« Independent Commission on Banking expected to conclude tomorrow that the last Government was wrong to allow the Lloyds TSB/HBOS merger | Main | Auf Wiedersehen Pet makes the case against electoral change #No2AV »

April 11, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61a053ef014e8765431f970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The full three parts of tonight's #No2AV referendum broadcast:

Comments

Jason

If this teacher is anything to go by, it's no wonder our education system is lambasted by so many people. Her teaching methods are awful. About as disingenuous as the arguments found in this video.

The video criticises lying politicians, but then proceeds to openly lie to the public rather than offering more sensible arguments against AV. A disgrace.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

Cameron and No2AV to British people:

"Australia has been using it without problems for decades but you Brits are simply too thick to understand AV. Know your place, keep quiet, pay your taxes and stick with FPTP."

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

This referendum could have been a real turing point for politicians, to show how they can treat the British people like adults, and to calmly and objectively discuss the merits/weaknesses of FPTP and AV.

Matthew Elliott's campaign has been a barrel-scraping disgrace.

Robert Eve

Vote NO.

robert

People who support minority parties like the Liberal Democrats vote YES.
Everybody else vote NO.

Denis Cooper

Agreed, ToryBlog.

The conduct of NO2AV has epitomised so much of what is wrong with our political system, and apparently their supporters want to ensure that none of it will ever be rectified.

This referendum should also be an eye-opener for those who want to leave the EU and call for an "in-out" referendum, without stopping to think about their chances of winning it when the "in" side would have no scruples at all about how they got the result they wanted.

Jimmi

If it wasn't so serious I would laugh at the naivety of the 'Yes' supporters who think that introducing a slightly more fiddly voting system would revolutionise our politics. There would still be dozens of safe seats, the odd politician would still try and fiddle their expenses (which has nothing to do with safe seats and everything to do with transparency) and some would continue to pander to the lowest common denominator if they thought it would win the argument.

Those who are pinning their hopes on AV as a solution to all the imperfections within our political system are putting their hopes in a false god.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

No-one is Jimmi. It is just given a choice of just two, fptp or AV, AV is a step in the right direction in our multi-party world of 2011.

Remember, it took three rounds of voting to elect Cameron as leader. If FPTP had been used, David Davis would be leader, so the 'loser' won, yet most Tories agree that the right man won.

Hmmm, the 'right man' but he didn't win. so much for the Grand National/Usain bolt comparison, as the silver medalist in the Tory leadership election was given the gold medal!

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.

Jimmi

The comparison with the Conservative leadership election is not a valid one I'm afraid ToryBlog. Party members overwhelmingly wanted Cameron to win - by 2 votes to 1 - it's just that they don't get a say until the final stage of the process. At the time there was no doubt who was the members' first choice, and he was the clear winner.

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

The response to this ad is already on youtube:

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

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

"AV is a step in the right direction"

So you admit that you don't actually want AV, and that if AV were adopted, you would then start pushing to replace it with another system?

Why don't you cut out the middle man, and just campaign for the system you actually want?

Chad Noble (ex ToryBlog.com)

"Why don't you cut out the middle man, and just campaign for the system you actually want?"

Um, because there is a referendum next month! [rolls eyes]

I might want a Ferrari, but I am not going to be stubborn and walk everywhere when I can afford an old Focus...

S Barnett Cormack

So, the first part is actually "it's really easy to be unethical in coalition" (gee, we hadn't noticed *that* already), no point actually articulated to do with the electoral system.

The second part is largely nonsense, because it's not a good analogy for either system.

The third part is deliberately obfuscating the system. That's just unscrupulous. In that amount of time, they could have clearly explained the system.

Then again, the official neutral leaflets explaining AV make it unclear as well.

Verymaturestudent

"AV is a miserable little compromise"

N.CLEGG

Henry

This contains outright lies, intentional mis-information, and also a really poor-quality teacher.

Henry

@jimmi - I am voting yes, but I don't think it will revolutionise politics, I just think it is better than what we have now, where some MPs have less than 30% of the vote.

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

"I might want a Ferrari, but I am not going to be stubborn and walk everywhere when I can afford an old Focus..."

But AV is not a mini-PR (or whatever it is you're actually after). It's not going to make PR easier to obtain. It's not even going to have a similar effect on the political system that PR would.

So AV bears less resemblance to an old Focus than it does to, say, a cream puff, or a copy of "Gone With the Wind". It's not a substitute. It's not even broadly similar to what you desire. So why bother with it at all?

S Barnett Cormack

Why bother with it at all? Because it's all that's on offer, for starters, and is still better than FPTP.

Because it's almost identical to STV, limited to single member constituencies, and STV is a good goal (partially proprotional but with member-constituency linking, for instance) and it's a step towards that.

Because a no vote will be claimed as an endorsement of the current system, rather than a lack of enthusiasm for AV.

Because it will allow everyone to vote for what and who they actually believe in.

Mark M

S Barnet Cormack - I agree on STV. We had that at uni elect positions and it worked fine. I don't agree about multi-member constituencies though. The problem with having multi-members is that they always pass the buck (try getting your Euro MEP to do anything if you don't believe me). With single member seats, you know who your man/woman in parliament is and they know who they represent.

Y Rhyfelwr Dewr

And who uses STV? Ireland.

Well, that's really worked out well for them, hasn't it?

S Barnett Cormack

On hung parliaments - well, if there's no distinct support in the population for a single party, that's what there should be. Both government and legislature should then function by compromise.

As regards STV - without multi-members, it's virtually identical to AV. Adding in a non-eliminable RON would be a good step, though.

S Barnett Cormack

As for a single member meaning they have to represent you - mine keeps fobbing me off as it is, with multi-member there'd be likely to be one that's willing to stand up for me.

Ricardo's Ghost

Good grief. This No2AV campaign has almost managed to persuade me to vote Yes it's so hideously incompetent.

LoveLondon

I'm voting yes.

I spend everything evening defending free markets, lower taxes and government policy on Guardian Comment is Free website so I'm not some looney left winger.

Basically as someone who supports free markets and smaller governments I can't see the point in defending a system (FPTP) that reduces everything to a competition of 2-3. Would we legislate so that I'm 2 competitors are allowed in a particular market?

If you're worried about more left wing governments then rather than having a big winge you need to get out their and defend free markets and explain them to people.

Why is the TUC can set up a website "false economies" but one has ever set up an easy to understand pro-market website disseminating socialist myths.....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Homepage

Categories

Options

Most Updated

Other Pages

Tracker

  • Extreme Tracking