|
Post by Shrewed on Mar 28, 2011 18:19:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 28, 2011 18:26:38 GMT 1
This is a very serious issue.
I shall decide which way to vote as soon as I find out which way Pab has voted.
|
|
|
Post by d00bie on Mar 28, 2011 18:53:11 GMT 1
Another waste of public money just like the jolly down to London on Saturday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2011 10:15:32 GMT 1
Well, if we're going to have a V referendum, I'd quite like to see Faithless and Kasabian again, but what it really needs is a few more new acts on the main stages to freshen things up a bit.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Mar 29, 2011 11:48:56 GMT 1
I think there's a special program on 5 live about this on wednesday or thursday - think they're discussing the merits and trying it out in a mock constituency to see what the effect is
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Mar 29, 2011 13:33:09 GMT 1
Not really thought about this yet, but already getting p**sed off with the anti's claiming that ordinary voters are too thick to understand AV.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Apr 9, 2011 14:48:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 9, 2011 15:14:28 GMT 1
Majority Government is decided by a race to get 50%+ of Parliament on "one side", either by pure party majority or coalition. I personally don't see why the same shouldn't be true for constituencies voting for an MP. In essence, it's still a First past the post system, but one less woefully distorted by MPs being voted in by only 1/3rd of their constituents.
AV is a method of getting 50%+ of voters to ( albeit in some cases reluctantly) get behind one candidate to represent them. People who want "Anyone but X, but hopefully Y" have a way of voting for their ideal candidate, whilst also having a chance to "block" an undesirable one.
Anyone claiming "it's beyond the common man to understand" needs a slap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2011 15:27:12 GMT 1
Vote 1 for yes, 2 for no.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 9, 2011 23:36:28 GMT 1
www.voterpower.org.uk/ Anything that holds the possibility of the Ludlow constituency being slightly less Tory than Czarist Russia has got to be a good thing. The expense thing is a complete non-sequitar. The system keeps single member constituencies and ensures that the elected member has 50% support of votes/preferences cast. We must remember that it is not too long ago that it was being expounded that a failure to vote against strike action should be counted has a vote against strike action. The important thing with this system is that you only have to express a preference for candidates who you want to, i.e. it isn't a closed list where you have to express a preference for all candidates. This means that AV cannot provide a leg up to extreme parties who do not seek to appeal to the middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by shrewroo on Apr 10, 2011 2:06:39 GMT 1
I think this calls for talks with the tallest MP in Shrewsbury, big Danny K. His opinion on the subject is well worth sharing imo
|
|
|
Post by shrewroo on Apr 10, 2011 2:07:34 GMT 1
PS, can we get an economic evaluation of this situation please Sean?
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Apr 10, 2011 10:04:26 GMT 1
Daniel Kzxxzzxksykyzxswyzxywsyzxsw saying he's not for it can be summed up thus...
'Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...'
I'm a deffo yes by the way...
|
|
|
Post by shrew54 on Apr 10, 2011 11:29:22 GMT 1
The two big parties won't really want AV because it will reduce the number of their MP's because of the way the constituencies are constructed.
This has got to be a fairer system than first past the post, which can be won by a small share of the vote.
To say that people won't understand it is an insult
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2011 13:57:42 GMT 1
This is a very serious issue. I shall decide which way to vote as soon as I find out which way Pab has voted. Ah bugger, that was going to be my approach. Seriously though, I will be voting against a v . Anything that gives the lib dems more influence in our polical system cannot be regarded as a good thing in my opinion. After this display I will be quite happy to see them rot in the political wilderness for another century.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 10, 2011 14:16:23 GMT 1
After this display I will be quite happy to see them rot in the political wilderness for another century. Which is precisely what Tories say about Labour, and Labour say about Tories. So, go with AV, and let 'em all get squeaky sphincters. The absolute majorities in Parliament rarely reflect an absolute majority in the minds of the people who end up placing them there. "VOTE LABOUR IF YOU DON'T WANT A TORY IN CHARGE" and vice versa has to stop as a campaigning line/threat. People should support their own, not fear the alternative.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 10, 2011 17:58:23 GMT 1
Interesting point Grinfish, having thought about it I have decided no to AV.
To have any vote used more than once does not to me seem right.
Our current system is not at fault for the Labour - Tory monopoly the voters are. Finally AV is not exactly favoured in 99% of the world either.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Apr 10, 2011 19:06:32 GMT 1
No need for a referendum, I watched AV this afternoon and they were s**te - HOULIER OUT !
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 10, 2011 19:48:11 GMT 1
Finally AV is not exactly favoured in 99% of the world either. It is used in Tory party leadership elections though
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Apr 10, 2011 19:58:32 GMT 1
No for me, throws upfar too many imponderables
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 10, 2011 20:01:53 GMT 1
No need for a referendum, I watched AV this afternoon and they were s**te - HOULIER OUT ! Are you sure it was Villa? Easy to confuse teams with similar colour schemes
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 10, 2011 20:17:58 GMT 1
Finally AV is not exactly favoured in 99% of the world either. It is used in Tory party leadership elections though Absolute tosh...we use the "Smarmiest Detector" to decide our next let down !
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 10, 2011 22:21:19 GMT 1
PS, can we get an economic evaluation of this situation please Sean? We're going to hell in a hand cart. And that isn't/wasn't dependent on who's in government as the origins of the economic crisis are in the private sector rather than the public sector. The problem remains the extent of private sector debt not public sector debt. Most particularly the debt burden on financial companies. As indicated in the minimum wage thread there expectation is (and has to be) that private household indebtedness increases as a multiple of household income. This is probably seen, in the absurd counter logic of these times, as a sign of a return to health, as currently the banks aren't lending because many f them are in fact insolvent. The bank commission reports tomorrow. Extremely moderate recommendations that will be fought tooth and nail by the banks. In fact nothing like getting your retaliation in first: www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1375286/Banks-warn-industry-shake-hurt-customers.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlIf the recommendations confined themselves only to issues of seeking to make banking failures less likely then it will have failed. It is in the nature of these risks that they are not predictable (at least not widely) and so prevention will focus on preventing the last crisis happening again. On brighter news there are at least a people who will not bend their knee to the overwhelming power of international financial capital: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13029210As the article suggests the democratic will of the Icelandic people is not likely to carry weight, as bigger countries who more readily (and cravenly) accept the position of private profits and public losses will use the courts, but the point had to be made. Do the sums: £168m divided by a population of 300,000. Iceland, of course, provides a very important pointer to the future: Can you let your private banks and survive? Yes you can. It's situation today is far better than Ireland's because of the decision to let failed private banks go. Banks need to take note of this and ensure that they continue to lobby political parties and make political donations. Also I note that Steve Keen, the Australian economist responsible for the Debtflation website, is in London in mid June. Back on the subject of AV - your vote is only used once. Make sure it's used as the City votes every day.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 11, 2011 9:05:53 GMT 1
I quite like the idea of AV but am not really sure what good it will do part from increase lib dem support.
Shrewsbury (until a disastrous recent candidate) was always a two horse race between labour and the tories.
all the tories will vote blue then yellow to avoid red.
All labour will vote red then yellow to avoid blue.
With that in mind we could get a Lib Dem MP who is nothing more than a protest vote, and I don't think that strengthens the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2011 9:21:19 GMT 1
All labour will vote red then yellow to avoid blue. . Up until the last election i would say that was pretty accurate, i think it may be seen rather different now and cant imagine many true Labour supporters voting for New Tories. Personally if i cant find something else on the ballott paper that appeals to my biased political dogma i will leave it blank.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 11, 2011 9:32:31 GMT 1
Personally if i cant find something else on the ballott paper that appeals to my biased political dogma i will leave it blank. Which will have exactly the same result as ticking Blue.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 11, 2011 10:35:50 GMT 1
Whatever the outcome the candidate will have 50% plus support of constituents who voted. The choice of candidate available is a party political choice - if only we had open primaries. Having not voted Tory in my life, not voted Labour for a number of years and knowing I will not vote for Liberal Democrat for the foreseeable future then my own personal choice will be quite limited.
Latest economic news: UK public debt interest payments are 30% lower than when Labour won the election in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 11, 2011 18:55:35 GMT 1
OK, I surrender. Any argument For AV can't compete with a political broadcast starring Alan B'Stard.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 11, 2011 19:46:03 GMT 1
Had an anti AV leaflet through the door today.
Their objections seem to be:
- It's complicated what with voters being unable to count. - it could let in the LibDems, that wouldn't happen under first past the post. - elections should be like a foot race. - politicians won't keep promises, which also doesn't happen with FPTP. - it costs money.
Looking forward to receiving the pro AV literature in the hope that their arguments are a little less lame brained.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Apr 11, 2011 20:09:22 GMT 1
Just seen the No to AV ad on tv which seemed to be suggesting the great british public are a load of dim witted idiots who won't grasp the idea of listing candidates in order of preference - which seems a bit of an iffy argument
My worry with AV is the Wagner factor, where by the British public decide to keep someone in the show for a bit of a laugh, despite very little evidence of any talent.
|
|