How will you vote on AV

[Deebank]

So now that the LibDems have lost the only real thing they wanted out of the coalition, what binds them to the Tory's now?

The irresistible attraction of Power. The Holy Grail of all politicians of whatever hue is to be in government.

I'll agree with that, but, there's no point if you haven't got a viable party anymore and everything you do in 'power' is only undermining that dwindling support.

Someone said on Any Questions last night that their only hope is to hang in there and hope to fuck that it all comes good - but it might have been Quentin Letts that said it

[Deebank]

The mood music has it that Lansley is for the high jump - no surprises there, he's worse than useless - and that a Lib Dem will get the Health ministry... Is that enough? I suspect not for most Liberals.

[Deebank]

Rawnsley picks up a few of my points in Today's Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/08/andrew-rawnsley-libdems-fury-at-tories

Quoting a leading LD:

"It was a really bloody stupid thing for Cameron and Osborne to do, especially when they were going to win anyway because the Yes campaign was so useless," says one very senior Lib Dem. "For the Conservatives, having asked us to make these compromises, then to attack us for making compromises, is breathtakingly hypocritical. There's bound to be payback. Some of it in unpredictable ways. David Cameron has made a big, big mistake. The coalition is going to be much less trusting. We're no longer doing business with someone whom we think is honest and decent. We're dealing with someone whom we think is Robert Maxwell."

[LMG]

Quoting a leading LD:

...We're no longer doing business with someone whom we think is honest and decent...

It really is a political party for people who know nothing about politics, isn't it? Bless them.

I am struck by how correct my old politics tutor David Miller was 30 years ago when the Gang of Four quit the Labour Part to form the SDP. He predicted a long and hard road, culminating in precisely what we have now.

He said that the moral high ground taken by minority parties only holds until they actually achieve power in coalition with one of the two main parties. Once this happens (pretty much when Miller predicted it would, in three decades' time) then they, and the electorate, are forced to face up to the grubby compromises of political life.

Clegg will be the last political leader in the UK who will be able to lord it in a political debate by pointing to the failings of the two main parties either side of him while claiming that their power is solely derived from an antiquated system which nobody wants. I hope he enjoyed himself.

History has called their bluff.

[yomptepi]

I am struck by how correct my old politics tutor David Miller was 30 years ago when the Gang of Four quit the Labour Part to form the SDP. He predicted a long and hard road, culminating in precisely what we have now.

.

I wonder if he would also have predicted how close the three main parties have become. The horrible mire of centre ground politics makes it almost impossible for them to differentiate between each other, and the only real space between them is characterised by the tribal voting patterns of the electorate.

[Diamond Dog]

The Lib Dems have got exactly what they deserve. 'Power' in a Govt they have no real say in and absolutely no chance of that improving. No chance of the electoral process changing in the next generation, and a wipeout at local elections that is a portend of their forthcoming certain electoral catastrophe in the next General Election.

Nice. When you dance with the devil, you get burnt.

[Belle Lettre]

It was more like crawling up the devil's arse.

[Rated B]

In any two horse political race, it is damned near impossible to poll less than 40% of the vote. You have to be spectacularly inept or obscenely unpopular to drop below this figure. For example, no Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate in recent US history has fallen this far. Even Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis – all famous for being electorally destroyed – managed to outscore the woeful YES percentage handsomely.

From: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=8107

[Thesiger]

In any two horse political race, it is damned near impossible to poll less than 40% of the vote. You have to be spectacularly inept or obscenely unpopular to drop below this figure. For example, no Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate in recent US history has fallen this far. Even Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis – all famous for being electorally destroyed – managed to outscore the woeful YES percentage handsomely.

From: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=8107

That was a good article. It was self-searching, honest and analytical.

Presumably the youth of the author prevents his from being aware that in the only other national referendum previously held in the UK (the EU Vote of 1975) the results were Yes; 67.2% - No: 32.8%. i.e precisely the same 'damned near impossible' polling percentages as this time.

[Deebank]

In any two horse political race, it is damned near impossible to poll less than 40% of the vote.

This statement is idiotic.

[Rated B]

Apart from the examples, you mean? Then you'll probably want to take that up with the person who actually wrote the article, deary...

[Deebank]

Apart from the examples, you mean? Then you'll probably want to take that up with the person who actually wrote the article, deary...

Well, I know that!

He actually makes some valid points, but it's so wrapped up in a sneery 'I hate you sandle-wearing, yoghurt-knitting, middle class Guardian readers' way that it just makes me want to pick at it until it falls apart.

What I think it boils down to is that I don't think people could be arsed on the whole with the faff of a new electoral system.

[Diamond Dog]

Apart from the examples, you mean? Then you'll probably want to take that up with the person who actually wrote the article, deary...

Well, I know that!

He actually makes some valid points, but it's so wrapped up in a sneery 'I hate you sandle-wearing, yoghurt-knitting, middle class Guardian readers' way that it just makes me want to pick at it until it falls apart.

What I think it boils down to is that I don't think people could be arsed on the whole with the faff of a new electoral system.

I think the premise of the article is correct - it was vote of the electorate, aimed (through an appallingly arrogant and/or misguided campaign) at a tiny minority of it. Whether the YES vote will ever get their head around that, I very much doubt (as, indeed, the article implies). Simple facts are that I don't recall one single argument to encourage those that were undecided to vote YES. And that being the case, the status quo (ie-NO) was always going to win - because people, generally, don't like change for changes sake... and the lack of any coherent debate from the change (ie-YES) campaign made it seem like a YES vote was going to voting for change for changes sake.

[Rated B]

He actually makes some valid points, but it's so wrapped up in a sneery 'I hate you sandle-wearing, yoghurt-knitting, middle class Guardian readers' way that it just makes me want to pick at it until it falls apart.

She, I think you'll find...

The only good I can think of out of this is the death of the Wiberal Party. Considering that bunch of wankers and the idiocy of their support, personally I can understand virtually any amount of sneering. And there's more than enough in the article that is absolutely bang-on to justify that, which I'm guessing is why that's all you can find to criticise.

Don't worry, the pain of not getting your lip service vote will pass and you'll forget all about that silly gold party logo. One day.

[Deebank]

Don't worry, the pain of not getting your lip service vote will pass and you'll forget all about that silly gold party logo. One day.

No, I'm with you on this one, fuck 'em, I know them of old - In my student days they consistently voted with the tories and called anyone who disagreed with them a 'trot' (as it goes I was more than happy to be labelled a trotskyist).

And while I think the voting system needs reform, it was almost worth the drubbing of the Yes campaign to see the LDs squirm as their one chance went up in smoke.

I note that even after all the shit they've taken, they're still preparing to shoot down Labour's proposed Health amendments

[Rated B]

Right, ok. I'll stop being quite so aggressive now.

Sorry, I'm hunting Wiberals.

I am, quite frankly, incredulous about the liberal reaction to all of this. Did you hear Clegg on the news on Friday night? He basically said that they haven't made enough noise about all the good they've done and blamed the public for not having the wit to understand the value of he and his cronies.

Fuck you, you snotty, little cunt. You'll go down in history as the man who almost single-handedly destroyed a political party by getting them into power, you div. And you're the clever one? Yeah.

And Cable on Radio 4 on Saturday mornign was just as bad. Let it go, guys. Everyone who cares knows what you are now. Apart from the central office guys you know personally, no one will support your party again for a generation.

Therein for me lies a huge part of the problem with the AV referendum. Anyone can see the voting system and parliamentary setup in this country is well past its prime and in serious need of modernisation in order to bring a useful democracy to the people of the country. But until this is no longer a partisan, party political issue, it's never going to happen in a meaningful, useful way. Like everything else, it became a ground for people to nail their tribal colours to. And we know how good that is.

Not even outright, blatant lies or being associated with the BNP could put off the No campaign voters who are scared of change, scared of threats to their perceived safety and surely scared of anything that might rock the boat and upset their betters.

Cunts. Stupid, idiotic, past it cunts.

But that generation is dying. This vote will come again (although probably not for AV, and not soon), and next time, it'll be worth more because it won't be brought to try and save a dying party's promise.

[Deebank]

The areas that voted yes (all ten of them ) were interesting.

Mainly London - with a split between the poor east end and Guardianista strongholds like Islington; but also Oxford and Cambridge, Glasgow and Edinburgh

[Corporate whore]

Reasonable analysis I found whilst surfing for the ten....

Without having spent too much time studying the demographics, I think its actually quite straightforward:

Four are counting areas with high and concentrated student populations – Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow Kelvin and Edinburgh Central. Yes to AV put a lot of effort into getting the student vote out and in those areas they wouldn’t have been out-voted by older opponents in the way they were in some other places.

Other areas with large student populations produced strong or near-miss yes votes: Brighton and Hove, Norwich, Bristol, other parts of Glasgow, Cardiff Central and Arfon (Bangor University).

In addition I suspect there were actually some constituencies that voted yes in Northern Ireland but which were concealed by only the overall total being announced, which was significantly less anti AV than the UK overall: because of student Yes votes and the support of Sinn Fein, the SDLP and the Alliance Party for a yes vote.

There is also probably some truth in my suspicion that areas that had used PR of one sort or another were less hostile than those that hadn’t – and which could be more easily scared by the lies of the No campaign and the Daily Mail.

The other areas were London boroughs and I strongly suspect that the active support of people like Tessa Jowell and David Lammy helped swing them, as well possibly as the backing of Operation Black Vote.

Peter Hain hit the nail on the head on R4 this morning: he wasn’t able to spend as much time as he would have wished campaigning for a Yes vote because in Neath the Welsh assembly elections were his priority. Where was the one place where there weren’t competing priorities on Thursday? Answer: London.

This is an issue where the undue inflence of Associated Newspapers and its ilk was prelevant - unfortunately no political party will have the cahones to take them on and clip their wings. There is no hope for a change in the voting system unless there is a clear advantage for the media.

The vote was never going to pass once it was clear how ambivalent Labour were going to be - too many MPs apparently prefering 'I'm alright jack'. Without any kind of opinion from the party small c conservatism is going to rule.

A missed opportunity, so heres to 10 years (at least) of an authoritarian two party state.

[the hanging monkey]

Another ten years (at least) of disenfranchisement for me. Unless I move house away from a safe seat.

[The Write Profile]

Looking at the analysis, it seems that there seemed to be a lack of coherent organisation behind the YES campaign. How fairly does that square with what happened in reality? On the one hand, a system as confusing as AV is always going to be a hard sell, even if it is more proportionate than FPP, because unlike MMP, the party vote isn't "one to one" nor can you campaign on the "best of both worlds" aspect of having both a party vote (that takes precedence) but also the opportunity to chose your own constituent.

In New Zealand, the late, great Rod Donald (who became co-leader of the Green Party) led the "vote MMP" campaign, which succeeded against an entrenched opposition with a comparably massive war-chest, partly because the general populace were more or less fed up with the radical reformism of the "big two", but mostly because they knew exactly how to sell it to even the disinterested voter. And they kept their message coherent, and simple. That said, you could argue it was the culmination, historically speaking of close to two decades' of unrest with FPP (Magilla/beenieman can fill in on the details).

Did any of this happen in the case of the UK, or did the debate become too personalised or anti-Clegg?