Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Vox populi or VI agenda?

Why London should say no to AV

Sorry, this has absolutely nothing to do with house prices but this made the front page of the Evening Sub-Standard last night and felt pretty p*ssed-off, to be honest, that they had the temerity to speak on behalf of the nation. Perhaps i'm over-reacting; who knows. Thoughts guys & gals?

Posted by sibley's b'stard child @ 09:33 AM (2295 views)
Please complete the required fields.



12 thoughts on “Vox populi or VI agenda?

  • “This referendum could be swung by fewer than a fifth of the electorate”

    Not bad, when you consider that under the current system, general election outcomes are determined by the votes of swing voters in marginal constituencies – little more than 1% of the electorate..

    I would have more respect for the No camp in this campaign if they didn’t resort to scare tactics and lies.

    – AV does not demand electronic voting equipment, and would add, at most, 5% on average to the admin cost of an election (- my sums)

    – Votes are not counted more than once, but are transferable if a voter’s first choice is eliminated

    There are genuine pros and cons to AV, and I’m personally sitting on the fence.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The fact that so many of the “old money” crowd hate AV suggests that it must only be a good thing for the rest of us.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Evening SUB-STANDARD………LOL.

    Have to agree, they are something of a completely shit Vested Interest, never post your bearish comments rag

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Just about every argument the pro-FPTP crowd has come up with was either a straightforward LIE, an irrelevance, applies equally to FPTP and AV or is a CONTRADICTION.

    LIES

    1. “only three countries use AV”, it’s far more than that (see e.g. London Mayor election), further, what they don’t mention is that less than half of elections around the world are under FPTP and half use some form of PR.

    2. “AV will lead to more coalition governments than FPTP”. Ahem, and their point is? Are they saying that coalitions are A Bad Thing, in which case, why are they in one?

    3. “AV elections are very expensive to run and need expensive counting equipment.”

    4. “BNP voters will have their votes counted more than once” true, but the point is that everybody’s vaote (i.e. ballot paper) is counted the same number of times. A ballot saying “Labour 1” with no second preference will be counted exactly the same number of times and have the same impact on the final result as one sayin “BNP 1, Labour 2”.

    5. “FPTP produces clear winners” well so does AV. The rules are quite simple and AV produces a winner.

    6. “People are too stupid to rank candidates” this beggars belief, no they are not and people are free to just put a “1” against their favourite candidate and leave the rest blank.

    IRRELEVANCE – David Cameron is now saying “AV isn’t very good because it’s not really PR”, well it was he himself who decided to offer us the choice between FPTP and AV. If he thinks that there is something better than AV (and there are many better systems, such as AV+) then why did he not offer us a choice between FPTP and AV+?

    APPLIES EQUALLY TO AV AND FPTP
    “AV is not properly proportional” if that’s an argument against AV then it is doubly an argument against FPTP.

    CONTRADICTIONS:
    1. AV will lead to smaller minorities and therefore to “less stable governments”. This may or may not be be true, but if we end up like Germany where they switch between Blue-Yellow and Red-Yellow coalitions, rather than swinging between extremes Red and Blue, then by and large, government in an ongoing sense will be more stable.

    2. Michael Howard then followed up this argument by saying that “If we’d had AV in 1987 or 1997, then Tory or Labour would have had a bigger majority”. Again, this may or may not be true, but it contradicts the statement number 1 he’d made five minutes previously.

    3. “AV will give extremists more power and pander to BNP” is a favourite, but then in the next breath the pro-FPTP crowd say “Candidates will become more centrist and bland”
    ———————-
    Sure, AV is far from perfect, but that’s all that’s on offer. What it will do is help smaller parties – i.e. UKIP, the ones that the pro-FPTP crowd, whom the Tories dare not mention because they know how embarrassing it will be if a lot of their MPs are only elected because ten per cent of voters put “UKIP 1, Tory 2”. And it will be good for the Greens, the Raving Monsters and all sorts of other people whose opinions matter as well.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Some ghastly reasons offered in the press/on TV to defend what I think is pretty indefensible. The worst in this article is Churchill’s oratorical remark, which perhaps even he didn’t really believe, though of course he was one of the ruling class so the opinion would be deep-rooted. The use of this piece of ancient political history shows the real reason behind the desire to retain FPTP: the preservation of the current hegemony. God knows, it’s time to modernise our political system.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • the number cruncher says:

    The vested Interests have brought out the lies because they where loosing the debate. These lies have been pumped through mainstream media in the last couple of weeks relentlessly and the sheeple are following, have you seen the latest opinion polls – the No camp is well ahead, 2 weeks of lies and misinformation have sealed their victory.

    The idea that we have democracy is in reality a lie as with the right media tools debates can be corralled and channelled to get the ‘right vote’.

    MW have you seen the lies used to attack the people budget?, and it worked, it was the biggest manipulation of popular sentiment this country has ever seen.



    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    TNC, that’s depressing, but WW1 was even worse example of VI brainwashing.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • letthemfall: Not entirely relevant to this thread or your comment but your mention of Churchill prompted a thought…. Churchill and his father before him were liberal to their core (the sentiment rather than the party) and the US republicans who idolise him would have been deeply shocked by his deeply ingrained liberal views. It’s a shame it is often assumed that anyone who was a good wartime leader, must also be bombastically right wing. I think the Tory’s have effectively highjacked his memory. He was, in fact, a Tory outcast (as was his father before him), until we needed him to beat the Hun

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    F, and of course in Churchill’s younger Liberal days, he did some wonderful speeches extolling the virtues of Land Value Tax…

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark: I think he made those speeches prior to WW1? Churchill was the epitome of landed gentry, so it’s all the more impressive that he backed a policy like LVT. I’ve scanned my memory banks and I can’t think of any Churchill reference to LVT between the wars. I imagine he was still in favour of it (he was a true liberal until his death) but I suppose he had other priorities

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • letthemfall says:

    flashman
    Yes, I’m aware of Churchill’s background, though I’m not an expert on him by any means. I don’t see him as right-wing as such, though the associations with the term have evolved since his time. He had many virtues as we know, but also some unfortunate attitudes, if not summed up at least alluded to by his statements about the voting system, his comments on Atlee (“a modest man with much to be …”), etc. Perhaps Churchill’s remark about worthless votes actually had another emphasis at the time: he is often hijacked by dubious political types these days.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Of course, no “vested interests” or lies AT ALL in the Yes camp, are there. Jesus Christ people.

    No-one’s fifth vote should be worth more than anyone’s first vote.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>