On 16 Apr 2011 at 3:52am Paul Newman wrote:
Ooo I am so peeved and snippy ! Last week the Express published half a page of wildly misleading baloney about AV some of it courtesy of Mr. Rudkin ( some of it a Mr. Oliver) Now I cannot get a retort in. So what if it is so boring that most readers would rather look at the back of a cereal packet ? What about me and my injured dignity ? Eh !!!!???
So just to set the record straight
1 They claimed to believe I think candidates with ‚??more votes than everyone else put together‚??, won‚??t win under AV Whatever .... Determined masochists can see how a Party can get more first and second preferences ‚??than any other party‚?? ‚??,whilst losing a three horse race at the AV2011 web site.
2 R Rudkin reckons, Australia ,the only developed AV democracy,.." does not have the most rigid two Party system on the planet‚?Ě OK, brevity prohibits a discussion of the unique American ‚??Presidential System‚?Ě system but Professors Graeme Orr and KD Ewing, in, ‚??AV or not AV lessons from Australia‚??, say this .‚??(Oz) has been the most durable and rigid two Party system of any parliamentary democracy in the world ‚??.
3Rudders reckons ‚??Four Parties are represented in the lower house . Pah ! . Australia has two major ‚??Parties, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Tony Abbot`s ‚??Coalition‚??, a group of centre-right parties united by coalition agreement. except for a few short periods, for almost a century. Most commentators, and the general public use refer to ‚??The Coalition‚?? as a single party. Only one minor Party candidate has won a seat at general elections to the Australian House of Representatives since AV arrived in 1919.One Green 2010 thats how he gets four . What a load of cobblers
4 Australians introduced AV precisely to cohere a fragmented right against the socialists and it remains a brutally efficient at reinforcing the two party status quo. Last year the two major parties won 72 seats each, out of 150. In 2010 and 1990, the ALP were conspicuously saved by harvesting second choice Green votes, the system, as ever, protecting the cartel .
5 Rudkin is right to notice that the Australian Senate is relatively open. The Greens, for example, have 9 seats out of 76. As an argument for AV the stumbling block is the proportional STV system used to elect them. AV locks out minor Parties like the Greens. It would reduce Ed Milliband`s current notional lead by 26 seats( Ref -You Gov - last week) Cui bono ? Just Clegg, who gets permanent power leaving us to decide who gets into bed with him. Well may you shudder.
For all its imperfections, the ever evolving British constitution makes the administration accountable. Once a prime minister thinks he can escape by doing a post-election deal something dear and precious will be lost. The unimpeded right of British men and women to kick the rascals out ! Lets keep it .
Vote No on May the 5th and give Clegg something else to cry about !!!
On 16 Apr 2011 at 7:10am MC wrote:
On 16 Apr 2011 at 9:03am Vesbod wrote:
He didn't even take a breath - amazing !
On 16 Apr 2011 at 5:47pm Paul Newman wrote:
I appreciate that no-one cares but Richard Rudkin will have read it and is , I hope , felling pretty stupid . He should be.
On 16 Apr 2011 at 8:11pm MC wrote:
felling? I'd like to understand what you are saying but so often it's expressed so sloppily it's just too much trouble to read.
On 17 Apr 2011 at 9:35am supporter wrote:
I had my postal vote and have already voted no.
We need a pr voting system.
On 18 Apr 2011 at 11:19am MC wrote:
I agree, but I am voting yes as I feel we stand more chance of getting a referendum on full PR when AV is in place than we do with FPTP. I'm pretty certain that in my lifetime we'll never get another chance to get rid of FPTP.
Not a great state of affairs and I wish the Liberal Democrats had stuck out for full PR and not given way to the Tories' offer of a referendum on AV instead.
On 18 Apr 2011 at 4:43pm jrsussex wrote:
AV is a ridiculous system. Not worth repeating why, most of the reasons have already been discussed. I was told over the weekend, from relatives in Oz, that 60% of them want to return to FPTP. Should the AV vote win it will not pave the way for PR, it is more likely that it will kill it off altogether as people will be so incensed with the AV system that they will, if anything, vote to have FPTP returned. Yes you guessed, I am voting NO.
On 18 Apr 2011 at 7:56pm MC wrote:
Very depressing. Our out of date class based relationships reinforced by our irrelevant voting system.
Bye bye UK (Oh, already gone). Tin pot not-even-republic irretrievably hindered by its "great" past.
On 18 Apr 2011 at 8:42pm jrsussex wrote:
MC - I'll have to sleep on that one.
On 19 Apr 2011 at 10:53am Clifford wrote:
I don't understand MC - how would changing the voting system change class relations, which are based on the ownership of the means of production, not on how many crosses we put on a ballot paper.
On 19 Apr 2011 at 12:31pm MC wrote:
Concentration on ownership of the means of production is to continue an outmoded and out of date concept that does not suit the modern reality. In the UK Thatcher had a lot to do with putting the final nail in the coffin of the usefulness concept by enabling and encouraging people to start their own businesses. How does the "means of production" figure in a service led economy fed by a very large number of small businesses?
The continuation of the traditional enmities embodied in the concept of "Class Relations" damages our society and actively stops us pulling together for the common good. We snipe, begrudge, harp, moan, complain, become bitter at others success, are jealous (and if we achieve success we are forced away from our roots by the same negativism and jealousy).
Our FPTP system reflects this enmity of the past. It is a bipolar class-based system that results in damaging swings between profligate spending and and painful cuts and hardship (to be simplistic).. advance, retreat, advance, retreat... at the expense of real ongoing and substantial progress. Under the FTPT system there are only really two parties worth voting for and they are polarised, representing your beloved 'class' enemies. As Paul admits many (the majority?) of people vote tribally; emotionally, instinctively and most even vote the same as their parents (and their parents) too! These voters are trapped in the old, out-of-date and damaging Labour/Tory classist tradition/mindset.
The FPTP system encourages, maintains and fosters this mentality.
A proper PR system should provide a lot more choice, weakening the stranglehold of the two main parties along with the old Tory/Labour class associations and enmity, the 'Us and Them' mindset. Hopefully the introduction of PR would encourage people to think a little more about who they vote for. (In addition the over 50% who do not vote should be more inclined to vote, hopefuly feeling a little more empowered by having an improved choice of who/what to vote for.)
The continuation of class-enmity, as personified by the results of the FPTP system is damaging. It is not simply about crosses, it's about the way we are as individuals and as a society.
Sorry Clifford. I just feel that views like yours (and Paul Newman's) steadfastly trap us in the glutinous mud of the past.
On 19 Apr 2011 at 7:10pm not from around here wrote:
By starting your own business you can "own the means of production yourself" can't you clifford?
On 21 Apr 2011 at 8:04am MC wrote:
The Alternative Vote (AV) vote system proposed for the UK is not the same one as used in Oz.