The Lib Dems reputation will be (even more) in the gutter by then and as it's seen as their policy I think it will fall as the public decides to punish them by voting no.
I hope I'm wrong as having AV at the next election would be a good thing for Labour.
It's far too early to speculate on how the vote will go. We don't know anything about it. We don't even know for certain what is being proposed, how it will work, what it's limitations are. Until we get some reliable information we shouldn't start drawing any conclusions over how the public intends to vote, if indeed they decide to vote.
The Lib Dems reputation will be (even more) in the gutter by then and as it's seen as their policy I think it will fall as the public decides to punish them by voting no.
I hope I'm wrong as having AV at the next election would be a good thing for Labour.
I have already heard people say they intend to do exactly that.
It will fail because:
Its not more proportional than FPTP
Its not PR Its what the LibDems want
Nobody really cares
Bzzzt! LDs want STV, not AV. AV's a miserable little compromise but it's the best the LDs could get out of the Tories (and still arguably better than FPTP, but that's an argument that could run and run and depends on one's value of "better"). It's Labour who wants AV. (Sort of, perhaps, unless it's changed again this week.)
The Lib Dems reputation will be (even more) in the gutter by then and as it's seen as their policy I think it will fall as the public decides to punish them by voting no.
I hope I'm wrong as having AV at the next election would be a good thing for Labour.
Well Ed Miliband would certainly agree with you.:D
I hope not, FPTP may not be perfect but it is rare for it to result in a hung parliament. With PR or AV you are less sure of getting what you vote for which is a single party and the policies they put to you in the election campaign, there would be more back room deals.
Bzzzt! LDs want STV, not AV. AV's a miserable little compromise but it's the best the LDs could get out of the Tories (and still arguably better than FPTP, but that's an argument that could run and run and depends on one's value of "better"). It's Labour who wants AV. (Sort of, perhaps, unless it's changed again this week.)
LibDems want AV over FPTP, I know they want STV, but they are still backing the YES vote.
People will take the opportunity to punish the lib dems.
This is the party that signed pledges that they wouldn't raise tuition fees and aimed to scrap it. A complete reversal, and blaming it on the financial situation is ridiculous since everybody knew the situation before the election because of the worldwide recession etc... After the election, the deficit was shown to be £12bn less than first thought.
And as for the pupil premium hype by Clegg today, it is utter desperation by clegg to somehow attempt to say that the lib dems are delivering on a promise in their manifesto. The actual policy in my view appears to be a gimmick and ill thought out. What will happen to surestart instead ? It seems they want to restrict it to the very very poorest people.
It's the squeezing of the middle class. And actually, the very poorest will still overall suffer the most once the full scale of cuts become clear.
I hope not, FPTP may not be perfect but it is rare for it to result in a hung parliament. With PR or AV you are less sure of getting what you vote for which is a single party and the policies they put to you in the election campaign, there would be more back room deals.
AV is not comparable with any form of PR. AV is basically a more complex version of FPTP.
The Lib Dems reputation will be (even more) in the gutter by then and as it's seen as their policy I think it will fall as the public decides to punish them by voting no.
I hope I'm wrong as having AV at the next election would be a good thing for Labour.
People will take the opportunity to punish the lib dems.
This is the party that signed pledges that they wouldn't raise tuition fees and aimed to scrap it. A complete reversal, and blaming it on the financial situation is ridiculous since everybody knew the situation before the election because of the worldwide recession etc... After the election, the deficit was shown to be £12bn less than first thought.
And as for the pupil premium hype by Clegg today, it is utter desperation by clegg to somehow attempt to say that the lib dems are delivering on a promise in their manifesto. The actual policy in my view appears to be a gimmick and ill thought out. What will happen to surestart instead ? It seems they want to restrict it to the very very poorest people.
It's the squeezing of the middle class. And actually, the very poorest will still overall suffer the most once the full scale of cuts become clear.
If this is true, it will be a day I feel sad to be British.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised really, but if people are going to vote "to punish a party" rather than on the actual pros/cons of a major voting reform, I feel sad fro the future of our country's democracy.
What's the point when people treat politics like football club rivalry? :mad:
I hope not, FPTP may not be perfect but it is rare for it to result in a hung parliament. With PR or AV you are less sure of getting what you vote for which is a single party and the policies they put to you in the election campaign, there would be more back room deals.
Can't agree with the above at all.
In a lot of European countries a coalition works great. Nothing wrong with a hung parliament.
In a lot of European countries a coalition works great. Nothing wrong with a hung parliament.
Totally agree with this. Considering FPTP generally results in two-thirds of the electorate not getting what they voted for, its benefits, as mentioned, are pretty lame.
FPTP is good for getting a government that fits an individual's position (ie. if you happened to be someone who voted for the winning party, you get everything you want), whereas STV (proper PR) doesn't tend to fulfil the total desires of indivual voters, but better represent the majority as a whole.
Our politics is too much about "which side wins" as opposed to an accurate representation of the populous as a whole. It's also to weighted towards only two political ideologies, at the expense of the rest.
Comments
Actually, I would have thought the "don't care" camp is in the lead. I've yet to hear anyone raise the topic at work or down the pub.
Personally, I'm wavering between "don't know" and "no". I'm not against voting reform, I just don't think this is the answer.
Yes I do
But a looooooooong way to go yet!
This should interest you:
http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ConstitutionSociety-AV-010910.pdf
Ah that is interesting thank you.
I hope I'm wrong as having AV at the next election would be a good thing for Labour.
I have already heard people say they intend to do exactly that.
Which is pretty daft, given that AV is Labour's policy, not the Lib Dems'.
Its not more proportional than FPTP
Its not PR
Its what the LibDems want
Nobody really cares
Bzzzt! LDs want STV, not AV. AV's a miserable little compromise but it's the best the LDs could get out of the Tories (and still arguably better than FPTP, but that's an argument that could run and run and depends on one's value of "better"). It's Labour who wants AV. (Sort of, perhaps, unless it's changed again this week.)
Well Ed Miliband would certainly agree with you.:D
He is going for a "Yes" vote.
If it fails it will be because people don't care (indeed I don't expect a good turnout).
No more need to tactical vote - and no more voting for x to keep y out.
We will also find out what people's real preferences are by their first vote - so we will see who really supports which party.
LibDems want AV over FPTP, I know they want STV, but they are still backing the YES vote.
People will take the opportunity to punish the lib dems.
This is the party that signed pledges that they wouldn't raise tuition fees and aimed to scrap it. A complete reversal, and blaming it on the financial situation is ridiculous since everybody knew the situation before the election because of the worldwide recession etc... After the election, the deficit was shown to be £12bn less than first thought.
And as for the pupil premium hype by Clegg today, it is utter desperation by clegg to somehow attempt to say that the lib dems are delivering on a promise in their manifesto. The actual policy in my view appears to be a gimmick and ill thought out. What will happen to surestart instead ? It seems they want to restrict it to the very very poorest people.
It's the squeezing of the middle class. And actually, the very poorest will still overall suffer the most once the full scale of cuts become clear.
AV is not comparable with any form of PR. AV is basically a more complex version of FPTP.
If this is true, it will be a day I feel sad to be British.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised really, but if people are going to vote "to punish a party" rather than on the actual pros/cons of a major voting reform, I feel sad fro the future of our country's democracy.
What's the point when people treat politics like football club rivalry? :mad:
Can't agree with the above at all.
In a lot of European countries a coalition works great. Nothing wrong with a hung parliament.
Totally agree with this. Considering FPTP generally results in two-thirds of the electorate not getting what they voted for, its benefits, as mentioned, are pretty lame.
FPTP is good for getting a government that fits an individual's position (ie. if you happened to be someone who voted for the winning party, you get everything you want), whereas STV (proper PR) doesn't tend to fulfil the total desires of indivual voters, but better represent the majority as a whole.
Our politics is too much about "which side wins" as opposed to an accurate representation of the populous as a whole. It's also to weighted towards only two political ideologies, at the expense of the rest.
Really don't understand why anyone supports our current system. It's biased beyond belief.
If we don't get AV, bang goes any likelihood of political reform in the forseeable future.