I've been thinking for a while that the best line the Yes camp could take is: "Vote Yes because the Tories want you to vote No".
As the No camp are already using "Clegg wants you to vote Yes", I see no reason not to take this tack. The referendum is going to be won or lost by the votes of Labour supporters; and one would hope that if the choice is laid out clearly, they mostly hate Tories more than Clegg.
Particularly as the Tories only allowed this referendum in exchange for destroying 50 Labour parliamentary seats. If No wins, they will have got those 50 seats for nothing.
It's certainly worth mentioning - hardly a convincing case for AV but it's still better than a mere ad hominem.
People want to know who actually wins and loses from AV, neither side needs to pretend that everyone is going to vote on the basis of psephological geekery. I think it's fair for the "No" camp to point out that under AV the Lib Dems would come up the middle in some constituencies. Then again, those are the some of the same constituencies in which Lib Dem opinion polling said that 50% of voters said they'd vote Lib Dem "if they thought they had a chance of winning".
Regardless of how evil the current Lib Dem leader currently looks, it's seems fairly reasonable to me that if, on the day, 50% of the electorate want a Lib Dem MP, they should ideally be able to get that without having to all trust each other in advance to actually vote that way. Fundamentally the Tories don't want to have to stop being such perennial Condorcet losers.
Mm, that does indeed seem reasonable. Although I suspect there may be rather fewer such constituencies around, these days. I imagine that 50% support of that particular type (that dare not vote its name) is 'a plague on both their houses' re the major parties, rather than actual belief in Lib Demism.
Agreed, and it remains to be seen in detail what the Lib Dem plan is to actually be electable come 2015. It may turn out that Clegg never gets any benefit even if he wins the referendum -- not much use having a system that gives you a better chance if everyone hates you.
Aside from "he likes it and you hate him", I think the "No" suggestion about Clegg is that any system that's more proportional, even to the tiny extent of AV, favours the centre party. But "you can have any coalition you like as long as it has the Lib Dems in it" isn't very attractive under any electoral system, and "Yes" may as well acknowledge that too.
AV or PR admits the possibility of a fourth party changing the maths - FPTP "avoids hung parliaments" in the sense that anything other than two-party politics is pretty unsatisfactory all around. UKIP's position on AV is both pragmatic and honest. Presumably a few of those in favour of FPTP are so because they hope it will eventually make the likes of the Lib Dems and UKIP go away, so that if you don't like public
( ... )
UKIP in lone voice of sanity shock! I hadn't seen that before; good for them.
because they hope it will eventually
Mm, I'm sure you're right. It is perhaps a bit strange that we don't already have two-party politics a la USA, given how long FPTP has been hammering minor parties. I personally find it a bit difficult to understand why so many people have bothered voting Lib[Dem] all this time, with no prospect of government. Perhaps if we had unrestricted campaign spending, they would have been driven out of business long ago.
I don't know either, but I think it's at least partly to do with the way the parties organise themselves. Registered affiliation is much higher than party membership here, a lot of candidates are chosen by primaries (even open primaries), and as far as I can see there's less party discipline to contend with.
If their parties are broader churches, then there's a reduced need to form a new party just because the existing ones are rubbish - you can perhaps instead form a genuine "the party consensus is rubbish" faction within a party - the Tea Party and its legislative caucuses seems to me a lot more politically substantial than, say, the Fabian Society.
Oh, and we also have a history of creating successful new parties. It's happened certainly once, and arguably twice if you think the Liberals were anything other than the Whigs with a new leader. The USA has never replaced a political party. Doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't if they tried, but when for example the SDP split the alliance looked as it if might actually work. Since then I think having Lib Dems in opposition has been worthwhile, certainly under Labour it was rather good to have opposition voices not paid for by Ashcroft. One of the things I expected under the coalition is to miss the diversity of opposition, although so far the general public have been fulfilling that role.
As the No camp are already using "Clegg wants you to vote Yes", I see no reason not to take this tack. The referendum is going to be won or lost by the votes of Labour supporters; and one would hope that if the choice is laid out clearly, they mostly hate Tories more than Clegg.
Reply
Reply
People want to know who actually wins and loses from AV, neither side needs to pretend that everyone is going to vote on the basis of psephological geekery. I think it's fair for the "No" camp to point out that under AV the Lib Dems would come up the middle in some constituencies. Then again, those are the some of the same constituencies in which Lib Dem opinion polling said that 50% of voters said they'd vote Lib Dem "if they thought they had a chance of winning".
Regardless of how evil the current Lib Dem leader currently looks, it's seems fairly reasonable to me that if, on the day, 50% of the electorate want a Lib Dem MP, they should ideally be able to get that without having to all trust each other in advance to actually vote that way. Fundamentally the Tories don't want to have to stop being such perennial Condorcet losers.
Reply
Reply
Aside from "he likes it and you hate him", I think the "No" suggestion about Clegg is that any system that's more proportional, even to the tiny extent of AV, favours the centre party. But "you can have any coalition you like as long as it has the Lib Dems in it" isn't very attractive under any electoral system, and "Yes" may as well acknowledge that too.
AV or PR admits the possibility of a fourth party changing the maths - FPTP "avoids hung parliaments" in the sense that anything other than two-party politics is pretty unsatisfactory all around. UKIP's position on AV is both pragmatic and honest. Presumably a few of those in favour of FPTP are so because they hope it will eventually make the likes of the Lib Dems and UKIP go away, so that if you don't like public ( ... )
Reply
because they hope it will eventually
Mm, I'm sure you're right. It is perhaps a bit strange that we don't already have two-party politics a la USA, given how long FPTP has been hammering minor parties. I personally find it a bit difficult to understand why so many people have bothered voting Lib[Dem] all this time, with no prospect of government. Perhaps if we had unrestricted campaign spending, they would have been driven out of business long ago.
Reply
If their parties are broader churches, then there's a reduced need to form a new party just because the existing ones are rubbish - you can perhaps instead form a genuine "the party consensus is rubbish" faction within a party - the Tea Party and its legislative caucuses seems to me a lot more politically substantial than, say, the Fabian Society.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment