« Cllr Royston Smith recounts his fight to disarm the gunman on HMS Astute | Main | Independent Commission on Banking expected to conclude tomorrow that the last Government was wrong to allow the Lloyds TSB/HBOS merger »

April 10, 2011

Comments

Jason

Isn't this what just happened... under FPTP???

DBirkin

Well yes and no, the Tories have kept most of their promises because they were looking forward to a majority (much more likely under Fptp) whereas the lib dems not expecting to get in without a Hung parliament knew they could pledge anything they wanted...I'm sure you can think of a few.

Under AV BOTH parties will be expecting a Hung parliament so they all can promise unicorns knowing the real policies won't be made until after they get in.

Not democracy.

libertarian

Ha ha ha DBirkin

The Tories kept most of their promises!!!!! Where have you been? Euro referendum, VAT, Woodlands, quangos,local democracy, NHS is there anything they haven't abandoned, U turned or down right just lied about?

Nothing will happen to improve democracy in the UK until we are actually allowed to vote for a government ( rather than an arbitrarily constructed constituency representative) and we can do it using STV .

Super Blue

D.Birkin has summed the situation up correctly. At present, we all elect a Government in 90% of cases and the result is clear by very early on Friday. Under AV, most counts would take longer and a random selection of MPs would choose the Government, being able to change it during a term. Who does anyone want choosing a Government: the people or the MPs?

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

Matthew this is beneath you.

"This kind of shoddy behaviour is exactly the kind of thing we might see under AV."

Well, yes, we might. But then, it is the kind of shoddy behaviour we actually are seeing under this current FPTP coalition. So what is your point.

First the BNP smears, now this. I have lost total respect for you and wonder what harm it will do to your reputation of the TPA.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

How long before someone edits that video to keep the sound but use imges of Cameron and Clegg to show that we are only having a referendum in the first place as FPTP delivered our current shoddy, weak, pledge-breaking, coalition government! :-)

Michael

So, Matthew, if that's what you believe then the last thing you would want to do is vote for an electoral system which would this more likely, if not inevitable..we only got a hung parliament under FPTP because it was skewered in Labour's favour..this is now being corrected.

No to a system where some voters have more say than others..in fact if you vote for any of the three main parties, there's really not much point putting down any second preferences..because in 7 out of 10 constituencies it is only the preferences from the fringe and loony parties which get counted..dead democratic

Victor Southern

Can't see how the same does not apply under FPTP. Example, Blair "We will not impose top-up fees. In fact we will legislate against them". Brown "there will be no increase in income tax [he bumped up the NI instead]".

So far it is early days for this government and the coalition does change a lot of ambitions. It seems that much of the Conservative manifesto will not happen in this term of office. However, some of the pledges have been very swiftly implemented. Others are in progress but face a lot of vested interests. One can hope for more but you cannot cycle very fast until you have repaired the bike's punctures, fixed the brakes and fastened the handlebars properly. Until then it is a case of the more haste the less speed.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

Yes Victor, it is beyond parody that Matthew and the No2AV campaign are warning us about weak, coalition governments, when we only have a referendum in the first place because under FPTP, the *third* placed LibDems are dictating policy!

The losers are getting their policies live through FPTP!

chris

I think the best way to get the Prime Minister we want is to elect one in a national vote. We should also have a primary to pick our conservative candidate.

BlueArsedFly

B'Stard reminds me so much of every local LibDem I've ever had the misfortune to come across.

DJS

Please tell me this is a joke.

There are so many good arguments against AV but again and again, the No2AV campaign seem incapable of getting them across.

anon

This is the first decent thing I've seen come out of the No to AV campaign.

More of this, less of the made-up £250m garbage please!

HYUFD

I thought the NO campaign was criticising the YES campaign for using celebrities to front their campaign. So who fronts their first broadcast, oh the celebrity Rik Mayall. Pot calling kettle methinks!!

HYUFD

Michael tell that to Canada which could well elect its FOURTH successive hung parliament in May under FPTP. Tell it too to Australia which has had fewer hung parliaments than the UK, despite having AV!

Denis Cooper

I thought it was wrong for either side in this debate to enlist the services of empty-headed celebrities.

Anyway, I'm sure that's what the "no" side were saying not so long ago.

Denis Cooper

Why is it being claimed that AV would create this kind of situation?

It is because last year, some months after we had elected a hung Parliament under FPTP, NO2AV noticed that the Australians had just elected a hung federal Parliament under AV?

In fact since 1919 when the Australians moved to AV for their federal elections, they've had FEWER hung federal Parliaments than there have been hung UK Parliaments.

And in New South Wales, which holds its state elections using the same variant of AV we would have, what they call "optional preferential voting", there was a single party Labor government for 16 years until two weeks ago when those scoundrels were comprehensively booted out of office - another antipodean event, but one which apparently went unnoticed in the "no" camp.

Or is it because of information provided by opinion polls in this country, such as the YouGov poll reported last week by Channel 4 which led to the following predicted results if we were to have a general election in the near future:

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/alternative-vote-alternative-outcome/15032

Under FPTP:

Labour 355 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 16 MPs

Under AV:

Labour 342 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 29 MPs

So which of those general election outcomes would necessitate the formation of some kind of rainbow coalition through backroom deals?

Would it be the one where Labour got an overall majority of 60, or the one where Labour only got an overall majority of 34?

The reality is that nobody knows how often AV would lead to hung Parliaments, compared to FPTP - not even the omniscient Matthew Elliott, who even though he's normally the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance apparently doesn't know that the costs of the referendum will be borne out of national taxation and not local taxation.

But we do know that under AV the predominant role in deciding whether or not any single party should be trusted to govern alone would be taken by the electorate, just as it was in May 2010 under FPTP.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

OK, this is what the video *should* have looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZPT8VMFtbo

:-)

It doesn't add up...

Over on Politicalbetting, Rod Crosby is the Yes2AV supporter in chief and chief guru. He made this dead-of-night admission (2:15a.m.):

"In most of the seats the LDs were a distant second, and the estimates of LDs seats that would have been won under AV in 2010 was, IIRC around 89.

If that was typical of LD support we could expect a lot more hung parliaments, since Lab or Con would require about a 120 seat lead over one another in order to secure a majority. About 2/3rds of elections since the War would have been potential hung parliaments on that basis. Even if LD support collapsed, it’s hard to see them securing fewer than 30 seats under AV, meaning the largest party would need a lead of 60 seats to secure a majority. If that was the case, over a third of elections since 1945 were potential hung parliaments."

Michael

I love the line about there not being hung parliaments in Australia..5 independents decided the outcome of the last election and Australia is a 2 party system not 3 like ours!

Why do AV supporters always conveniently gloss over that their system is so popular that it's used in just 3 countries..2 of which don't like it?

Could you imagine if the Grand National was run under AV? Mine's fallen..let me have another one! Geez..

Has anyone ever come out of the polling booth and thought "if only i could have voted for all of them"? Me neither

I don't know why AV supporters are so desperate for our MPs to woo BNP racists for their second preferences

And there's no point putting down preferences if you vote for any of the 3 major parties as they won't get counted..dead democratic!

Dickymoo

Great. So basically this is what #No2AV are saying:

1) Coalitions mean deals are done behind closed doors. (Lib Dems got to vote on the coalition agreement so this is not true. Even so, it's FPTP that gave us the coalition goverment, so your point is?)

2) The horse that is third during the first stage of a horse race could go on to be a winner. Yes, that sounds about right. I can picture Wayne Rooney saying. "But I don't understand how we lost! We were in first place at half time. Surely that means we should have won the game."

3) That young people are thick, incable of understanding basic processes, and that teachers are crap.

Well done. #No2AV, have really done themselves proud. As for Rik Mayall, I used to think his performances were ACTED. Putting his face to such a blatant act of misinformation makes me wonder if we're actually watching the real Rik.

Tom

How sweet, the fantasy that majority parties deliver polcies that are in their manifesto lives on.

Labour 1997, elected with a huge majority had a policy of holding a referendum on changing the voting system - it never happend. Independence to the bank of england, granted in days, appeared no where in their manifesto.

You vote for Thatcher in 1987, and end up with John Major due to some nasty backroom deal, lol

You voted Asquith in 1910 and end up with Lloyd George winning the First World War, you vote for the Tory party appeasers in 1935 and by some shady backroom deal you end up with Churchill leading another bloody coalition no-one had voted for.

But perhaps the most absurd argument is that if you don't like them, under FPTP you can chuck the government out - when it reality, most seats nver change party and when they do it's more likley to be because of boundary changes than because of a change in how people vote. FPTP - It's the same system that Robert Mubagbe uses.

Jez

Hey Micheal, an election isnt a horse race - thats the point ( a pretty fundemental one).
But if you follow your unhelpful analogy with FPTP no horses actually cross the finish line they just collapse and the one that got the furthest is called the winner.
And you right - many Ozzys dont like their version of AV cause down under its obligatory to vote for all candidates...even the ones you hate....its not just because its AV.
The UK version allows you to vote for one canditate only if you like, its up to you. So no you would have to come out thinking 'wish I could have voted them all'
Your auguements are are unsound and full of nonsence as the campaign.

And no I cant spel.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Homepage

Categories

Options

Most Updated

Other Pages

Tracker

  • Extreme Tracking