[sharger]

So fundamental to the LD ideology... electoral reform referendum will be opposed by Cameron according to sky news below... how does it feel to be shafted clegg? ... now clegg would you like that sideways?

David Cameron will campaign against changing the electoral system when a referendum is held, Downing Street has said.
A vote on whether the UK should change the way it elects MPs will happen in May next year, Sky News has learned.
The decision comes after the Conservative Party promised to restructure the voting system as part of its coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats.
The Lib Dems have long stood on a ticket of replacing the first-past-the-post method, which some consider simplistic and unfair.*
However, No 10 has confirmed the Prime Minister will publicly oppose the move.
Nick Clegg has hailed the vote as a "once in a generation" chance to make voting fairer - though the proposed Alternative Vote method falls well short of his party's desire for proportional representation.
"I'm hoping to make an announcement literally in a couple of days, next week," he said when asked about the timing of the referendum.
It is understood that the referendum will proceed with a route map charting possible approaches to a change in the vote structure.
Sky's chief political correspondent Jon Craig said the Government plans to hold the referendum in on the same day as local elections in May 2011.*
"This is something Nick Clegg has pushed for," Craig said.
"What happened is in the last day or so he has persuaded the rest of the Cabinet that there should be a voting system change."
But there are fears an early vote could prove highly damaging for the coalition as the Tories will campaign for a public "no" vote.
Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, who chairs a Parliamentary group supporting first-past-the-post, has already stated he will vociferously oppose changing the voting system.
"This is just something that the liberal elite of this country, a very small group, are trying to implement," he told the BBC.
Labour included a commitment to AV in its manifesto and leadership candidates David and Ed Miliband have reiterated their support for it.
Alternative Vote requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference instead of just choosing one.
If someone gets more than 50% of the vote in the first round, they are elected. If not, the candidate who came last is eliminated and voters who put them first have their "second preferences" reallocated until a candidate wins.

[NewMan]

Believe it was agreed from the outset - LibDems would get the referendum they wanted, but all parties were free to support or oppose how they wanted.

[Ed Selley]

Outside of Millibandland- a world you appear to inhabit uncritically- there are some important considerations for AV or any form of PR.

The horsetrading that preceded the formation of this current government was not viewed very positively by large amounts of people. These people had no one party allegiance but saw the negotiating as somewhat distasteful and the gap where there was no government to be awkward. This negotiation would be a necessary part of the formation of any government voted by AV/PR- I accept it is statistically possible for a one party government to form but this would not have happened in the last 60 years.
As such, any proponents of AV in the government are probably wise to defer the vote. Let's have a good look at the results of a coalition government before we vote in a system that will generally only create more of the same. On a personal level I would always rather have a government able to act with a purpose- even if I do not agree with it- than a coalition formed of multiple parties with multiple interests and the inertia that results.
Also don't forget that Lib Dem support actually declined between the elections of 2005 and 2010. The bargaining power of the Lib Dems has limits. They could cross the floor but the numbers that resulted would pretty much only have the power to call another election and- again outside of Millibandland- recently, the Tories have been polling improved results and unlike both Labour and the Lib Dems, have the money to campaign an election tomorrow. At the moment, Labour don't even have a leader.

I have to admit, this amused me;

Labour included a commitment to AV in its manifesto and leadership candidates David and Ed Miliband have reiterated their support for it.

Having watched quite a few of the hustings, I am pretty sure that David Milliband would pledge me unrestricted access to the contents of Anne Hathaway's pants if he thought it might get him a vote. His brother has achieved a measure of popularity via the age old politics of denial and the less said about the "others", the better.

Clegg is doing something that no other party leader has done in recent history. Its easy enough to criticise and there is no question that the more tie dye and sandal favouring bits of the party may desert full stop (although I can't see Labour getting many of them especially with the Greens showing it is possible to get MP's). Back on earth however many of us are happy to see a vote on AV but would quite like this test run to show results first.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by sharger

Labour included a commitment to AV in its manifesto and leadership candidates David and Ed Miliband have reiterated their support for it.

And yet the BBC's Nick Robinson writes today in his blog that they will campaign against it, because it is the Opposition's role to oppose the government !

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by bosque

And yet the BBC's Nick Robinson writes today in his blog that they will campaign against it, because it is the Opposition's role to oppose the government !

Labour back bencher's don't like it, because many feel that electoral reform will be bad for Labour.

My understanding is that the government is already committed to equalising the size of constituencies, in terms of making them all have similar numbers of voters.

This could well be devastating for Labour, in that it will be fair (current boundaries favour Labour by a monstrous margin, as those who poo pooed me for pointing this out some years ago hopefully now accept). They don't like it one bit.

[Rasczak]

We are entering a very interesting period IMHO. What will happen with the voting reform?

1) Will it get through Parliament? If Labour's vote against it are backed by some independents and Conservative rebels it may not even happen.

2) Who Will Campaign For It? It looks like the Conservatives and Labour will lead the 'no' vote. Accordingly this leaves the Lib Dems - polling around 16% - to win a 50%+ share of the vote.

3) Who Will Vote For It? With the main two parties campaigning against - and the Lib Dems weakened by their surrender on so many 'key' policies - it seems hard to imagine the British public turning out in the numbers required to support a permament Lib Dem presence in government.

...all in all a change to AV seems fair at best. And this seems re-enforced by the Conservative decision to detach boundary change and Lords reform from this referendum - these will happen regardless and probably before the referendum itself. Once these changes have been rolled in the appetite for further change may be diminished even further.

IMHO if the Lib Dems fail to win this referendum - or if it doesn't happen - they will be facing disaster. The coalition will collapse with the Lib Dems at their weakest - Labour and the Conservatives will consume their voters.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by sharger

So fundamental to the LD ideology... electoral reform referendum will be opposed by Cameron according to sky news below... how does it feel to be shafted clegg?

Erm, I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was the deal at the time.

The LDs were promised a referendum, and every opinion poll for 20 years has had more people supporting a change in the system than not, so I think it's a fair deal.

If we get AV from this (not certain but probable) and AV+ for the Lords (very likely) then AV+ for the commons will follow soon enough.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Erm, I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was the deal at the time.

True - but now a popular and established Prime Minister is standing up and saying this proposal is a bad idea whilst support by his party and the Labour Party, it makes the Lib Dems look on the fringe. Meanwhile Trident and Nuclear Power will remind the country daily that the Lib Dems can't be trusted.

It is also worth noting that the support of 'small' parties is far from guaranteed. With 31% of the vote in Brighton the Greens would almost certainly have failed to win the seat under AV. UKIP might support - but then they only polled 3% of the vote.

So a discredited Lib Dem party teams up with the UKIPs for the 'Yes' vote whilst the majority of the rest are 'No'. And a 50%+ requirement of a 50% turnout to achieve. Uphill struggle IMHO.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

True - but now a popular and established Prime Minister is standing up and saying this proposal is a bad idea whilst support by his party and the Labour Party, it makes the Lib Dems look on the fringe.

Laugh a minute.

'But now'? No, he said at the time that any tory who wanted to campaign against it could, and that he would be one of them. There's no 'but now', nothing has changed.

A 'popular and established Prime Minister'? Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

It is also worth noting that the support of 'small' parties is far from guaranteed. With 31% of the vote in Brighton the Greens would almost certainly have failed to win the seat under AV.

That statement the biggest load of tosh I've heard from you for some time, and let's face it, it's up against some stiff competition. How do you figure that one out? Lib Dems got 13.8%, Labour 28.9%. The Greens would only need to have taken 18.7% from that combined 42.7%, and you think they 'almost certainly' wouldn't? No, doubtless their second preferences would have all been Conservative.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

So a discredited Lib Dem party teams up with the UKIPs for the 'Yes' vote whilst the majority of the rest are 'No'. And a 50%+ requirement of a 50% turnout to achieve. Uphill struggle IMHO.

There's no requirement for a 50% turnout. Do us all a favour and stop making things up.

We have one tory MP today saying the total 'yes' vote needs to be over 40% of the electorate, but he's no chance of getting that into the bill, as it'd cause the coalition to crumble immediately.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

We have one tory MP today saying the total 'yes' vote needs to be over 40% of the electorate, but he's no chance of getting that into the bill, as it'd cause the coalition to crumble immediately.

Is crumbling of the coalition such bad thing? With the Lib Dems having gone all floppy on their principles - and accordingly lost much support - it would seem the ideal time for a new election. A harsh but fair budget and a Conservative government that has proved it is no Thatcherite manifestation means many of those Lib Dem marginals can now be targetted.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Is crumbling of the coalition such bad thing? With the Lib Dems having gone all floppy on their principles - and accordingly lost much support - it would seem the ideal time for a new election. A harsh but fair budget and a Conservative government that has proved it is no Thatcherite manifestation means many of those Lib Dem marginals can now be targetted.

I really don't agree, the coalition is awesome, that is all.

[PoochJD]

Hi,

Considering the only other option was another X number of years of Labour -ing up the country, the coalition was a bloody godsend!


Pooch

[Wild Weasel]

Quite so. Talking of which, I came across a word the other day that perfectly describes the Labour Party's system of government - kakistocracy

Dictionary: kak·is·toc·ra·cy

"Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens"

[Pecker]

You know the funny thing? According to those opposed to the LDs and PR, this isn't supposed to happen.

No. If we have PR we'll get perpetual coalition government, with the LDs as third party, but the most power, as the other two parties court them for government.

And yet here we are - the LDs allegedly being 'dis-honourable' in their negotiations, flipping between 1st and 2nd place partners, but they've ended up with relatively little.

It appears all those anti-PR arguments have turned out to be all that we guessed - a crock of ****. Of course, those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knew this already, based on the experiences of dozens of western liberal democracies with various forms of PR, where coalitions are balanced pretty much the same as this one, and where the larger parties are universally not campaigning for first past the post.

You’d almost think the anti-PR mob had a hidden, alternative agenda…like holding onto majority power with a minority of votes and defying the democratic will of the electorate, maybe?

Steve W

[sharger]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

Quite so. Talking of which, I came across a word the other day that perfectly describes the Labour Party's system of government - kakistocracy

Dictionary: kak·is·toc·ra·cy

"Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens"

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of them are suitably more educated than you judging by the content of the majority of your posts... and as for unprincipled don't be silly

[24fanboy]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

True - but now a popular and established Prime Minister is standing up and saying this proposal is a bad idea whilst support by his party and the Labour Party

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

And yet here we are - the LDs allegedly being 'dis-honourable' in their negotiations, flipping between 1st and 2nd place partners, but they've ended up with relatively little.

Proof positive of the low callibre nature of those in the party. They simply are not incompetent enough to represent themselves - which is why we are getting Trident and Nuclear Power Stations despite cancellation of both being the backbone of Lib Dem policy over the last decade.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Proof positive of the low callibre nature of those in the party. They simply are not incompetent enough to represent themselves...

Yes, and they eat babies, too.



Steve W

[Rasczak]

Well - Clegg has announced the plans - good to see Conservatives, Plaid Cymru, DUP, SNP and Labour all instantly condemn them. Once again we are seeing disproprtionate influence of Scotland and Wales upon England.

It was also good to see that AV was lambusted across the board as something that " would only benefit the Lib Dems" - I think this needs to be a key component of the referendum campaign. And the statement is very true: it doesn't help smaller parties, doesn't help the existing parties, doesn't help the regional parties - just the Lib Dems - a party that has gone floppy on Trident, nuclear power and now electoral reform. I think this referedum will be as much about parties sticking by what they promise as it will be about electoral reform.

Of even more interest - why did only two Lib Dems MPs get up and back Clegg? He was taking fire and yet this critical issue to their party - albeit heavily compromised to AV - wasn't even backed by his backbenchers. Could this be a rift inside the Lib Dems? Even Lib Dem Mike Hancock admits it is not something they are "enthusiastic" about. Best they get so IMHO - we the taxpayer are footing the cost of this Lib Dem indulgence - and the future (perhaps existance) of the Lib Dems hangs in the balance whilst we await the result.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Well - Clegg has announced the plans - good to see Conservatives, Plaid Cymru, DUP, SNP and Labour all instantly condemn them.

No they didn't.

Do you get fun out of making this stuff up?

They've said they don't want the referendum held on the same day as the Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish elections, but that's not condemning them.

Originally Posted by Rasczak

...the future (perhaps existance) of the Lib Dems hangs in the balance whilst we await the result.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Pecker

No they didn't.

Do you get fun out of making this stuff up?

They've said they don't want the referendum held on the same day as the Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish elections, but that's not condemning them.

Clegg's only real input to the plans was the date - and all those parties did criticise that - so my points stands. Clegg was told he could only choose AV so it is not as if he had a choice in anything but the date! And yet he still made a mess

As to your - considering the Lib Dems have compromised on just about every subject all for this referendum (and obviouly they compromised on that as well) - what future do you think the party has if they lose or if the legilsation if frustrated? Conservative 'yes' boys who lost their only 'gain' from the coalition. Even I will feel sorry for them!

[bosque]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

Clegg's only real input to the plans was the date - and all those parties did criticise that - so my points stands. Clegg was told he could only choose AV so it is not as if he had a choice in anything but the date! And yet he still made a mess

As to your - considering the Lib Dems have compromised on just about every subject all for this referendum (and obviouly they compromised on that as well) - what future do you think the party has if they lose or if the legilsation if frustrated? Conservative 'yes' boys who lost their only 'gain' from the coalition. Even I will feel sorry for them!

Their only "gain" ? Would the Tories have insisted on increasing CGT or pushed through measures which will eventually take those earning low wages out of taxation ? It's the lazy cynicism that turns a blind eye to what the Liberals have achieved which is so depressing about your posts.

[andrew markwort]

Sharger, I've read several of your posts and I can't decide whether you are:

(1) operating a cunning double bluff - you are really a passionate Lib Dem supporter and just pretending to have blinkered views in order to deter people from supporting Labour because by association they'd be like you
or
(2) you really believe everything you say.

I sincerely hope it's (1) but please don't break cover on my account. Some of your utterances are the funniest things I hear all day, and you have almost certainly done more for the Lib Dem cause than anyone else on this forum.

EDIT: Though let's not overlook the contribution of Rasczak, who in his more inspired Little Englander moments, runs a close second.

Gentlemen, I salute you both.

[Alan CD]

Early days yet - far too soon to judge anyone's or any party's performance within the coalition.

I note Andrew Markwort is a wordsmith and makes full use of the English language.

[sharger]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Sharger, I've read several of your posts and I can't decide whether you are:

(1) operating a cunning double bluff - you are really a passionate Lib Dem supporter and just pretending to have blinkered views in order to deter people from supporting Labour because by association they'd be like you
or
(2) you really believe everything you say.

I sincerely hope it's (1) but please don't break cover on my account. Some of your utterances are the funniest things I hear all day, and you have almost certainly done more for the Lib Dem cause than anyone else on this forum.

EDIT: Though let's not overlook the contribution of Rasczak, who in his more inspired Little Englander moments, runs a close second.

Gentlemen, I salute you both.

You need to read all my posts in the politics section then because you are severely misguided in your judgements. I'm a fully paid up member of the Labour Party and truly believe in a fairer society for all. I was just a supporter in name before the coalition, but the hypocrisy shown by by Clegg and Cameron to gain power was enough for me to go that last step and sign up officially and become more involved. I'll also get to vote on who will lead my party which I think will be crucial in the reconstruction process.

I know I've made some flippant comments just recently but I'm just fed up with the Labour bashing by certain individuals who have no care for anyone but themselves (Yes I've read your post in another thread on here where you insinuate the majority of the readers on this forum are incapable of reading past the headline of an article). I remember the Thatcher reign and do not want to go back there.

Oh and my view is no more blinkered than that of any Tory supporter on here. That's my ideology and because it may be opposite to yours it doesn't make it blinkered.

[andrew markwort]

You need to read all my posts in the politics section

Oh but I have, that's the point. I've even taken to reading out bits to friends (of all political persuasions) and we think you're really good at this parody stuff. Please, I'm begging you, don't stop - coffee breaks just won't be the same without one of your opinion pieces to read out. The 'flog or better still hang anyone who doesn't read the Daily Mail' parodies by some fellow forum members were funny for a while, but they got stale. You (and let's not forget Racszak) are a breath of fresh air.

[sharger]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Oh but I have, that's the point. I've even taken to reading out bits to friends (of all political persuasions) and we think you're really good at this parody stuff. Please, I'm begging you, don't stop - coffee breaks just won't be the same without one of your opinion pieces to read out. The 'flog or better still hang anyone who doesn't read the Daily Mail' parodies by some fellow forum members were funny for a while, but they got stale. You (and let's not forget Racszak) are a breath of fresh air.

Your condescending manner won't goad me into getting myself banned... nice try. However I'm more than happy to discuss the matter in person

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by sharger

That's my ideology and because it may be opposite to yours it doesn't make it blinkered.

English not your strong point I see (sorry after a bit of wine I get a bit sarky)

The LD have got a fair bit out of the coalition so far, the higher tax threshold is just one and in that single step did more for the low earners of this nation than the previous government did since the minimum wage.

[sharger]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

English not your strong point I see (sorry after a bit of wine I get a bit sarky)

The LD have got a fair bit out of the coalition so far, the higher tax threshold is just one and in that single step did more for the low earners of this nation than the previous government did since the minimum wage.

It is a forum not an English exam, you know exactly what that means.

Did the LDs want the cancellation of the projects to bring numerous schools up to a fit for purpose standard announced today too? This is not only hitting the public service but also the private sector who were going to carry out the work, not to mention the children who have to put up with poor conditions.

Nice to see you like to pack away a drop of wine on a Tuesday night. I hope you are not driving first thing in the morning.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by sharger

It is a forum not an English exam, you know exactly what that means.

Did the LDs want the cancellation of the projects to bring numerous schools up to a fit for purpose standard announced today too? This is not only hitting the public service but also the private sector who were going to carry out the work, not to mention the children who have to put up with poor conditions.

Nice to see you like to pack away a drop of wine on a Tuesday night. I hope you are not driving first thing in the morning.

No I don't know what you mean, almost by definition someone who has an ideology IS blinkered, irregardless it was a quip and not intended as a personal insult.

I am almost sure it will be shown that many of these projects have been very bad value for money and like much of what any government does when it through vast sums of money about produces shoddy results. The schools I was educated at hardly had state of the art facilities with ICT centres and interactive whiteboards, we had a few decent teachers and that seemed to go a long way, maybe we should be concentrating on that instead of throwing money down the drain on new schools and equipment. As I'm sure you know () the government has drawn up a budget to improve those schools most in need, the situation is not completely black and white or without provision.

As for the wine, you know nothing of what I do for a living, when I work or my transport to work, or indeed if I'm a cheap date and half a glass is all I need to make me merry