The Alternative Vote (AV)

[DarloRich]

Darlorich - I disagree - I actually think it will be a yes vote, though I expect it to be close. Time will tell!

Wow - i just get the feeling speaking to people that those who vote will vote no. Most wont vote or dont care. Is that to do with the lack of publicity or media interest in this poll? Is that to do with the "free vote" given to MPs rather than campaigning along party lines? It just seems very confused and is not engageing the voters.

I do want to see electoral reform, if only to give each voter equal weight in the voting system.

I also think that, unless they win this vote by a large majority, the Lib Dems are finished for some time. . I think they, and not the Conservatives, will be the ones punished when the cuts/reductions/re alligned spending priorities call them what you will bite.

It could also end the coalition if there is a resounding defeat for the AV proposal. Could the Conservatives win a majority in a general election today?

 

[Greenback]

I think the Lib Dems are finished anyway. From what I hear, at least in these parts, they have zero credibility now. A huge fall from this time last year.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

It's probably been said before but it's worth repeating. It doesn't matter who you vote for and how the votes are counted/distributed/assessed.
It's the government that always gets in!

 

[Oswyntail]

I think the Lib Dems are finished anyway. From what I hear, at least in these parts, they have zero credibility now. A huge fall from this time last year.

I think you are right, but this truly saddens me. What we have had is a genuine attempt at two parties working together - and there have been several areas of action where the effect has been seen. IMHO, one of the most damaging problems of the political landscape since the 70s has been the unwillingness to co-operate with policies on which everyone agrees with the basics - the dreaded consensus, which is the traditional way of British politics. Instead we have knee-jerk, mindless opposition from the Labour benches (sorry, but in the areas that I know about they are useless!), tribal sabotage from the hard-core Liberals and Conservatives, and persistent rubbishing of the coalition from the media, unwilling to give it a chance from day one because a) they are committed to one party or another and can't get their brains round a new approach or b) they don't like co-operation because conflict is easier to sell. What I would like to see is this approach working, and coming to flower in four years time, proving that working together and constructive criticism is a good thing.

 

[thefab444]

I think you are right, but this truly saddens me. What we have had is a genuine attempt at two parties working together - and there have been several areas of action where the effect has been seen.

The trouble is the public are so used to tribal politics that any attempt to work together, thus requiring certain policies to either be abandoned or put on hold, is seen as "selling out".

The other problem is many people voted for the Liberal Democrats thought they were a centre-left party, when under Clegg they've moved to the centre, even before the coalition agreement.

 

[Minilad]

Or maybe it could have a lot to do with Lib Dems saying one thing before the election then completely doing the opposite once they have a sniff of power. Student fees being a prime example

 

[Greenback]

Unfortunately, the coalition has tried very hard to show a united front. This does help stability, particularly for overseas investors, but in other countries coalitions seem to be work by a collection of parties making their position clear in public. So, for example, the largest party might want to introduce a piece of legislation, but if the othe rparty or parties do not support it, it will need to be amended or withdrawn.

Here, these negotiaitons have mostly taken place behind closed doors. Therefore we don't really know how much of an effect the LibDems have had on what the Tories might have wanted to do, or would have done if they had won the election outright.

Ultimately, I think that this is to the advantage of the Conservatives, and the detriment of the Lib Dems. I could be totally wrong, of course, I am not noted for my political analysis! I said the coalition would be lucky to last six months!

 

[thefab444]

Or maybe it could have a lot to do with Lib Dems saying one thing before the election then completely doing the opposite once they have a sniff of power. Student fees being a prime example

Is that not what all politicians do to some extent? In opposition it is very easy to make pledges, particularly when you don't have access to all the relevant information. However, the student fees promise was incongruous with the general shift of the party under Clegg so to me suggests an attempt to shore up the student vote!

This would have never have happened under Charlie Kennedy!

 

[SS4]

Is that not what all politicians do to some extent? In opposition it is very easy to make pledges, particularly when you don't have access to all the relevant information. However, the student fees promise was incongruous with the general shift of the party under Clegg so to me suggests an attempt to shore up the student vote!

This would have never have happened under Charlie Kennedy!

Pretty much although the others are generally a lot more subtle.

Cameron has been very clever, he's allowed Clegg to be fall guy for what are clearly Conservative policies. Of course the weakness of the Lib Dems can be laid squarely at FPTP: ~20% support and ~8% of seats which weakened them at the bargaining table. Even under AV of course they'd not get the full ~20% but it would be more than 8.

I think this will fail if only because it's a Lib Dem policy which is a crying shame since AV is better than FPTP

Unfortunately, the coalition has tried very hard to show a united front. This does help stability, particularly for overseas investors, but in other countries coalitions seem to be work by a collection of parties making their position clear in public. So, for example, the largest party might want to introduce a piece of legislation, but if the othe rparty or parties do not support it, it will need to be amended or withdrawn.

This is what they fear in the Netherlands with the far right getting an increasing vote. I'm not au fait with Dutch politics so I'm not sure what actually happened. I can't see coalitions working in this country though because our parties and media have strict one party allegiances. Presumably Labour only want AV because the Conservatives don't.

I think you are right, but this truly saddens me. What we have had is a genuine attempt at two parties working together - and there have been several areas of action where the effect has been seen. IMHO, one of the most damaging problems of the political landscape since the 70s has been the unwillingness to co-operate with policies on which everyone agrees with the basics - the dreaded consensus, which is the traditional way of British politics. Instead we have knee-jerk, mindless opposition from the Labour benches (sorry, but in the areas that I know about they are useless!), tribal sabotage from the hard-core Liberals and Conservatives, and persistent rubbishing of the coalition from the media, unwilling to give it a chance from day one because a) they are committed to one party or another and can't get their brains round a new approach or b) they don't like co-operation because conflict is easier to sell. What I would like to see is this approach working, and coming to flower in four years time, proving that working together and constructive criticism is a good thing.

I agree, politicians seem to care more about themselves than their country and their constituents.


As an aside I got a leaflet exhorting me to vote no to AV. Full of lies and propaganda to the extent where I almost broke Godwin's law
Needless to say they haven't known I've supported electoral reform for years

 

[Zoe]

The LibDems didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories, it was a choice Clegg made and I very much doubt Kennedy would have done the same.

 

[Ferret]

The LibDems didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories, it was a choice Clegg made and I very much doubt Kennedy would have done the same.

I disagree. The three options weren't very appealing at all.

Option 1 - try and form a coalition of the losers with Labour and the Green MP which wouldn't have held sufficient numbers of MPs to be able to form a workable Government.

Option 2 - leave the Tories to go it alone - resulting in an almost immediate general election at which their support collapsed thus handing the Tories a majority.

Option 3 - go into coalition with the Tories and try and mitigate against some of the worst Conservative policies from inside Government.

I'm of the opinion that Clegg chose the least worst option open to him.

 

[Zoe]

I disagree. There options weren't very appealing at all.

Option 1 - try and form a coalition of the losers with Labour and the Green MP which wouldn't have held sufficient numbers of MPs to be able to form a workable Government.

Option 2 - leave the Tories to go it alone - resulting in an almost immediate general election at which their support collapsed thus handing the Tories a majority.

Option 3 - go into coalition with the Tories and try and mitigate against some of the worst Conservative policies from inside Government.

I'm of the opinion that Clegg chose the least worst option open to him.

You don't need to have a majority coalition to form a government. There have been minority governments in Canada for a few years now and it hasn't needed any coalitions. Gordon Brown as PM had the first opportunity to form a government and if the LibDems had given him their support then he could have done. Even if that was not possible the Tories could have formed a minority government without the LibDems having to enter any coalition agreement.

 

[Greenback]

It looks to the average person that the LibDems were so desperate for some sort of power that they have agreed to anything to hang on to their place in governemnt. I'm not saying that's how it is, just that that is what a lot of people see.

If there was mor eopen debate between the two parties this might help the LD's. Frankly, on a personal level it sickens me to see LibDems on Question Time supporting policy they don't necessarily agree with. I know that happens with governments, collective responibility and all that, but they are still supposed to be seperate political parties, after all.

 

[Zoe]

If the Tories had been in minority government it would also have allowed the LibDems and others to say enough is enough and call a vote of no confidence and force an election. With new legislation there now won't be an election until 2015.

 

[Ferret]

Zoe, you're very naïve. The public would never have stood for a coalition of the losers, especially while Gordon Brown remained. Leaving the Tories to go it alone risked a general election within 6 months, and with public opinion at the time being as it was, the Tories may well have formed a majority Government with a small majority of about 10-15. Tbh, I can just imagine what the main leftist protagonists on wnxx would be saying about the Lib Dems then!!!

 

[Zoe]

Zoe, you're very naïve. The public would never have stood for a coalition of the losers, especially while Gordon Brown remained. Leaving the Tories to go it alone risked a general election within 6 months, and with public opinion at the time being as it was, the Tories may well have formed a majority Government with a small majority of about 10-15.

You may well call Labour losers but note the Tories were not winners. If the public knew back then what the effect of what the Tories are doing now would be then I think some may well have preferred Labour. In Canada there has been a Tory minority government for a few years. The Tories may well have limited their policies more under a threat of a vote of no confidence. The best thing the LibDems could have done if there was a Tory minority government would have been to have waited until their policies are starting to take effect and if they will still insisting on them then force a general election. I am not convinced that the Tories would win if there was an election now.

 

[Ferret]

The Tories did win the election in terms of who won the most votes, but they did not gain enough to win a majority.

And, I don't think you can compare Canada to us in Britain. You really are being very naïve on this one - there'd have been nothing to stop the Tories calling an immediate election the moment they lost any vote in the Commons! Saying that the Lib Dems were wrong to go into the coalition shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation thet confronted Clegg at the time.

 

[Greenback]

Nobody won the election. You could say that the current government is a coalition of losers, as neither party won.

 

[SS4]

Out of interest is the outcome of this referendum legally binding?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In addition what price is there on democracy? I wonder how much we've spent trying to bring democracy to Libya when we barely have it at home. Bet it's more that it would cost for AV.

 

[Zoe]

Saying that the Lib Dems were wrong to go into the coalition shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation thet confronted Clegg at the time.

No it does not. Coalition was not the only option. Winning the most seats does not give you the right to form a government. If the BNP had won the most seats, the LibDems would not have gone into coalition with them. It was Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Tories no-one forced him to do this. It is correct to say that there would have been nothing to stop the Tories to call an election when they lost a vote but actually Cameron under the old system could have done this at any time regardless. Canada until the last few years used the same system and Harper went to the Governer General to call an election when it suited him even under the new fixed term legislation.

 

[Ferret]

Out of interest is the outcome of this referendum legally binding?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In addition what price is there on democracy? I wonder how much we've spent trying to bring democracy to Libya when we barely have it at home. Bet it's more that it would cost for AV.

If the referendum is not legally binding then I predict some serious civil disobedience!!! Absolutely agree on the Libya point - why are we so quick to spend money abroad but not put our own house in order. There is so much that is wrong with this Libyan conflict.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No it does not. Coalition was not the only option. Winning the most seats does not give you the right to form a government. If the BNP had won the most seats, the LibDems would not have gone into coalition with them. It was Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Tories no-one forced him to do this. It is correct to say that there would have been nothing to stop the Tories to call an election when they lost a vote but actually Cameron under the old system could have done this at any time regardless.

Using an extreme example of the BNP shows that you have a very weak argument and yet again shows up your lack of understanding. The mathematics of the election result meant that the fact that the Tories won the most seats put paid to any hope Labour had of forming a Government. Many of the leading figures in the Labour Party accepted that at the time!

 

[Zoe]

Out of interest is the outcome of this referendum legally binding?

If the new UK Parliament constituency boundaries are implemented then AV will be used.

 

[SS4]

If the referendum is not legally binding then I predict some serious civil disobedience!!! Absolutely agree on the Libya point - why are we so quick to spend money abroad but not put our own house in order. There is so much that is wrong with this Libyan conflict.
.

Wikipedia says they're not legally binding but that being said I cannot imagine the result not being followed (how long it will take is a different matter!) since it would be political suicide especially since the coalition could break should Parliament renege on the outcome.

 

[Zoe]

Using an extreme example of the BNP shows that you have a very weak argument and yet again shows up your lack of understanding. The mathematics of the election result meant that the fact that the Tories won the most seats put paid to any hope Labour had of forming a Government. Many of the leading figures in the Labour Party accepted that at the time!

No, I am stating a fact that winning the most seats does not give you a right to form a government. Labour and others could still have formed a government if they all had the same opposition to the plans of the Tories this is what they may well have done.

 

[HST Power]

You may well call Labour losers but note the Tories were not winners. If the public knew back then what the effect of what the Tories are doing now would be then I think some may well have preferred Labour.

And would Labour be doing any differently to what the Conservatives are doing now? Hardly. No matter who is in power, cuts will still be made and the economy will still come as top priority. The Conservatives are getting slammed for clearing up Labour's mess, but at the end of the day, the cuts are essential to get the debt down and the economy back on track. I guarantee you that if Miliband and Harperson were running the show things would be no different. There would still be cuts, there would still be rising prices, and there would still be outrage.

Harriet Harman was recently interviewed and asked about what Labour would do if they were in power to tackle the debt. She failed to name a single cut or saving they would implement, and told the reporter, 'Labour would consolidate back room functions.' What does this mean? Nothing.

Miliband is no better. He too has given us no economic policy, and no indication of what Labour are going to do if they are voted in come the next election. He calls the coalition a sham, and he calls it a tragic mistake, but it's blatantly clear that he's running an already tarnished party even further into the ground.

He says he'll save the Police from cuts. He say's he'll save the NHS. But he won't tell us how he'll do it, because Labour don't know how they'll do it.
All mouth, no trousers.

I might just ring up the BBC. That'd probably make a great comedy.

 

[Ferret]

No, I am stating a fact that winning the most seats does not give you a right to form a government. Labour and others could still have formed a government if they all had the same opposition to the plans of the Tories this is what they may well have done.

This is exactly where you are plain wrong on this one. Do the maths and see what number of MPs you have if you combine Labour, Lib Dem and the MP for Brighton from the Greens. Not enough numbers you'll find! Go back and read the newspapers of the day! Even some leading Labour MPs knew the time had come to spend some time in Opposition - they said so!

 

[thefab444]

Assuming the DUP would vote with the Conservatives, it would work out at 316 (Lab/Lib/Grn) - 314 (Con/DUP)! Not really workable and it would place a lot of power into the hands of the SNP, Plaid and SDLP.

 

[Zoe]

This is exactly where you are plain wrong on this one. Do the maths and see what number of MPs you have if you combine Labour, Lib Dem and the MP for Brighton from the Greens. Not enough numbers you'll find! Go back and read the newspapers of the day! Even some leading Labour MPs knew the time had come to spend some time in Opposition - they said so!

You do not need to have a majority to form a government. The Tories could not alone have forced a vote of no confidence in any Labour government. If they had enough MPs to do this then they would have a majority.

 

[Ferret]

You do not need to have a majority to form a government. The Tories could not alone have forced a vote of no confidence in any Labour government. If they had enough MPs to do this then they would have a majority.

Read what thefab444 posted above. You clearly don't remember the lingering death of the Major Government where they only won a few votes courtesy of Northern Irish MPs. To form any sort of stable Government, you *do* need a working majority or the whole thing will collapse like a pack of cards.

 

[Zoe]

Read what thefab444 posted above. You clearly don't remember the lingering death of the Major Government where they only won a few votes courtesy of Northern Irish MPs. To form any sort of stable Government, you *do* need a working majority or the whole thing will collapse like a pack of cards.

You do not need a coalition. Other parties can agree to support but make it clear that certain policies will not be acceptable. If opposition to the having the Tories in power was high enough in all the parties then they could have been prevented from forming a government. There has also been a minority SNP government in Scotland for a few years now. Also Canada uses the same Westminster government system and as I said above there have been minority governments for a few years now. If Labour had been unable to get this support then the Tories would then have then have the chance to form a government. All the LibDems would had to have done would be to not vote down the Queen's speech. Then if the Tories start trying to introduce too many unpopular policies an election could have been forced. As I have said if there was an election today I doubt the Tories would win a majority.