Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[frogwoman]

Also it's not just about left wing organisations, i have no fucking idea how this pointless referendum is gonna make anything better for ordinary people in the country. I just don't see how it is a pressing issue or anything.

 

[Streathamite]

If youre in the labour party and are an active member of it, you must support it on some level surely, you must think that even if its policies are shit at the moment they "could" get better?

exactly!

 

[butchersapron]

Labour leader says he would refuse platform with Lib Dem leader because Clegg's name would put off potential AV backers

Labour leader Ed Miliband told the Yes to the Alternative Vote campaign at a private meeting that he would not share a platform with Nick Clegg during the referendum campaign. He said Clegg's name had become so toxic with Labour voters he would put off potential AV backers.

Miliband said at last week's meeting he was willing to share a platform with other Liberal Democrats, including Charles Kennedy, Lady Williams and Lord Ashdown. One source said: "His position is pretty well ABC – Anyone But Clegg."

A Lib Dem spokesman stated that he was surprised by the suggestion, saying that in private and public Miliband had told the party he would share a platform with Clegg. "It feels like this is a failure of leadership on his part and he has been defeated by the most tribalist elements in his party," the spokesman said.

But the Yes campaign director, Lord Sharkey, accepted Miliband's arguments at the end of the meeting attended by aides on both sides last week.

I see the other YES campaigners are also still labouring under the illusion that the lib-dems are a centre-left party (never mind the argument about labour).

...it would have been a coup if the leaders of the two centre-left parties had shared a platform.

I note also that some NO people have finally picked up on the fact that

five out of six members of the Yes steering committee have worked for or supported the Liberal Democrat party in the past 12 months.

If they look at the local organisers they'll find a hell of a lot more as well.

 

[articul8]

There's nothing new in all that - (except by my calculations they are wrong on the 5 out 6 figure) - but no-one is denying that the LDs are involved. But they are not exclusively in control. I'm perfectly relaxed about an ABC strategy.

 

[butchersapron]

In the way that your party leader was 'relaxed' about the super-rich. There is something new in that anyway - the YES campaign have had to change their tack. Unless they originally planned to be forced to change tack in February this is new.

 

[articul8]

to be fair I don't think Mandelson was ever leader . How has Yes "changed tack"?

 

[butchersapron]

to be fair I don't think Mandelson was ever leader. How has Yes "changed tack"?

Sorry, not the leader of your party - your leaders closest advisor at that point.

How has the yes campaign changed tack? Did you read the article? The original plan was to present a united labour/lib-dem leadership front in order to neutralise the popular hatred of lib-dems by diluting it with the electoral credibility labour somehow still has. The labour leader recognised that the hatred of the lib-dems today is such that it would actually work in reverse - he/they would risk infection by merely being seen to stand anywhere near with lib-dems (doesn't say much about the rest of you up close with the lib-dems day-in-day-out does it?) So they stopped your plan. You now have to change it.

 

[articul8]

The idea that was ever "the plan" shows how little you know of the strategy. There is no change of plan. Has Ed Miliband said he will now oppose AV? No. Has he said he won't be on a campaign platform? No. Clegg is not in the driving seat. *and never was*.

 

[butchersapron]

That's right, you attempted to engage the labour leader in taking part in a lib-dem/labour leader united front as part of your strategy because this was never part of the plan. In fact, the plan was for this not to happen. Hence the talks to make it happen.

I didn't ever say Clegg was in the driving seat - he's the main beneficiary of your hard working min wage (?) intern think tank pluralist idiocy though.

 

[articul8]

Socialism Today had an article opposing AV this month. Not that the SP or anyone else has a monoploy on being "the true voice of the left" but if all of these left wing organistions (and i mean real left wing organisations, and not green party shite etc) are coming out with oppoising views to it, do you not think it is time to at least listen to their concerns rather than dismissing any opposition to it as being supportive of tories?

i mean if the Labour representation committee etc have even come out against it as well ??

I know Clive and debated both publically and privately with him - although the ST article appears not to be online . It is a shame that they are taking this stance. But I think they may be out of step with their own comrades in the PCS on it.

Frankly, I think the present state of the far left is a good reason not to take their strategic advice on pretty much anything. Of course, I don't think this is a bigger issue than fighting the cuts - and i spend more time in local anti-cuts meetings than in LP meetings. And it doesn't go as far and isn't as radical a change as we would ultimately like to see.

But if you want to campaign for an anti-cuts alternative, the reality is that it means surrendering your ability to punish the coalition parties, *unless you have the ability to transfer to Labour* as the least worst alternative in the immediate context.

 

[butchersapron]

I think you sitting a pluralist cabin with the people making the cuts talking about this meaningless shit is a good reason not to listen to you as regards ant-cuts stuff - or anything much else.

Again the royal fucking 'we'? Who are 'we'?

 

[articul8]

That's right, you attempted to engage the labour leader in taking part in a lib-dem/labour leader united front as part of your strategy because this was never part of the plan. In fact, the plan was for this not to happen. Hence the talks to make it happen.

I didn't ever say Clegg was in the driving seat - he's the main beneficiary of your hard working min wage (?) intern think tank pluralist idiocy though.

no-one attempted to engage him in that, expect EM himself who first advocated it and then backed off! I think the line he is taking now will be helpful rather than harmful.

 

[butchersapron]

no-one attempted to engage him in that, expect EM himself who first advocated it and then backed off! I think the line he is taking now will be helpful rather than harmful.

Yeah right, nice media management. I really believe you.

 

[articul8]

I think you sitting a pluralist cabin with the people making the cuts talking about this meaningless shit is a good reason not to listen to you as regards ant-cuts stuff - or anything much else.

"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present. Do you?

 

[butchersapron]

"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present. Do you?

Exactly. We is the good people. The arrogant thatcherite assumption of a position that speaks for all. Are you one of the good people? The LRC aren't. The GMB aren't. I'm not. Are you not? Who here is not?

Get out on that fucking knocker. You'll fuck your lots last chance.

You missed out pluralism or a variant thereof this time.

 

[frogwoman]

I know Clive and debated both publically and privately with him - although the ST article appears not to be online . It is a shame that they are taking this stance. But I think they may be out of step with their own comrades in the PCS on it.

Frankly, I think the present state of the far left is a good reason not to take their strategic advice on pretty much anything. Of course, I don't think this is a bigger issue than fighting the cuts - and i spend more time in local anti-cuts meetings than in LP meetings. And it doesn't go as far and isn't as radical a change as we would ultimately like to see.

But if you want to campaign for an anti-cuts alternative, the reality is that it means surrendering your ability to punish the coalition parties, *unless you have the ability to transfer to Labour* as the least worst alternative in the immediate context.

I take your point about not taking the strategic advice of the far left on anything. But how on earth will AV, a less progressive sytem than even FPTP, help to establish either a to the left alternative of labour or help anti-cuts candidates from save our service groups in their campaigns, or anyone else for that matter? I just don't get how it will help? Help anything?

And you are in the labour party and the largest left-wing group in the labour party has come out (rightly) against it. surely their opinions / concerns etc are worth listening to?

 

[Proper Tidy]

articul8, not having a pop, but you talk like somebody who is trapped in a bubble full of other progressive pluralistic meedja types. I mean, does anybody listen to this shit? Apart from other progressive pluralistic meedja types, obviously.

 

[butchersapron]

You know he's paid to argue for AV by the Electoral Reform Society right FW?

 

[frogwoman]

"We" for these purposes are people who want to see a radical left alternative emerge on the electoral field when none does at present. Do you?

How will AV do this when it is more fucking regressive than FPTP?

 

[articul8]

How will AV do this when it is more fucking regressive than FPTP?

"Regressive" in what sense? It allows for the disaggregation of 1st preferences so that people who have previously voted Labour or Lib Dem in order not to lose their chance to actually influence who gets elected could instead opt to give a 1st preference to the party they most support. Without that, there will be a inexorable squeezing of the left/Green vote.

The Greens - for example - simply have no idea how many supporters they have in England and Wales. They can infer it from PR elections, but the turnouts are so much lower that they don't really know it. At the last election the limited number who voted Green in some cases objectively helped the Tories (take Hendon which Labour lost by just over 100 votes when the Greens got 500). Is this really what Green voters intended?

 

[Streathamite]

You know he's paid to argue for AV by the Electoral Reform Society right FW?

They seriously think it's worth him doing it on here?

 

[butchersapron]

I doubt that - the people who fund the ERS - Murdoch etc wouldn't care. But even on here he's won no one - i expect he's driven a few away in fact, and that on a board that should be favourable to his soppy pluralism.

 

[articul8]

Exactly. We is the good people. The arrogant thatcherite assumption of a position that speaks for all. Are you one of the good people? The LRC aren't. The GMB aren't. I'm not. Are you not? Who here is not?
.

Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative. Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out. They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge. I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.

 

[butchersapron]

"Regressive" in what sense? It allows for the disaggregation of 1st preferences so that people who have previously voted Labour or Lib Dem in order not to lose their chance to actually influence who gets elected could instead opt to give a 1st preference to the party they most support. Without that, there will be a inexorable squeezing of the left/Green vote.

The Greens - for example - simply have no idea how many supporters they have in England and Wales. They can infer it from PR elections, but the turnouts are so much lower that they don't really know it. At the last election the limited number who voted Green in some cases objectively helped the Tories (take Hendon which Labour lost by just over 100 votes when the Greens got 500). Is this really what Green voters intended?

You can say disaggregation all you like - people see lib-dems. Learn politics.

 

[frogwoman]

So basically even though in some cases it actually leads to larger parliamentary majorities and is more of a disadvantage than FPTP is, it's a good thing because parties can now tell how many votes supporters they have (Without being able to do anything about it?)

 

[butchersapron]

Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative. Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out. They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge. I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.

What's that got to do with your assumption that your we covers me or anyone else?

You want to join up with the lib-dems -don't you dare wag your finger at other ('parts') for being consistent in their politics. You've just said that everyone who i thought would support me is shit and have become a force for evil after not. Stalinism lives in the intern think tanks.

 

[articul8]

How is it more disadvantageous than FPTP? It's not necessarily proportional, but it does reduce need for tactical voting, and squeeze of smaller parties. Would I like PR? Yes. WOuld it help to reject the slightest change from FPTP? No.

 

[butchersapron]

So basically even though in some cases it actually leads to larger parliamentary majorities and is more of a disadvantage than FPTP is, it's a good thing because parties can now tell how many votes supporters they have (Without being able to do anything about it?)

What a victory. The greens will now know how many voters they have. A far superior option to attacking the coalition at their lib-dem weak base i order to fuck the whole thing up. The greens will know how many votes they really have.

 

[frogwoman]

Part of the LRC and GMB might want to see a left alternative emerge, but a good proportion think Labour already is that alternative. Or would be with a leader who didn't sell out. They don't want to see any structural challenge to Labour emerge. I'm talking about those inside (in LRC, Compass and neither) and those outside who want to see such a shift.

Huh? A lot of them don't think that the labour party is that alternative ... at the moment. Why are you speaking as though this is a bad thing though, when you are in the labour party yourself? Surely you agree with its aims to at least some extent (or if you don't, think that it will BECOME that party?)

 

[butchersapron]

disadvantageous to who?