The Politics Thread

[thebish]

the other advantage of the AV system is that I can vote with "heart" and "head"

in other words - if, locally, I actually want the Labour candidate to win - but know that she hasn't got a cat-in-hell's chance - I can actually vote for her as first choice (heart) - and THEN vote for the (head) candidate that I know has got the best chance of ousting the tories...

as Bruce points out - if I want to - I can still treat it as FPTP - and only vote for one candidate - BUT - then, if I choose, I can vote in a more defined way - in other words, I have more choice - which I like.

can it really be right for the majority of MPs to have had more than 50% of their constituents voting against them? ie - for MOST currently sitting MPs, MOST of their constituents didn't want them.

Aye but Bish, if the choices were (hypothetically)

Labour
Lib Dem
Tory
BNP

What you going to do then? Use your one vote accepting that others will use a second and third and effectively have "more of a say" than you.

Or use all three and vote for the lesser of the evils?

I'm really not convinced by this at all. What you've just described is my worst fear. That elections become a tactical thing that only 10% of the population truly understand the implication of their votes.

Right now its fairly simple in that you vote for the party you want to run the country (in most cases thats how folk vote, lets not kid ourselves). Introduce tictacs and head vs heart, and really you've got a lot of fairly uninterested folk who are already a bit confused by it all, being even more confused as to whether they should vote Lib Dem as second choice, or not at all, or give it to the socialist workers party because they can't win and then what about the third vote, oh sod it I'll just vote once. Then all of a sudden you could have an election decided by a minority of second and third votes!

I don't believe that is true at all, not since politics stopped being a simple 2-party affair.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't like AV, I think its a compromise.

But first past the post is not in any way more representitive of people's wishes. The Liberals lose out massively, being second in most constituencies. Extrapolated across the country, their share of the vote should get them about 100 more seats, if it reflected people's desire for the "party you want to run the country".

As it happens, I wish they'd shelve all this 'til a more appropriate moment, then go for a vote on PR. Gets my vote.

[thebish]

I don't like AV, I think its a compromise.

But first past the post is not in any way more representitive of people's wishes. The Liberals lose out massively, being second in most constituencies. Extrapolated across the country, their share of the vote should get them about 100 more seats, if it reflected people's desire for the "party you want to run the country".

As it happens, I wish they'd shelve all this 'til a more appropriate moment, then go for a vote on PR. Gets my vote.

indeed - but that's not what's on offer (and won't be)! so - YES or NO?

(not even Clegg likes AV, remember, it is nobody's first choice - but a choice imposed by the tories because it is easier to throw mud at)

[Bruce Rioja]

Not sure if this helps anyone. Taken from an article in this evening's MEN.

YES:

COMIC Eddie Izzard has urged voters to back the campaign to change the way MPs are elected.

Izzard, one of the celebrity faces behind the Yes campaign, visited Manchester’s People’s History Museum, which tells the story of how British democracy evolved over the last 200 years.

The funnyman said: "This is a historic opportunity to make our system fairer. So hopefully people will take the opportunity and make their vote count. I think it is a situation where people might not have found the issue fantastically interesting but I think it is really important.

"At a time where there has been such discontent over MPs, it would get rid of the idea of seat seats and make the people we elect more accountable."

With just days to go before voters go to the polls, Izzard has embarked on a tour of 18 cities to drum up support for reform.

Celebrities such as Jonathan Ross and Colin Firth have also joined the debate. But Izzard acknowledged the public are wary of celebrities who wade into politics. He said: "I would argue that people should be judged with what they do with their lives, and whether that adds up to something."

The referendum will ask whether the current first-past-the-post system, where the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, should be ditched.

Instead, reformers say MPs should be elected using the alternative vote system, where the public rank candidates by order of preference.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NO:





RIVAL politicians patched up their differences to fight against the shake-up of the voting system.

Labour MPs Tony Lloyd and Graham Stringer stood side by side with Trafford council's former Tory leader, Susan Williams, as part of a No to AV campaign.

To make their point, the politicians and their supporters boarded a double-decker ‘battle bus’ before taking a spin around Manchester city centre.

The unlikely alliance reflects how Thursday’s referendum has split the political parties, seeing unusual partnerships forged. Quizzed whether the two largest parties had the most to lose by the proposed electoral reform, Mr Lloyd said: "This is not about protecting vested interests.

"We believe the current way of voting for MPs is the fairest and delivers strong government and strong opposition."

Ms Williams, who unsuccessfully stood for a seat in Bolton during last year’s general election, said: "In my view, the first-past-the-post system we have is the fairest system in the world.

"I might have won at the election under AV, but I still feel strongly that it is not the best way of reflecting what the electorate wants."

Senior figures in different parties have thrown their weight behind the rival campaigns, with Labour’s John Reid lobbying against reform in opposition to party leader, Ed Miliband.

[Lofthouse Lower]

funnyman? Eddie Izzard?

[thebish]

Bruce - there has been a lot of pettifogging and (worse) downright misinformation, scaremongering and (indeed) lying by both camps during the campaign...

you might find this site helpful:

http://fullfact.org/AV_referendum

it examines the claims and counterclaims and lays out precisely how it would and would not work...

[Little Green Man]

I don't like AV, I think its a compromise.

But first past the post is not in any way more representitive of people's wishes. The Liberals lose out massively, being second in most constituencies. Extrapolated across the country, their share of the vote should get them about 100 more seats, if it reflected people's desire for the "party you want to run the country".

As it happens, I wish they'd shelve all this 'til a more appropriate moment, then go for a vote on PR. Gets my vote.

indeed - but that's not what's on offer (and won't be)! so - YES or NO?

(not even Clegg likes AV, remember, it is nobody's first choice - but a choice imposed by the tories because it is easier to throw mud at)

Double indeed. And if the dinosaurs in the Tory and Labour No camp win the vote they'll say that it proves that voting reform is not wanted and it'll be off the agenda for a generation. For that reason alone I'll be voting for AV as a protest against the current system.

(And yes, that means the neighbours have kindly vacated my part of the electoral register.)

[Bruce Rioja]

Bruce - there has been a lot of pettifogging and (worse) downright misinformation, scaremongering and (indeed) lying by both camps during the campaign...

you might find this site helpful:

http://fullfact.org/AV_referendum

it examines the claims and counterclaims and lays out precisely how it would and would not work...

Cheers, Bish. That contained a lot of the guff that I thought it might.

[Athers]

Can't believe it's come to this to decide how we elect our government.



Such a load of utter shite on TV from the NO2AV campaign though.

[Verbal]

There's been some terrible poster, leafleting and TV campaigns from both sides.

[Armchair Wanderer]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

[thebish]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

hmmm.... but what is better..

1. an MP who 40% wanted - and 60% specifically didn't

or

2. and MP who 30% wanted, 30% don't mind, 8% can live with and 32% specifically didn't

it's the latter for me...

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

hmmm.... but what is better..

1. an MP who 40% wanted - and 60% specifically didn't

or

2. and MP who 30% wanted, 30% don't mind, 8% can live with and 32% specifically didn't

it's the latter for me...

Fairly irrelevant as apparently "yes" has no chance of winning.

Which is not surprising considering how poor the campaign has been.

Cameron has done a good job of offering the olive branch letting Clegg grab it then stamping all over it and whistling and pointing elsewhere so that nobody notices!

[thebish]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

hmmm.... but what is better..

1. an MP who 40% wanted - and 60% specifically didn't

or

2. and MP who 30% wanted, 30% don't mind, 8% can live with and 32% specifically didn't

it's the latter for me...

Fairly irrelevant as apparently "yes" has no chance of winning.

not really - in the context of a thread where we have been asked which way we will vote and why...

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't like the fact that the 2nd,3rd and 4th votes would have the same value as the 1st votes.

If you are 80% of people's 2nd/3rd/4th choice it doesn't mean that 80% of people have voted for you, well it would do, but it shouldn't.

hmmm.... but what is better..

1. an MP who 40% wanted - and 60% specifically didn't

or

2. and MP who 30% wanted, 30% don't mind, 8% can live with and 32% specifically didn't

it's the latter for me...

Fairly irrelevant as apparently "yes" has no chance of winning.

not really - in the context of a thread where we have been asked which way we will vote and why...

Yeah sorry bad choice of words! I just meant the choice seems fairly irrelevant now. Which is a shame as you're argument compelled me to vote yes. Which I will, but doubt it'll make any difference!

[thebish]

Yeah sorry bad choice of words! I just meant the choice seems fairly irrelevant now. Which is a shame as you're argument compelled me to vote yes. Which I will, but doubt it'll make any difference!

probably not... and that will mean that there will be no electoral reform in my lifetime...

it'll be interesting to see what it does to the lib dems...

on friday morning Cameron will be beaming over the AV vote, Miliband will be beaming over large council seat gains... Clegg - well... hmmmm... will have lost hundreds of councillors, lost the AV vote and will have a very grumpy Chris Huhne on his hands who sounds like he's positioning himself for a leadership challenge - maybe not now, but sometime not too far off, I don't think it's too outlandish to imagine ourselves back in what will essentially be a 2-party system...

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah sorry bad choice of words! I just meant the choice seems fairly irrelevant now. Which is a shame as you're argument compelled me to vote yes. Which I will, but doubt it'll make any difference!

probably not... and that will mean that there will be no electoral reform in my lifetime...

it'll be interesting to see what it does to the lib dems...

on friday morning Cameron will be beaming over the AV vote, Miliband will be beaming over large council seat gains... Clegg - well... hmmmm... will have lost hundreds of councillors, lost the AV vote and will have a very grumpy Chris Huhne on his hands who sounds like he's positioning himself for a leadership challenge - maybe not now, but sometime not too far off, I don't think it's too outlandish to imagine ourselves back in what will essentially be a 2-party system...

Indeed. Though reports this morning suggest Labour might not gain as much as might have been expected.

Which actually isn't too much of a surprise probably take another 12 months before people are really riled into a protest vote.

[Armchair Wanderer]

Yeah sorry bad choice of words! I just meant the choice seems fairly irrelevant now. Which is a shame as you're argument compelled me to vote yes. Which I will, but doubt it'll make any difference!

probably not... and that will mean that there will be no electoral reform in my lifetime...

it'll be interesting to see what it does to the lib dems...

on friday morning Cameron will be beaming over the AV vote, Miliband will be beaming over large council seat gains... Clegg - well... hmmmm... will have lost hundreds of councillors, lost the AV vote and will have a very grumpy Chris Huhne on his hands who sounds like he's positioning himself for a leadership challenge - maybe not now, but sometime not too far off, I don't think it's too outlandish to imagine ourselves back in what will essentially be a 2-party system...

I have sympathy with AV. Maybe it's a better system. Who can say!?

I was shaving this morning thinking about some different situations, what happened last time and what would happen under AV. In the 2 or 3 case studies in my head the lib dems benefitted in all of them.

Here for example, usually a safe labour seat, in 2010 labour had a slim majority over lib dems. With AV you'd be asking the 1,000 or so conservative voters to pick a winner. You'd think that the conservative voters would have libdems as a #2, as would labour voters, as would greens probably.

The lib dems are everyone's favourite 2nd party. It doesn't mean that anyone actually really wants them in government. It's like Blackpool being everyone's 2nd favourite team this year, it's only because they're no threat to anyone and Ian Holloway is quite funny.

[Lofthouse Lower]

I was shaving this morning and was thinking of Scarlett Johansson's tits

[thebish]

a completely different track...

I am not suggesting any of these incidents are directly related - but it is striking me how often this happens:

summat happens that might be controversial or "big news" - and a quick statement is made widely available that heavily hints at or directly describes what "happened". This gains all the initial publicity while the story is "hot" and becomes the most widespread version of what happened. Then, a couple of days later, a corrected version emerges when some of the heat has died down - often quite the opposite of what was originally stated or heavily hinted at.

some examples..

1. Ian Tomlinson. First we were told that he was a direct threat to the police who acted in self defense with reasonable force and that there is no case to answer. Later, the police officer involved tells us that Tomlinson was no threat and was walking away with no weapon.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes. First we are told that he leapt over ticket barriers in an obviously suspicious manner. Later this is revised to - he bought a ticket and proceeded through the barrier like anyone else.

3. Libya. First we are told that there will be no ground troops going in and this is a very strictly limited air operation in protection of civilians. Later we are told there will be forces on the ground and that we are effectively acting as the opposition air-force.

4. Bin Laden. First we are told that he was shot as he was a threat to American troops and that he used his wife as a human shield. Later we are told that he was in fact unarmed and did not use his wife as a human shield.


now - of course information can be confused in today's news-hungry media world - but it does seem to me that ALLOWING misinformation to spread shortly after an event without correcting it (even if not yourself in as many words saying it) or cleverly hinting at a scenario which you can later deny, IS a news-management tactic being used in many places...

I, for one, am now very wary of believing the FIRST official report of an incident that emerges - it is very often not the most accurate...