Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Thanks big fuckoff poster I have to see every day on my walk to work.
I'm going to vote Yes to AV TWICE now.
But the No to AV campaign had turned me into a staunch advocate
I must have dreamt the last few months then
to have a hung parliament.....;D
It means we'll have them all the time, instead of once in a generation like now.
and they've had 1 hung parliament in the last thousand years?
They have to either go left or right. The presence of the lib dems here complicates matters.
UK is a 2 party system with some minorty parties of note. Which is beside the point that there's nothing wrong with coalition governments (political parties themselves are coalitions of individuals with different opinions).
One party "just getting on with things" usually means one party ignoring over half of the voting public.
If we do get a vote then I will also vote no to AV, I will vote for true PR instead
why wont i be asked what i prefer? is it because the gov dont want to give people a choice?
Why did the parliament decide to only give people the choice of the crap 'AV' rather than the choice of the superior 'PR'?
Is it because they only wanted to give the pulic a crapo choice so that electoral reform could be buried for much longer?
Which is such a shame because AV would be a total disaster. The Yes campaign is 12 points ahead in the polls, it's terrifying.
I could comprehend someone saying PR would be a disaster but AV appears to be such a slight changing of the method that just means MP's can't piss off the majority of the people they represent.
But a total disaster?!
It basically just exacerbates the effect of Duverger's Law by redistributing votes of fringe parties to the mainstream ones.
In a Labour area, a substantial proportion of Lib Dem voters would probably have Lab 2nd choice. For the Tories it makes perfect sense as it basically turns every UKIP vote into a Tory one.
In practise, it wouldn't really change anything IMO
They already had a landslide majority and a mandate to do pretty much whatever they wanted. The Tories weren't in a position to scrutinise them properly anyway, so can't really see much difference except for the numbers involved.
These ads are the worst thing yet though. I'm a bit naive really I thought they'd be two well funded slick operations.
I'll be voting no unless there are some better arguments put forward for it than there have been up to now.
that boy needs a good night sleep, not something he's got no fucking concept of
will we get to vote for proportional representation as our second choice, first-past-the-post as our third choice, a Catholic theocracy as our fourth choice, etc?
Not that I expected anything else, but it's a pity that - as ever - neither camp seems to want to actually debate the merits of AV and our current system without going into hyperbole every 15 seconds.
Mind you, I thought Cameron's speech last week was actually quite well pitched in terms of the level of rhetoric.
The tributes to his wife seemed genuine and he almost had to stifle a tear when talking about the death of his son, but he did it in such a way where it didn't seem contrived.
But I'll be voting YES! I might even donate and help out with the campaign. But I fear it might get fail on the 40% technicality or succumb to FUD from the NO camp.
There should be 2 ballots.
Q1) Do you want a change from FPTP? Yes/No
and then, if Yes polls more than No.
Q2) What system do you want? [sensible selection of alternatives goes here, probably]
My voting system:
-> Merge bunches of three existing constituencies into a single 2 seat STV constituency.
·Much more representative, but retains local links.
·30% fewer MPs.
First person to mention the lack of local representation loses any argument straight away. I have an MP (and MSP) who I'd never vote for, and they're not gonna be ousted any time soon. So (as much as they are supposed to be impartial or whatever) I feel pretty disenfranchised. I'd much rather have a larger constituency with a choice of two MPS (or MSPs) to go to. Like I can with my local councillors (I have 4 councillors in my area, one of which I actually voted for, which is nice).
Anyway, on the same day, I'll be voting in the Holyrood election. And with any luck, the SNP will be in for a second term, independence will get voted for, and Westminster's multitude of shortcomings will be but a minor issue for me to concern myself with.
*[sensible selection of alternatives goes here, probably something like AV, AMS, STV or whatever.]
No minimum turnout. People who can't be bothered to turn up and take part in a democratic process shouldn't be able to hold the democracy to ransom. It should be assumed that they couldn't give a fuck and are happy with whatever those who do care manage to chose.
So I'm bracing myself for a torrent of wikipedia links and reasons why I'm a bad human being.
But why is mentioning the local link automatically losing? I value it and think it's really important. Your beef seems to be the people you voted for didn't win, which I'm sorry to break to you, happens in democracies sometimes
(or if the party whip they're following goes against your views) then they're not really going to represent you however local they are.
The local link is valuable when there are regional issues that are non-party-political, but sadly most of the time they aren't, so I feel pretty disenfranchised too.
by having no political parties and only one poltician for all the people in the country. didn't work.
oh, wait, you mean one MP per person. somalia tried that by aving effectively no government and every man woman and child for themselves. didn't work out very well either.
More often than not, when people contact their MP, it's not to ask them to vote this way or that on a particular Bill, it's to get the potholes fixed, or the bus routes extended, or a new council house, or help with immigration, or an issue with a hospital. The MP deals with all those things on a local level for everyone exactly the same, regardless of whether they're the party the voter wants them to be. It's useful to have one representative to each constituency as a focal point to deal with all that local stuff.
with common sense points about a particular bill, in my experience they won't even bother addressing the points you made. It can be pretty dispiriting when you've made an effort to engage with them. It's even worse when your MP's response to local issues is simply "That's a matter for the local council to deal with".
Mind you, I knew I was moving into an area where people would happily vote the same way even if it was a pig wearing the right colour rosette.
Writing to an MP has only ever resulted in a standard reply in the style of those No.10 petitions. Rubbish.
i'd go to a councillor about that before an MP.
and i have 4 councillors to choose from.
but, yeah, maybe they could trim it down a bit.
the point is, it's a multi-member ward and i like it.
to conduct, um, "convenient and effective local goverenment". you know, having enough people on enough committees and still representing enough constiuents. which isn't easy when you consider most councillors have a full-time job because you don't get full-time job pay for being a councillor.
but there's a general preference emerging these days towards councils switching to single member warsd
switching to single member wards, so i guess that means instead of 3 councillors who won't listen to you and a number of people over a larger area, you'll just have one and it'll be on a smaller area.
that said, i can't imagine there are many areas in hackney you could actually put a ward that'd elect a tory
i'm paid not to have personal opinions on that matter or anything related to that
but i've always found that when making sweeping statements on things like council size and council representation, people don't really have all the information to hand to make an informed decision. to be fair, this is mostly because only councils really have any idea what all the councillors do (and even this, not in all cases!).
so what you get is a lot of cases where people just decide that there are too many councillors because there just are. and it's an ideological thing rather than something backed up with robust evidence, so when it comes to weighing up the options, it doesn't have as much credence. this isn't to say anything's right or wrong, but you can't advise someone on something if you don't have enough evidence to back it up. that's just...foolish
I've got three Labour councillors and one SNP. I've had a decent response from a Labour guy fro some stuff, but for other stuff it's been very useful to be able to the SNP woman.
This hasn't been for lobbying or complaint type stuff. More for enquiries asking for information/clarification.
Thanks for pointing that one out. Sheesh...
>"I don't have that choice, neither do loads of others that live in one party wards."
And? I thought that's what you wanted?
>"Having more representatives in no way means there'll be wider representation of views."
I'm advocating multi-member wards. I'm not advocating having more representatives. My upthread MP-culling suggestion above shows how you can cut back in MPs and still have multi-member wards with a local link. Nice of you to completely avoid commenting on it and witter on about there being too many councillors instead though...
1) There's a lot of fixed costs that wouldn't change (or at least not by anywhere near that much)
2) You'd still have the more expensive allowances (e.g. Council Leader, Deputy Leader), and only really be cutting the smaller ones that all members get.
about three quarters of the constituencies in this country are "safe" seats that haven't changed hands for the best part of thirty years. it's not so much "my guy didn't win", more "my guy never had a chance".
Because my suggestion doesn't really dispense with the local link.
No need for links (although they're ready and waiting, obviously).
2 MPs covering an area that used to have 3 MPs defo has a local link. It just makes it ever so slightly less local. Which is going to happen anyway, seeing as the number of MPs is being trimmed back.
You could do the same thing on a different scale (e.g. 3 MPs in a new constituency of 5 melded old single MP constituencies). But even that is hardly resorting to the 1 country = 1 constituency extreme that certainly would dispense with the valuable local link.
I thought you meant in general, rather than your suggestion, which very clearly has taken local representation into account
i'll fuckin' well join the army to put yous down
i'm too wet for the army
none ever go for a decent explanation why
so fucking what. a nice bit of fucking ager has it's fucking place, doesn't it, you cunt?
i'm just not really into trying to persuade people to share my opinions. from your posting and debating style, i've always assumed you shared that approach
and i know how useless it normally is to try and persuade someone to change their mind on the spot.
so i generally /try/ to be more about asking someone why they think what they do or asking someone what the holes in my opinions are. i try to ask questions as much as give opinions. and i prefer to do it straight (with facts if available, hence the reputation for linkage ) rather than in a disingenuous manner so as to cover up.
it prolly comes across as quite abrupt as intertrons text, but what the fuck are you gonna do about it ya fucking fucker?
fit in with whom?
(if i was so fussed about 'fitting in' i'd be living in leicester and be much less of a willfully jumped up indie prick)
It's not a choice! It's not AV *or* a new maternity unit. I'm gobsmacked that anyone could fall for that.
Like the Tories are gonna spend money on public services anyway!
They'd be more honest if they'd stuck up a photo of a cunt in a suit and said "he needs a Tax Break, not an Alternative Voting System"
I can't believe the no campaign have been so stupid as to use that for their advertising. Especially since it's being led by Matthew Elliot, who did a pretty good job with the Taxpayers' Alliance.
they really anger me, im tempted to set up 'other tax payers alliance' and mimic their site exactly, except when they have a story like non job of the week 'reading council spends £30k on an 'environment' officer'just have the other taxpayers alliance comment as being 'fair enough, its important'
"we can't afford it" now whilst based on what I've seen I don't actually believe AV is a better system, but if it was the idea of not reforming the voting system and thus improving democracy for cost reasons alone is ridiculous.
Oh I would save the world but it's two weeks til pay day so fuck it