I don't think Labour would want an election right now either, they're deliberately taking a while to reassess policy and it would catch them somewhat unawares. Not sure it would be in anyones interest.
Alternative vote,sell it to me,or otherwise...
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
It was already more of a priority before the election even took place.
If Cameron thinks things will all be rosy all the way, then yeah.
But if he thinks the coalition is going to fail at some point then it might be better to pick his own time, and pick now.
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the Liberals as a party are exactly behind Clegg at the moment.
Roughly 50% in, 2.25 Million yes, 5 Million no.
Whatever one's view on the result, I doubt it's been a case of common sense prevailing.
Aye, it just shows the electorate really is as stupid as David Cameron thinks.
You talk about democracy and representation but when the public overwhelmingly disagrees with you, you call them stupid.
Actually agreed with your here Brian, the vote is No so it has to be respected. I disliked the No campaign greatly but the Yes one was pretty shite as well.
If you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.
It should be respected as a No to AV.
But it will actually be used to reject any proportional reform of the voting system.
Agreed, and John Reid is already trying to spin it that way, although I also doubt the people's appetite for another referendum on the voting system in the immediate future.
There's a valid question here.
Why do you (Silva) want the system to represent proportionally what the electorate think, given that the electorate are stupid?
(The electorate are stupid)
I want PR because the majority of the country is left leaning and it will keep the Tories out of government and redefine the "middle ground" to actually represent the middle ground of the public rather than that of the political parties.
That wasn't my point at all, well done to the no2AV campaign, they lied their way to an emphatic win. I just wish I lived in a democracy where liars were punished rather than rewarded.
When I voted, I saw voters who didn't even KNOW there was a referendum on the day or what it was about. They didn't even ask about the differences between AV or FPTP. Stupid AND ignorant.
Also the campaign was fought on non-issues irrelevant to whether or not AV is a better system. FPTP is a terrible system, when Labour can get 35% of the vote and win 58% of the seats like in 2005 the country is going down the wrong path.
This result has set voting reform back 100 years.
You do not win by such a margin and in a uniform nature nationally if the public were not thoroughly against AV. Unless of course you think this was the most effective campaign in British political history.
It probably was the most effective campaign in British political history, which is a shame because it was utterly disingenuous and full of bullshit. I only hope it leads to the Lib Dems getting PR for lords.
you do when the electorate are ignorant of the subject, or see it as a vote on the Lib Dems.. who if you didn't notice, got a massive kicking.
Sad, because the current system is ridiculously unrepresentative, and it will be seen as affirming FPTP by the status qou parties. Not that AV was all that much better. It will take a loooong time for anything to change now.
There was remarkably little hype or enthusiasm for this referendum. It's hard to pick apart the reasons for that. Perhaps it is because the public don't want electoral reform. But either way it meant the No campaign didn't have to be that great. The No campaign was able to talk a lot of rubbish of things that might happen under AV, but the Yes couldn't counter with similar rubbish claims because we know what FPTP is like.
The media also did very little to raise interest and awareness of the issue.
A real worry.
The only way we have even the remotest chance of getting a representative parliament is if the lib dems get the house of lords reforms through.
its in all three parties' manifestos.. why do I doubt it will happen?
The status quo are laughing their ass off at the people.
They literally see the people as retards who cannot understand AV, and deserve to have 2 parties taking turns to buttfeck them without much change.
This is Tony Blair's fault, he had the mandate in 1997 when voting reform was in Labour's manifesto and he fecked it off because of his selfish decision not to push forward with the jenkin's report due to Labour's majority.
That is of course the irony, whoever has power doesn't think it's in their interest to get PR, whoever wants PR often has it in their interest for switching to PR and in the end, nothing changes.
I think the overall presiding officer in London wants to go home.
In hindsight, it might have been better to have the referendum on FPTP, rather than AV. People have rejected the latter but it's already being spun as an endorsement of the former and we're unlikely to be able to get another chance to change it for a few decades. Would it have been a different result had the question been "Would you like to continue with FPTP?", perhaps?
All conjecture and with hindsight, I know, but it seems that the Libs have really shot themselves in the foot by having the referendum solely on AV.
All conjecture and with hindsight, I know, but it seems that the Libs have really shot themselves in the foot by having the referendum solely on AV.
That is quite a stupid post.
C'est moi?
Is it really? Just because people don't want AV doesn't mean they want FPTP.
I'm not sure the electoral commission would allow that who ultimately rule on wording in referendums, also it would commit you to multiple referendums which I don't think people would be interested in.
The biggest mistake the Lib Dems made was to have this referendum so soon into the parliamentary term as it was a short time for the public to get to know and understand AV which came out of nowhere, and that the coalition government would have to act hard and quickly on the deficit which would cause unpopularity for the party. The third big issues was that Nick Clegg associated himself very closely with the referendum whilst the Conservatives and Labour in the limelight at least stayed very detached.
There have been a few big winners of this referendum but one who hasn't been mentioned is Alex Salmond, he will be coming under strong pressure from his own party and activists to get a move on with putting independence front and centre but this will be a cautionary tale against springing such a referendum at the earliest possible opportunity.
The problem is the people who are responsible for the cuts won't make the cuts needed because it means putting their own head on the chopping block.
They would rather shut down libraries and swimming pools.
What needs chopping is the fat marzipan layer paying themselves excessive salaries for reletively junior managerial roles.
They have jumped shipped to Labour who according to Darling where going to cut harder and faster than Thatcher.
Most of these cuts would be happening whoever got in government.
At least the Tory's will have the bollocks to see the job done.
I'm no Tarquin but if the cuts help the economy then I'm game.
This is one thing that cracks me up.
Clegg bangs on about the current system being undemocratic and then concocts a plan with cameron to fix the minimum term before an election to at 5 years.
What the feck is all that about?
the No campaign chairman just said that they started 27% points below yes...
Without seeing the actual poll first hand, it would imply that if initial support was WITH a change to the voting system that people are FOR voting reform and like you say people just didn't want AV when they would out what it was.
Although, I believe that people were ignorant about the subject and a lot voted purely as a vote to kick the Lib Dems because this was framed as a Lib Dem idea, rather than a Lib Dem/Labour joint idea.
They were talking about fixed parliaments, preventing sitting PMs from calling or considering calling an election at a time of their personal preference.
People understand AV lad.
It's just that most think it's bollocks, which is is so there :stickstoungeout:
Historically duering modern times they have been every 4/5 years anyway.
Now we have to wait five.
and system where a party which got 35% of the vote can form a clear majority government isn't bollocks?
AV top-up is a far better system than the current one.
That was the point I was getting at, yes. Further point being - were the Lib Dems a bit thick to bet the farm on AV, since a No vote doomed electoral reform to oblivion for a couple of decades, and they weren't even the keen on it themselves. Brian's point about the viability of such a referendum is a fair one.
Labour vocally oppose them so they get the votes, simple as really.
Tory's having the "bollocks" to do it is a strange way of putting it, since it doesn't really affect them in the real world. If they're allowed to cut, they will cut, gleefully.
No AV is shite it lets the 2nd or 3rd position win.
The Lib Dems are desperate for AV so they can play king maker every election.
No party will ever have over 50% votes unless it's a two horse race.
AV is a way of fudging a contest until certain groups get what they want.
It the Lib dems want to stand a chance then they should make themselves more electable.
You lot failed to convinced me, I voted NO!
Why replace one unsatisfactory system with another unsatisfactory system?
One answer would be to vote for a set of policies and have no constituencies but then how do you choose who enacts those policies?
In a general election people are generally voting for a set of policies or the personality of the leader rather than their individual MP anyway.
A local MP, of which ever colour, will tend to represent local interests. If the local mood is for the bypass (or against it) the local MP will argue that viewpoint in the House. It is only on national policies where they will follow the party whip.
Why replace one unsatisfactory system with another unsatisfactory system?
One answer would be to vote for a set of policies and have no constituencies but then how do you choose who enacts those policies?
In a general election people are generally voting for a set of policies or the personality of the leader rather than their individual MP anyway.
A local MP, of which ever colour, will tend to represent local interests. If the local mood is for the bypass (or against it) the local MP will argue that viewpoint in the House. It is only on national policies where they will follow the party whip.
The point I am making here is that whoever was in government was going to have to cut.
A right wing Tory govt would never get elected again after Thatcher.
Hence why we have a coalition.