the coalition by hitting it's weakest part - the lib-dems. You want to prop up the lib-dems and postpone the fight, or reduce it down to the party of which you're a member winning the next election. It's utterly irrelevant what my subjective wishes are - the electoral beneficiaries of a coalition collapse would be labour. The party of which you're supposed to be a member.
What on earth is that last line supposed to be about?
What on earth is that last line supposed to be about?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
We're agreed on priority 1.
But the weakening of the LDs in no way makes a collapse in the coalition more likely - in fact the opposite - they will hang onto the coat tails of the Tories all the harder just to avoid a GE at which they'd be wiped out. It doesn't automatically follow that Labour would automatically benefit from a coalition collapse - particularly in circumstances where the Tories have succesfully fought a battle to keep their favoured voting system and can displace most of the blame onto the LDs. Strengthening the Tories is seems a spectularly bad way of going about stopping the cuts.
The last line is about the fact that - contrary to your claims - people *are* switching to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties - which will be shown in May's election results.
But the weakening of the LDs in no way makes a collapse in the coalition more likely - in fact the opposite - they will hang onto the coat tails of the Tories all the harder just to avoid a GE at which they'd be wiped out. It doesn't automatically follow that Labour would automatically benefit from a coalition collapse - particularly in circumstances where the Tories have succesfully fought a battle to keep their favoured voting system and can displace most of the blame onto the LDs. Strengthening the Tories is seems a spectularly bad way of going about stopping the cuts.
The last line is about the fact that - contrary to your claims - people *are* switching to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties - which will be shown in May's election results.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
How many times? I don't say a NO vote will automatically bring down the coalition but weaken it, and weaken it by making the lib-dems wary of supporting the cuts - setting in motion a process that potentially could bring the coalition down. I've explained this line of reasoning to you many times now. You've replied to pots where i've outlined it - so why this nonsense time after time.
As for strengthening the tories, it seems to me the best way to do that is to help reinforce the coalition by giving the lib-dems exactly what they want, ensuring the cuts actually do go through. I really don't see how attempting to pull the rug out from under them at a time when the labour party has a healthy poll lead and govt approval ratings are around -30% is strengthening them.
I have no idea what your last line means again (beyond noticing that it largely contradicts the argument above it anyway).
Get out of the bubble boy.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
But it will weaken the coalition only to the extent that it strenghtens the Tories at the expense of the liberal component. This process of weaking it by splitting the LDs ignores the stronger electoral logic that will unite all the LD MPs - in favour of not going for an election any earlier than is absolutely necessary. Where is this "process" of blocking the cuts? Why would the Tories put up with any shit? They'd go straight for a GE.
The last line doesn't contradict anything. Labour will make gains largely at the expense of the LDs, the Tories will also make gains at LD expense. This is the main battle. The left gets diminishing returns from grinding the LDs into the dust *if doing so bolsters the position of the Tories* come the next election.
The last line doesn't contradict anything. Labour will make gains largely at the expense of the LDs, the Tories will also make gains at LD expense. This is the main battle. The left gets diminishing returns from grinding the LDs into the dust *if doing so bolsters the position of the Tories* come the next election.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's right, damaging the coalition to the extent that it might fall thereby putting the kybosh on the cuts program actually strengthens the tories - it's what they really want. What they really want is a labour govt elected on some form of anti-cuts basis (shifting the ground of mainstream political debate to the left). That's the long term plan.
Wow, you really do not get what's going on do you? The tories are not going to call a GE to ditch the lib-dems - they want, like you, to prop up the lib-dems until the next election at least. They need them there to a) push through the cuts b) take the blame - what sort of sophisticated political strategist believes that a party will jettison one of their strongest weapons? Bubble politics. Everyone knows this but the sophisticated.
Right, when you say the tories will gain you actually meant labour. And btw, the figure of 500 lost lib-dem councilors comes from an academic who suggest 1000 lost tories councilors at the same time. This, presumably, is them gaining from the lib-dems as you suggest.
I'm still struggling to understand why you've twice suggested that i don't think labour are going to make electoral gains in may - any idea?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Unless you meant by this that I expected to literally force "everyone" out to vote Labour myself, then the increasing support for Labour undermines your case above, no?
You've nowhere substantiated this fantasy of a No vote somehow triggering a process capable of "kyobsh"-ing the cuts - this is fantasy stuff. A NO it will give the Tories what they want. FPTP and a decent shot at a majority next time up without effective LD opposition. In fact a YES would give Cameron a headache from his own backbench hardliners who never wanted the coalition and want to ramp up the Euroscepticism.
Re the locals - The Tories will make some gains at the expense of LDs as a consequence of collapse in the LD vote - but still make a net loss because of seats lost to Labour.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
And it's not about propping up the LDs - there's no way of doing that. It's a question of whether you can let them die slowly on the vine or whether their party's roots are so deep they need pulling up, even if that means Tory weeds can just grow like wildfire on that ground.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Now i have no idea what your first line explaining your previous last lines means. What are you on about?
What do you mean substantiate? If you mean outline how i think it will work then yes i have, repeatedly - often in direct replies to you.
Both a YES and a NO vote gives the tories what they want - they win either way. The difference is that a YES vote strengthens the coalition ensuring that the cuts program passes, whilst a NO vote puts one elements of the coalition under severe pressue, potentially starting a process that leads to the heightening of internal conflicts (across members/parties/centre/MPS) around the cuts program.
So the when you say that the beneficiaries of a coalition collapse right now would be the tories you mean that the beneficiaries of a coalition collapse right now would be the labour. Clear as ever.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, let them die slowly, leave it to the professionals, leave it to labour, wait four years. Or, don't upset my bubble mates long cherished dreams of a progressive pluralist stephen fry labour/lib-dem coalition.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
pass me a sickbag.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
By what measure has my argument that peeople will turn to Labour out of disgust at the coalition parties "proved unsuccessful" if they are poised to make major electoral gains?!!!
Your continued assertion that a NO produces splits whereas a YEs doesn't has no justification (Cameron would be weakened in the eyes of public and party alike), and also neither would necessarily give rise to a momentum which would see the cuts blocked.
The only way of campaigning directly with any effectiveness in terms of blocking cuts is co-ordinated industrial action combined with mass protest, direct action etc - not through who is up and who is down in Westminster! So I have argued publically precisely that we *shouldn't* just wait for Labour to be elected. But that doesn't mean the next GE has no signifance. When it comes to the next election - the nature of the battlefield (the electoral system) could have a decisive impact on what follows the coalition.
PS I hate Stephen Fry - and the smug and condescending video he's just made for the YES campaign!!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What the fuck are you on about with that opening paragraph? Have you taken a wrong turning earlier on in the thread or something?
My continued assertion is that a NO vote has the potential to produce splits or to bring to a head currently hidden conflicts, and that a YES has zero potential for doing so. In fact it actively works to deactivate these conflicts.
Crack on then, the rest of are starting now though. By voting NO. Because we have some sense of the urgency of the situation.
My continued assertion is that a NO vote has the potential to produce splits or to bring to a head currently hidden conflicts, and that a YES has zero potential for doing so. In fact it actively works to deactivate these conflicts.
Crack on then, the rest of are starting now though. By voting NO. Because we have some sense of the urgency of the situation.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You've obviously watched very little of his so-called "acting", then!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Strategy is generally predicated on what is likely to happen, on future events that reside within the field of probability, on "the art of the possible", not on pie-in-the-sky assumptions about what political groupings would like to happen.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
A poor analogy, mon frere.
The "boy in the bubble" at least sees and takes note of his immediate environment, and tailors his world-view to that environment. Mr. 8's whimsies don't appear to be doing even that.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
The danger in this referendum is going to be getting the NO vote out.
I can easily see a very low turnout, but the YES voters will come out because they want a change, the NO voters are much more likely to be apathetic and stay at home risking losing the vote to the wrong camp.
So I hope the NO campaign will urge voters to vote so we can beat this nonsense into the long grass where it belongs.
I can easily see a very low turnout, but the YES voters will come out because they want a change, the NO voters are much more likely to be apathetic and stay at home risking losing the vote to the wrong camp.
So I hope the NO campaign will urge voters to vote so we can beat this nonsense into the long grass where it belongs.
Similar threads
