Richard Hawley
http://www.richardhawleyforum.co.uk/

AV
http://www.richardhawleyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26804		 Page 4 of 9
Author:  beeshette [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
I kindof knew which way I was going..& then I had to present the pro's and con's of AV to 11 (wonderful) learning disabled adults...and I'm now so fucking confused I can't remember what my original thinking was....
Author:  Poppy Dog [ Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Poppy Dog wrote:
helenwatson wrote:
This is not proportional representation – it's a halfway house which will favour the centre not the left, who traditionally get my vote. And I can't ignore the temptation to fuck over Clegg.


Likewise...


But a week later I am now thinking - lets fuck over Cameron...
Author:  DisneyTime [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Poppy Dog wrote:
But a week later I am now thinking - lets fuck over Cameron...


The next election is going to fuck over Clegg anyway, the Lib Dems are never getting anything like what they've got now, ever again. The 'Clegg era' which was meant to be all golden boy and public adoration has gone horribly wrong and everyone hates them.

David Cameron on the other hand... Is still a smug bastard.
Author:  Little Dickie [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I've read many articles arguing for and against AV,listened to TV interviews and laughed at the pathetic No campaign leaflet put through my letterbox.
The scaremongering and misinformation on the cons of AV have done nothing to help most people make a considered choice.The AV system is simple.....put the candidates in order of preference until you don’t care any more..........or just post one choice.
It should not be about pissing off Cameron or Clegg.Clegg is toast anyway.
FPTP allows unpopular governments to cling on with the support of a minority of voters.
I've decided that if we want to change a system that has given us one party domination,and the mandate to do what they want,for over a decade,then it must be yes to AV.
The chance to change may never come around again in a lot of our lives.
Author:  DisneyTime [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
One of the things the 'no' leaflets says is not only misleading but wrong. Under FPTP, it isn't necessarily the candidate with the most votes that gets in, but the one with the most seats.

We've had a government with fewer votes than the runner up before. I'll have a look for the article and the year, I know I read this in school...
Author:  DisneyTime [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Found it.

Quote:
In 1951 the Conservatives polled less votes than Labour, but achieved an overall Commons majority of 17. Similarly, Labour polled less votes and more seats than the Conservatives (although not an overall majority) in February 1974.


Link to the whole article here:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rethinking-electoral-reform.org.uk%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2Felectoral_reform_the_way_chap_5.pdf&rct=j&q=fptp%20more%20seats%20less%20votes&ei=j0m0Td7nJYyv8QO-oInRAQ&usg=AFQjCNFUa82osAPt1nhW0ZxLFwbv4F5R1A&cad=rja

For me the worst thing about FPTP is the need to vote tactically. Even if you really like an independent running in your area, or someone from a smaller party, you need to vote either Labour or Tory just so the one you hate more doesn't get in... The constituency I live in has had a Labour MP nobody likes for years, because nobody dares vote for any of the decent candidates in case we end up with a Tory...
Author:  Bradford Lass [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Still :eh?
Author:  Hot Charity [ Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
beaux nidle wrote:
thanks for that, a considered reply with relevant points but the main thrust of your argument is completely undone by millionaire banking scion clegg's opportunist liberal party leaping into bed with the millionaire banking scion cameron's recidivist tories.

this is not the time to be arguing niceties.

this government is systematically and deliberately undoing all of the work that labour has done since 1945.

if the liberals are so liberal, they should cross the floor.


I think that's the point really, it's Clegg's Liberal's that have done this and it is out of step with their tradition, just as Blair was by and large out of step with mich of Labour tradition. The majority of their MPs did not vote to raise tuition fees and their members voted overwhelmingly against free schools and the NHS reforms - there is something in that party that Labour can work with which is not reflected by the paty leadership; just as Blair wasn't really the voice of Labour but instead one acceptable to the slither of swing voters parties need to win elections.

If we focus too much on Clegg, we can forget that wider section of Liberal thought that Labour might need to work with, like here in my own town (a place where a Labour MP is an impossible dream). I live in a massively middle class area, which used to be the safest Tory seat on the country. But the Liberals here choose Labour to work with, making sure the voice of Labour was represented in a town where normally it was ignored - hard for me to not to have a level of respect for them for doing that.

Nicities for the sake of them are a waste of time, but AV in my town would allow the work of Liberal/Labour cooperation to continue. I've seen the difference it can make in keeping the Tories out and, maybe selfishly, I want AV as it will allow me to live in a town, as well as country, which has the option of uniting to keep the Tories out for good.

FPTP gave no other electoral option than a Tory government last year, with AV there would have been a Non-Tory mandate and Clegg's right-wing liberalism that we see now could not have been enacted.

In today's world FPTP means either watered down Labour governments that focus on winning the support of soft-Tory, like 1997, 2001 and 2005 or a Tory government like now. AV gives us that more hope of bringing together the Anti-Tory voice in this country, which is a more realistic goal as I don't ever really see the return to landslide True Labour governments like we did in 1945 - when did you last hear a Labour leader talk of nationalisation in a positive way? It may not be the ideal situation we want to be in, but better than we have now.
Author:  exapno mapcase [ Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:21 am ]
Post subject: 
If it was just Clegg that would have some credibility. It' not just Clegg, it's a whole pack of politicians who dramatically veered away from election pledges and are standing idly by as the NHS - "safe with the Tories" - is dismantled by the back door.

Other than a referendum on a voting system which in itself is a compromise of the preference of many Liberals, where exactly have the Liberals clearly curtailed the Tories? Where have they truly stopped a right wing agenda despite their not being a mandate for a Tory government? The cry of "it would be worse if the Conservatives were in full power", is redundant. They weren't elected with a majority yet are dismantling the public sector because they want to, not because they have to. The Liberal Democrats have shown themselves to be politically naive and are actively supporting this blind rush to an undefined and ill prepared Big Society which turns us back to the largesse of the rich and their self serving charitable trusts rather than planned and properly distributed funding of public services funded through taxation.
Author:  janehardy [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I am not really a political animal, don't really understand it all in any great detail but I went to a debate on AV last night to try and clarify my thinking. I have a better understandiing of what AV actually means.
I don't think it will make much difference in a lot of constiuencies and it isn't PR but a yes vote would send a message to govenment that we want change and is a step in the right direction. If we vote no the issue will not be considered again for many years because it will taken that we don't want change.
First past the post was ok in a Britain when there were only two parties and there was less diversity in the population. It doesn't fit with Britain today
I live in a rural area which is a tory stronghold so our two little labour votes are lost and count for nothing. So I feel very frustrated.

Worse than voting no is not voting at all!
Author:  Longpigsdad [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:17 am ]
Post subject: 
To my mind AV could lead to a compromise position where it kicks in. The winner could be someone who is least popular as a first choice and thereby creates a "second best" feeling for an even greater majority of voters.

The result being you don't get who you really want but might get someone who you think you could tolerate a bit more than someone else you possibly can't?

Fudge? Lose/Lose situation?
Author:  Craig [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:26 am ]
Post subject: 
What's better? Someone who 70% can agree on as a 'second best' choice, or to put it another way, the candidate who closest reflects the combined choices of 70% of the people?

Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?
Author:  dj89 [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
my understanding is that first votes count for a lot more than the secondary and the position after the "primary" count (or counts of first preference votes) decide who gets preferences directed towards them based either on preferences that you put in on your form yourself or party preference agreements (ie: the greens do a deal with labour that their preferences will go to them)

You wont get the person in last place magically win because of preferences but if its a close race between first and second the preferences could put the person in second place over the line

The 30%/70% issue would apply to the other candidates as well though as they would only have 30/40 or so percent for the preferences to make enough of a difference- so similar percentages of people wouldnt want the others as well for that situation to be in play

I could be wrong on all this but thats my understanding
Author:  RP [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm gonna vote for 'yes' but I reckon 'no' is gonna win easily.
Author:  Longpigsdad [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Craig wrote:
What's better? Someone who 70% can agree on as a 'second best' choice, or to put it another way, the candidate who closest reflects the combined choices of 70% of the people?

Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?


Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.
Page 4 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/