UK AV Referendum Poll

[Leftbehind]

The assumption that electoral reform must be a boon to the Left (however defined) and damaging to the Tories is based on assumptions about the political views of long-term Centre voters that, with certain important exceptions (like the decade after Black Wednesday), are based more on wishful thinking than much else.

You're right that AV wouldn't have been a help to the Left in '83 (disgustingly), but PR would've. Post-Foot, PR would've helped the Left enormously, even now when the Left's united there's no guarantee it'll do any good because there's no assurances that we'll get a left-of-centre platform from Labour.

[Swedish Cheese]

and Thatcher's majorities would have been smaller for sure.

Such was the dream of the more constitutional-minded elements of the intellectual Left during the period. But I don't think so. How many Alliance voters would have second Pref'd scary, scary Michael Foot-led Labour in 1983? Quite a few who switched (SDPward, regardless of the candidate in their constituency) from Labour, probably. Despite everything. But how many long-term Liberal supporters? Almost certainly sod all. The assumption that electoral reform must be a boon to the Left (however defined) and damaging to the Tories is based on assumptions about the political views of long-term Centre voters that, with certain important exceptions (like the decade after Black Wednesday), are based more on wishful thinking than much else.

Personally I don't think there should be a referendum on the issue at all.

Ah of course, but I'm not saying Thatcher would have been defeated, or that 1983 would even have been close with AV, as I'm not a member of the group of people who think all Allince voters would unanimosly have second-prefered Labour, I still believe that there wouldn't have been a Conservative landslide. 

But I agree that it's silly to believe that Electoral Reform or AV would benefit the left more than the right.   

[You kip if you want to...]

The assumption that the Alliance would've all preferenced Labour is stupid. The Liberals are Tory inclined, the SDP (the "Democrats" of today) were Labour inclined. To put it simplistically.

[Joe Republic]

The assumption that the Alliance would've all preferenced Labour is stupid. The Liberals are Tory inclined, the SDP (the "Democrats" of today) were Labour inclined. To put it simplistically.

Thankfully nobody here said otherwise.

[Јas]

Why so tight? Turnout differential with the Scottish and NI elections might help yes a bit compared to the polling, but really this thing ought to be over.

Just on the NI point, it will be interesting to see the results, but I'm not sure it can be presumed how NI will vote.

DUP and UUP are against AV.
SDLP, SF and Alliance are in favour.

Not that I have any idea how the party positions will impact upon things as it doesn't seem to be a campaign the parties are particularly concerned about.

[Leftbehind]

That's weird, considering how splintered the unionist vote is I'd presumed they'd support it - obviously not.

But I agree that it's silly to believe that Electoral Reform or AV would benefit the left more than the right.

I disagree simply because the Left has not been represented anywhere near the amount it should've been since the 70's. AV wouldn't, I agree, but proper electoral reform to a proportional system would've massively helped the Left for the past 30 years.

[Vasall des Midas]

That's weird, considering how splintered the unionist vote is I'd presumed they'd support it - obviously not.

What they really want is province-wide winner-take-all.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

That's weird, considering how splintered the unionist vote is I'd presumed they'd support it - obviously not.

They seem to be playing a game of political chicken in which wishes to be the only Unionist party.

[Јas]

That's weird, considering how splintered the unionist vote is I'd presumed they'd support it - obviously not.

See Lewis's comment.

See also the comments by Mark Durkan (SDLP) from the AV Bill debate, on FPTP encouraging the maintenance of a sectarian electoral divide for Westminster elections in NI.

On the proposed referendum on AV, I made it clear when the House debated proposals from the Labour Government that AV would not be the SDLP's first preference, because we believe in the single transferable vote system. However, we agree that AV would be much better than the first-past-the-post system, which-in the particular context of Northern Ireland-traps us into sustaining sectarian impulses in Westminster elections. We have sectarian pacts. When the Tories announced that they were coming to Northern Ireland, they said that they would be no part of sectarian pacts and would go for cross-community votes, but they caved in and, under the pressure of Northern Ireland politics as induced by the first-past-the-post system, they entered into a sectarian pact with Unionist parties. That in turn led to pressure on my party-which we resisted, but we paid a price for doing so-to engage in a sectarian pact with Sinn Fein.

If people are serious about supporting the ethic of the Good Friday agreement and a new politics in Northern Ireland, they will recognise that allowing Northern Ireland to move to AV would help to complete the transition to normal politics that the agreement envisaged. Let us be free from the traps of the past that the first-past-the-post system imposes on Northern Ireland and let all people in the United Kingdom have a fuller say in who their MP is

[You kip if you want to...]

Clegg brands NO as a "nasty, right wing clique." I'm sure he'd know a thing or two about right wing cliques.

[Joe Republic]

So another of the No campaign's arguments is that AV could lead to more votes for the BNP.  I guess democracy truly must be terrible in their eyes.  (Unless it's just fear-mongering propaganda, of course...)

[You kip if you want to...]

Huhne posturing about resignation about the whole £250 million election machine claim.

...Wouldn't do the same about universities or the NHS? I guess that's the LibDem attitude all over.

Any resignation would probably be so he could challenge Clegg anyway.

[Vasall des Midas]

Clegg brands NO as a "nasty, right wing clique." I'm sure he'd know a thing or two about right wing cliques.

He does and he's right.

[You kip if you want to...]

Clegg brands NO as a "nasty, right wing clique." I'm sure he'd know a thing or two about right wing cliques.

He does and he's right.

John Prescott would have a stroke if he read that.

[I left.]

So another of the No campaign's arguments is that AV could lead to more votes for the BNP.  I guess democracy truly must be terrible in their eyes.  (Unless it's just fear-mongering propaganda, of course...)

What's ironic (beside the fact that you're entirely right) is that the BNP is far less likely to actually win a seat under AV than under FPTP.

[Californian Tony]

Clegg brands NO as a "nasty, right wing clique." I'm sure he'd know a thing or two about right wing cliques.

Sadly, the clique is not only "right-wing".

[Vasall des Midas]

So another of the No campaign's arguments is that AV could lead to more votes for the BNP.  I guess democracy truly must be terrible in their eyes.  (Unless it's just fear-mongering propaganda, of course...)

What's ironic (beside the fact that you're entirely right) is that the BNP is far less likely to actually win a seat under AV than under FPTP.

Quite. They actually have a reason to be opposed, beyond kneejerk reaction.
Well, if you assume that what happens at Westminster is likely to be reduplicated in local elections. How many BNP local wins would have happened with AV, I wonder? Not many.

[You kip if you want to...]

As the nation moves into Royal Wedding fever, i'm assuming that most campaigning for the referendum is a bit moot now, so the new "Harm Cameron/Osbourne" approach of the Yes camp and Mandy's intervention is really too late... Competition for news space will be too fierce and the Tory media are hardly gonna be scrambling to give Yes-ers a big voice (no one reads The Guardian).

Referendum? What referendum?

[You kip if you want to...]

A third poll showing No leading by 58 to 42:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43873/conservative-voters-propel-no-to-new-heights-in-british-referendum/

[Sibboleth]

How many BNP local wins would have happened with AV, I wonder? Not many.

Local elections = low information elections, so more than you'd think, at least in any initial breakthrough. Less than under fptp, of course. But then they hardly won anything under fptp.

[Leftbehind]

Made all the more damning by the fact that Angus Reid were one of the last to show AV in the lead when other pollsters were signalling NO gaining the upper hand.

Interesting to see various figures come out in recent days making direct appeals to Labour voters - to vote for their partisan interest. I've watched in amazement as Clegg and his merry Orange Bookers have done their utmost to extinguish any good feeling from Labour voters - the very same voters their AV hinges upon if it's to pass. Of course when AV's future started looking bleak he dismissed it as being not all that important to him, but that's been roundly disproven as he and his colleagues battle in an unprecedented scale during this coalition for it (something that again has registered terribly to Labour voters - a battle for self-interest but not his voters or the welfare state).

Some might blame YestoAV, but I think Clegg's played a shocking hand since May last year and I think it's now simply a case of how much his miserable little compromise loses by.

[Sibboleth]

Given that the Tory leadership would have murdered their own children to form a government (slight exaggeration) he could have held out for a bit better than a referendum on a voting system that he doesn't like anyway, but the lure of getting into one of those plush ministerial cares as soon as possible was what it was. I suspect that the disappointment of the election itself may have been a factor in that, but given the LibDem incompetence during that, it's hardly an excuse.

[You kip if you want to...]

Given that the Tory leadership would have murdered their own children to form a government (slight exaggeration) he could have held out for a bit better than a referendum on a voting system that he doesn't like anyway, but the lure of getting into one of those plush ministerial cares as soon as possible was what it was. I suspect that the disappointment of the election itself may have been a factor in that, but given the LibDem incompetence during that, it's hardly an excuse.

Doesn't the story go that the Liberals tried to hold out but that mean old Scotsman resigned before he was supposed to, so negotiations fell through?

[afleitch]

Given that the Tory leadership would have murdered their own children to form a government (slight exaggeration) he could have held out for a bit better than a referendum on a voting system that he doesn't like anyway, but the lure of getting into one of those plush ministerial cares as soon as possible was what it was. I suspect that the disappointment of the election itself may have been a factor in that, but given the LibDem incompetence during that, it's hardly an excuse.

Doesn't the story go that the Liberals tried to hold out but that mean old Scotsman resigned before he was supposed to, so negotiations fell through?

From Charles Kennedy;

"I admit that this coalition wasn’t exactly my preferred option. I’ve always considered myself in the reforming, centre-left tradition, so a centre-right arrangement puts my compass in a spin … But those of us who genuinely wanted to explore other routes—from a rainbow coalition to a minority tory administration— were sunk when figures like David Blunkett and John Reid were so against it. I’m in no doubt that a sizeable swathe within Labour were happier in the luxury of opposition, knowing how hard economically things would be. Much of their outrage at coalition decisions they would have probably taken themselves is synthetic at best."

[Leftbehind]

Given that the Tory leadership would have murdered their own children to form a government (slight exaggeration) he could have held out for a bit better than a referendum on a voting system that he doesn't like anyway, but the lure of getting into one of those plush ministerial cares as soon as possible was what it was. I suspect that the disappointment of the election itself may have been a factor in that, but given the LibDem incompetence during that, it's hardly an excuse.

Doesn't the story go that the Liberals tried to hold out but that mean old Scotsman resigned before he was supposed to, so negotiations fell through?

But why would Brown resigning force them to stop demanding a referendum (a compromise itself) on proportional voting systems in exchange for a coalition?

I think CS is absolutely right; not only was this a once in a generation opportunity simply because it threw out a rarity - a hung parliament - in which the Lib Dems held significant influence, but because the Tories were desperate to get in and there's no way they could enact half of their policies on a minority, making a coalition/C+S a must.