Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
the idea, after every election, of huge 'behind closed doors' wheeling and dealing to decide who 'actually, kinda really won', just seems rubbish.
I doubt parties will even bother celebrating when they win the election - as they haven't really won yet - it's just the start of the behind closed doors, voters not invited, wheeling and dealing for power.
Because, I'm afraid, if Labour 'lost', the tories, say, won, Labour then has the choice of
1) No power at all
2) In power as the major player in the Labour/UKIP/Libdem/Rainbow party/green party super duper coalition'
they will definately go for option 2. So the technically 'winning' conservatives will be able to get nothing through at all - and the super-duper coalition of losers will spend hours/days/months arguing about and compromising on blimin' everything. Government becomes slower, more cumbersome, expensive. The manifestos are thrown in the bin (as the 'super duper coalition' wasn't voted for, therefore have no promises). The whole gig becomes a farce. The resident prime minister .. the one we send abroad to discuss international issues for example - well he may as well just shrug his shoulders and say 'No point in me even speaking lads, I certainly can't change anything'. :/ In fact he may as well stay in his holiday home making cookies for his entire term he gets for 'winning'. It'll make no difference - he can't do anything ...
As I said - farce
I doubt parties will even bother celebrating when they win the election - as they haven't really won yet - it's just the start of the behind closed doors, voters not invited, wheeling and dealing for power.
Because, I'm afraid, if Labour 'lost', the tories, say, won, Labour then has the choice of
1) No power at all
2) In power as the major player in the Labour/UKIP/Libdem/Rainbow party/green party super duper coalition'
they will definately go for option 2. So the technically 'winning' conservatives will be able to get nothing through at all - and the super-duper coalition of losers will spend hours/days/months arguing about and compromising on blimin' everything. Government becomes slower, more cumbersome, expensive. The manifestos are thrown in the bin (as the 'super duper coalition' wasn't voted for, therefore have no promises). The whole gig becomes a farce. The resident prime minister .. the one we send abroad to discuss international issues for example - well he may as well just shrug his shoulders and say 'No point in me even speaking lads, I certainly can't change anything'. :/ In fact he may as well stay in his holiday home making cookies for his entire term he gets for 'winning'. It'll make no difference - he can't do anything ...
As I said - farce
Last edited:
The super-duper coalition of losers can happen under FPTP. However there's never been a coalition like that because coordinating that many politicians to not fight and bicker with each other is nigh on impossible.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
It can theoretically happen under FPTP but never has because the winning party has been strong enough to make coalition require an unreasonable amount of votes.
Under AV the 'winner' will regularly be just above the rest of the hoard .. meaning (just like Australia) 'super-duper' coalitions will happen just about every time.
In Australia the technical winner is effectively always the loser, and the two technical losers are always effectively the winner with the right to throw all their election policies in the bin. It's blimin' mental, but not hard to see why the libdems love the idea -- they'll have the biggest loser forming coalitions with them for the rest of time!
Last edited:
Seriously? This happens all the time anyway, manifestos are advertising that you might get some of it your lucky, or get the opposite of if they change their minds.
That's the strongest argument against AV yet ^^
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 2,730
- Location
- Kent
Just had a leaflet from the NO Campaign with the tagline:
AV Leads to Broken Promises.
Because, y'know, FPTP has always put forward honest governments...
AV Leads to Broken Promises.
Because, y'know, FPTP has always put forward honest governments...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
A elected government is hauled over the coals by the opposition whenever it breaks any manifesto pledge.
Under coalition, they just say 'Well we didn't actually technically win' and they've got an instant get-out clause with the opposition being a lot less able to put the boot in. Hence why the lib-dems got limited grief over their 'no tuition fees' pledge. They just said 'uh .. yea .. we're in a coalition, not solely in government', so our entire manifesto is mute' - and the tories say the same thing.
No-one is saying FPTP is perfect. It clearly however gives governments clearer and worse ramifications when they stray from their manifesto than that faced by any coalition.
What you have said is technically correct, but also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
AV (as proven by Australia) causes LESS coalitions in government, as we HAVE to remember that we ARE NOT changing how government is formed in parliament, just how we elect MP's. Australia with AV has had ONE coalition to the UK's FPTP 5 5 sounds about right) over the last 100 or so years...
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
And likewise about what you have said. You cannot compare Australia's political system to our own (it is clear you know nothing about it, in fact, and have probably just read this 'factoid' somewhere). If we introduce AV, all the probabilities are that the Lib Dems will double their seats in parliament at the expense of the two main parties, which will increase the chances of hung parliaments for each election.
Last edited:
Well that is quite wrong. The UK has had three oblique four coalitions (The forth was the same parties over the course of two elections with two separate leaders (The first government only lasted a year)).
Australia has had coalitions on and off since 1922. It is harder to get a feel for them since there is a house of representatives, senate and the federal government. There is a coalition party for heavens sake.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Not when the coalitions are formed by throwing out party manifestos and worse, 'buying' the support of minority party seats by making huge and vastly disproportionate concessions to them (ala Greens in Germany).
If we vote yes to AV, we may be 'winning' more democracy on paper at the ballot box, but we'll be handing a lot more control (when it comes to how they'll govern) and less accountability to fewer people actually in the government.
I'm still undecided if it is a price worth paying and they can be trusted not to give ridiculous buyouts to small parties in the event,
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
The trouble is in real life without the various forms of party whips, the whole of the coalition can turn into a chimpanzee's tea party.
Basically because members say 'why should I vote for the education bill?'. If the government is all within a single party the whips to that party say nasty things like 'Because otherwise your career doesn't look very good from where I'm standing mate' and things actually get done .. the government gets stuff through relatively quickly.
Without the ability to whip members, you end up with 90 politicians wanting 90 slightly different (and often competing) 'education' amendments or you lose their vote, and in reality either NOTHING gets through or they spend 3.5 years amending and arguing every-last-point-on-the-bill. Giving government the flexibility of a super tanker!
Whipping is nasty but essential
So what you're advocating is a dictatorship, with the whips as the management tools of choice?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
I'm advocating a FPTP system, where MPs have party loyalty.
If no-one has party loyalty and individual MPs vote on what is best for their constituency, it'll be like herding cats ..
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The party whip system is one of the things I'd really like to so disappear. Let's hope it happens.
I love how the system is so ****** up that the best option is to not have our elected representatvies think independently.