|
U-Know! Forum » A/V? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Apr 14, 2011, 16:16
|
|
stray wrote: ratcni01 wrote: It's better than fptp and may put a stop to the idea of ever having a full on tory government again, that's good enough for me for the time being. Its just one evolutionary step, and who knows how many more there may be. But, but.. but it isn't better is it ? Think about how it will play out, statistically. Its a horrible fudge. If tactical voting bothers you now how much of a mindfuck will it be choosing your second and third preferences in a marginal seat. Coalition governments will be more likely, and more likely to be as full on tory as this one is. In order for it to work our whole method of government has to change to reflect A/V. It's not an evolutionary step, in order for a step to be evolutionary it has to have a further rational, determinable goal. A/V doesn't have one. The way I see it, parties who are most likely to have the 2nd and 3rd preferences counted first will typically be those Little Englander/Fascist/Libertarian nut-jobs who are Tories at heart. |
|
toasted-whippet 86 posts |
Apr 14, 2011, 17:36
|
|
Popel Vooje wrote: nigelswift wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: The current Co-alition will be finished after the next election, even if the Conservatives hang on to power. I'm not sure about that. AV may change everything. The Liberals have been grossly under represented for a hundred years. Even if there are a lot fewer Lib Dem votes next time if the remaining Lib Dem votes are more fairly reflected they are quite likely to be in a king making position again. Is that unfair, as the third party will have a disproportionate influence? Yes. But IMO better than having a Tory party that most people won't have voted for getting first past the post and running completely riot, as has happened before and as Cameron looks to me to be set to do if the chance arises When I said "the current Co-alition" I was referring specifically to the Cameron/Clegg axis. Clegg's already virtually kamikazed his role as Lib Dem leader - both the lib Dems' recent by-election defeats and the animosity towards him from within his own party will make sure of that. Even if he manages to remain party leader, his divisive presence means there's likely to be a split in the Lib Dem camp that will lead to the creation of another party. Therefore, if the Lib Dems want to remain a significant presence in any future election - whether determined by A/V or not - they'll have to get rid of him. I am sure that when he crosses the floor the Nasty Party will find a nice safe seat for him |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Apr 14, 2011, 19:34
Apr 14, 2011, 18:31
|
|
I don't think Tories+Nutjobs' second preferences will have a natural majority. The natural British majority is Lib-Lab. If AV was going to work in the Tories favour they'd be all for it. It's a difficult, technical subject to predict with any certainty but if they're against it it's a strong indication it's a good thing. Incidentally, this isn't a full-on Tory government IMO. One of those is worse than this. |
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Apr 14, 2011, 22:01
|
| See, that's the problem for me. It's another step away from representative parliament to a purely central party-based system. | |
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Apr 15, 2011, 09:15
Apr 15, 2011, 09:13
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Incidentally, this isn't a full-on Tory government IMO. One of those is worse than this. I fail to see how it isn't. The cuts are going further than the last tory government (and bollocks to the debt excuse), as are the 'free market solutions', also we have new powers for the police relating to dissent on the way (A new CJA on its way it seems). The Lib Dems are having absolutely no influence I can see. |
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Apr 15, 2011, 09:47
|
| True, the loss of local representation might be a further step if we carry on down the PR route. I'm not that bothered about PR or not, its more that I'd like to have a better government than we have now and I do think AV will improve the chances of at the least diluting any tory govt, if not producing a left of centre coalition, which is probably most likely I reckon. Not exactly what I want but better than stupid fucking libdems ganging up with(or rather selling out to) tory scum. The libdems are going to take some years to recover from this fiasco, fucking idiots (& stupid Brown). | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Apr 15, 2011, 10:16
|
This lot are cutting partly because they have to. Full-on Tories do it for dogma and pleasure. When the conference delegates stand up and cheer ecstatically when the cuts are announced is when you know.
|
|
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Apr 15, 2011, 10:39
|
|
toasted-whippet wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: nigelswift wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: The current Co-alition will be finished after the next election, even if the Conservatives hang on to power. I'm not sure about that. AV may change everything. The Liberals have been grossly under represented for a hundred years. Even if there are a lot fewer Lib Dem votes next time if the remaining Lib Dem votes are more fairly reflected they are quite likely to be in a king making position again. Is that unfair, as the third party will have a disproportionate influence? Yes. But IMO better than having a Tory party that most people won't have voted for getting first past the post and running completely riot, as has happened before and as Cameron looks to me to be set to do if the chance arises When I said "the current Co-alition" I was referring specifically to the Cameron/Clegg axis. Clegg's already virtually kamikazed his role as Lib Dem leader - both the lib Dems' recent by-election defeats and the animosity towards him from within his own party will make sure of that. Even if he manages to remain party leader, his divisive presence means there's likely to be a split in the Lib Dem camp that will lead to the creation of another party. Therefore, if the Lib Dems want to remain a significant presence in any future election - whether determined by A/V or not - they'll have to get rid of him. I am sure that when he crosses the floor the Nasty Party will find a nice safe seat for him Indeed - but he'll never be Prime Minister by default, which is a re-assuring thought.
|
|
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Apr 17, 2011, 14:11
|
|
b3ta.com AV challenge I like the parma violets one
|
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 17, 2011, 21:08
|
|
I've not found any reason for a No vote that stands up. Voting No to punish the LibDems is an odd idea - we could just as readily advocate voting Yes to punish the Tories. The related idea of a no vote splitting the coalition is dubious - it's a point of contention either way, and a yes vote will make backbench Tories feel like they've conceded to far the LibDems. A good way to punish the LibDems is to stop them mopping up all the tactical votes, which AV would help with. It does not necessarily mean more coalition governments. Australia has AV and get coalitions about as often as we do. Rhiannon has a point that we don't get to vote for even fairer systems. However, if we turn down the chance of a slightly fairer system, the chance of a referendum on a much fairer system is zilch. As the expansion of powers in the Welsh and Scottish governments has shown, it is possible to roll a political change onwards. At the moment elections are aimed at the swing voters in a handful of constituencies. AV would deliver a system that is still unfair and still rigged by vested interests, but it would mean that campaigns have to appeal to a wider group of people. |
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
