UK AV Referendum Poll

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It's preferable to FPTP, so in the choice of the two, definatley.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

This has been talked up quite a bit, but what would a 'No' vote, coupled with inevitably horrific local results actually do to Clegg's position as Leader/Deputy PM and the Liberals' position in the government?

Isn't it mostly you monologuing about it?

A bad result in the local elections (basicly a garantee by now I'd say) coupled with a No-victory on the AV-referendum could indeed lead to the end of Clegg's career. It wouldn't do the LibDems any good though. Their new leader would have to continue the coalition either way, or leave it and thus cause a general election, in which they would be destroyed (wouldn't surprise me if they lost all their seats) If they're smart they won't rock the boat, but politicians are unrational beings...

LibDems problem was building all of their support and attraction on not choosing sides. Obviously a party like that will be destoryed once they actually do choose a side.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

What an absurd ad.

Indeed. "These rather slow and dumb kids don't support AV... neither should you!" I don't see how that is a winning political message. Especially considering that AV isn't at all that complicated. Even some of the dumber trolls on here are able to figure out how STV works in Atlasia, I'm sure a majority of people in Britian are smart enough to figure out AV.

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Interesting article at
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

"Nick Clegg is toast already. Vote yes to spite David Cameron and George Osbourne!"

Probably a good thing for the Tories a lot of left-wingers like Change 08 are willing to give up electoral reform that would  probably help their party in the long run just to emberass someone who's political life is already over.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I genuinely don't like AV though. I honestly don't see how it's better than FPTP. It's less proportional and it increases government majorities, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be having. I also don't see how a No vote would stop PR in the future anymore than a Yes vote would. Let's say the referndum results in a 'yes', what future Tory or Labour administration is going to give the people PR? They've put it off for decades and decades, they certainly wouldn't change their mind on PR now whether it's a Yes or a No.

It gets rid of tactical voting and spoiled votes, and it makes sure that a party that has the support of less than half the voters can dominate politically. I don't believe AV is perfect, and I much prefer a system like our Swedish one, but it's certainly better than FPTP.

Just imagine, if France used FPTP to elect their president, they could've very well ended up with President Le Pen next year, although she'd never win under AV.

In some cases majorities would be bigger, Blair would have had an even bigger landslide in '97 for example, but not always. I could definatley see a hung parliament happening in 2005 if AV had been used back then, and Thatcher's majorities would have been smaller for sure. 

You are of course right that no matter the outcome electoral reform is dead for a generation, but if I were British, the more reason to switch to something that's at least some-what better.     

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist 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.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

To me it seems increadibly strange to use different voting systems for different levels of goverment. Of course the only variations that exist in Sweden is that County Council elections have a 3% threshold instead of a 4%, and that city council elections have no threshold at all and no evening out seats. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

ICM
68% - NO
32% - YES

People aren't just telling Nick no, they're shouting it at him.

What are they telling Miliband?

Does anyone care what Miliband thinks of this anything.

No, which is a good sign for Cameron I'd guess.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Does anyone care what Miliband thinks of this anything.

No, which is a good sign for Cameron I'd guess.

On what basis? Labour, under E-Mil, have been leading in near enough every poll this year; I doubt any Labour leader could've stopped Labour voters giving the Lib Dems a kicking,  via the AV referendum, after a year of provocation.

Ed Milliband just seems like a weak, uninspiring leader to me. From what I can tell he seems unable to catch any real media spot light, has very weak preformances during PMQs (of course much better than Nick Clegg who is beyond terrible) and the speeches I've seen from him seem mildly exciting at best.

I believe Ed has as much to do with Labour's strong polling numbers at the moment as he does with NO's poor one's. I saw the Swedish-left lead by Sahlin ahead of Reinfeldt's goverment by more than 10% in his early years, but in the end they still lost by 5% due to the fact that their strong showing in polls was built on disapproval of the Reinfeldt goverment rather than actual support for their own policies, or their own leader.

Now I'm not saying Milliband is Sahlin, she was out-right loathed while Ed seems to simply be irrelevant.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Actually Tim Pawlenty could be a good comparison. Milliband reminds me of a left-wing Tim Pawlenty with a lisp.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

@Leftbehind: I'm of course more than willing to give Ed Miliband the benefit of the doubt as he's only had a very short period as a leader. There have been several politicians I've changed my mind about and who has turned out to be quite different than they initially appeared. It's also easier to go from irrelevant to good, than from bad to good. Still I wouldn't asume that a united left due to the upcoming destruction of the LibDems will necessarily result in a Labour victory either. There are still a lot of voters who consider themselves neither left nor right, who Cameron could possibly win back. And if Ed turns out to be unpopular with the left, even if they're not going to vote for another party, there's always the option of not voting. (Far too common unfortunatley)