Turn on thread page Beta

If we vote no in the referendum, I am leaving the UK watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So...a system which looks to make it more likely for them to win will make them try harder?



    And AV will fix this how? Consider Australia.



    Ironic from someone who starts the thread with a hissy fit over not getting his way.



    This makes no sense whatsoever.



    I fail to see how AV will make MPs more accountable. 90% of safe seats with remain, some will become safer, and a couple more will become marginal. That's about it.



    Fair enough, but I think a bit more forethought is required before you stride in to a forum with tons of politics geeks
    I agree that it will if anything strengthen the hold of the main parties, but I'm not convinced that safe seats will remain. I think there's a great likelihood of the vote being split which makes safe seats less likely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Oh and IMVHO it would have had a much better chance a lot earlier into the coalition government.

    The process you get under more proportional systems is a bit like what we're seeing in coalition - a politician will make various promises during the campaign then trade them away in back room deals with other parties in order to get themselves a place in government.

    liberal voters have seen it in action with Clegg and imo they don't like it - we're used to a system where the parties put forward complete programmes and if elected we expect them to deliver it, not some effed up smorgasbord like we're getting with the condems.
    I agree to some extent. Firstly though, the history of coalitions is somewhat tainted given almost all have come during a time of emergency- which is odd really, you'd expect the country would want a strong government.
    On the one occasion that this was not the case the coalition lasted 8 years. So I think using the present government as an example of why coalitions don't work is somewhat disingenuous. They work in the rest of the world so why not here?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    I just hope you're aware that, most likely, we will be under a constant coalition government with PR?
    We're terrified of coalitions here. They are unfairly derided. I can see why though, namely because they've almost always occurred during emergencies when a strong government is needed. In the one example to the contrary the coalition last 8 years, so to say they are bad de facto is disingenuous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP hurry up and leave the UK you are taking a council house away from my preggers girl.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Insofar as I believe it will lead to a return to a two-party system, like in Australia, I can believe it to be worse than FPTP. Admittedly not much worse. I believe however that PR is more likely to be achieved via FPTP than via AV.
    Do we not have a two-party system already?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George5210)
    So what if it allows them a louder voice? If it means their 'policies' can be scrutinised in public then all the better. This will avoid being driven underground, which would be a much more dangerous force like when they were the National Front, which we are beginning to see with the EDF. If people hear how ridiculous their policies actually are they will lose any 'mass' appeal.

    I think to use the extremist card to say No to AV is ridiculous, if we constantly tiptoe around extremists, avoiding any political reform then they are already influencing the agenda and having a "louder voice" than they deserve.

    EDIT: Of course, as many people have pointed out, as AV is a majoritarian system it means it is less likely that a BNP candidate could be elected, as they would have to receive 50% of the vote, whereas in a close fought FPTP election if there was a 3/4 way vote split the BNP could edge ahead, with a determined unit of voters, and get elected (as seen in many local elections, using FPTP)

    This article is quite interesting for anyone interested: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandeve...esearcher_says
    The problem of the BNP is a tough one.
    It seems clear they will expand their voting base, as the claim that immigration is to blame for lack of jobs more popular. Here's why, because the government has claimed the private sector will pick up the slack of public sector cuts, and the evidence suggests to the contrary. So, the BNP could claim that the private sector employs lots of immigrants as unskilled workers and this is to blame for no more job openings.
    The only way to challenge this would be to hold a discourse with the BNP showing the facts. As a result they would obviously get more air time, and potentially more legitimacy.
    The other tactic is the one being carried out at the moment- mainstream parties and activists vilifying them for the xenophobic nature of their policies , without any attempt to critique them in detail. The result is that the party is able to claim they are being vilified purely for ideological reasons, and that the mainstream parties are ignoring the unskilled British workers.
    This gives them the opportunity to portray themselves as being vilified
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    This is despite the fact that third-party representation has gone up in every simulation under AV since second preference polling was started in 1983?

    In addition, if we vote No in the referendum, the opponents of political reform will merely dress up all the same arguments against PR when that time comes, if we get AV, many people will push for PR, and indeed the old guard that has interests in protecting FPTP will no longer be able to do so. Indeed, the electoral reform society who's aim is PR are campaigning for a Yes vote.
    This is what I thought but I've changed my mind. I don't see why it follows that getting AV will lead to a transition to PR. If people like AV then there's no reason to expect them to change system again. If they don't then they are likely to prefer a return to FPTP.
    PR is a completely different system to AV so I don't see why a No vote would damage the argument for PR. I do expect it would delay by a decade or two any momentum to push for PR, but then again at the moment there's no chance of getting PR.
    It's better to delay than to destroy the transition to PR.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by y2k1)
    I'm proper British. Born and raised in Manchester and though I would never leave but if the people of Britain vote no on what is the biggest democratic push in history, then I will leave. I will no longer identify with the people of Britain, my own kind. This referendum is the biggest political change in history so if you do not understand it but decided to vote no because you know the Lib's want it, then you deserve to be shot down. The FPTP system that we have now allows for the monopoly of Cons and Labour to consistently come first and second. This means that they know they can put piece of **** candidates like ex mp Howard Flight without fear of losing. BTW he's the one who likened the working classes to animals "breding". So next time you have an expenses scandal and the MP still retains his/her seat, remember it was your fault for saying no.
    Do us a favour and fuk off, less fukers like you the better.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    In the long run, I think third party representation in Parliament will shrink under AV, despite an increase in third party votes, because their second/third/fourth preferences will benefit the top two most of the time. Australia is a demonstration of this, as the House is by and large two-party, but the PR Senate is quite a plurality of parties.



    I have heard this before, but I think if the LDs remain in a position whereby they can strongarm the other two into offering another referendum eventually, then we will get PR; however under AV I think the third parties will lose their prominent position and we'll be stuck with it as the Tories and Labour see that it works in their favour.
    Not gonna happen, or at least not for 15 years. If they party is able to hold together over the next 4 years, then they will almost certainly have to contend with a much smaller voting base. The future of the party is unpredictable. There's the one option that the voting base will increase if Cameron turns Eurosceptic, because there's a sizeable minority in the Conservative party that are pro-EU. This also depends on Clegg remaining in power, or Laws or Alexander, as these three are the closest to the Conservatives- they are effectively Classical Liberals.
    Chris Huhne and Vince Cable are a bit different- whilst both support more privatization, however they retain a strong centre-left disposition that is in conflict with the Conservatives.
    Alternatively the party could split into two- with a split along the same lines as above.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    See ya, I'm sure you will be missed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People need to realise that yes =/= lib dem. ARGH
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    i dont understand how people don't understand it its like the way the managers of international teams vote for the player of the year....

    you pick a first second and third choice easy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Komakino;30899466]So can advocacy of scientific evidence.
    The difference between these two and religion of course is that they are both open to criticism.[/QUOTE]

    All things are open to criticism - even science.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)

    All things are open to criticism - even science.
    Science and democracy were the things I meant that are open to criticism. They can within reason be proved wrong, or perhaps wrong isn't the right word, the claims can be discredited. Some problems in theoretical physics are not quite at this stage, such as string theory or quantum physics (specifically which interpretation is correct), but both are at an early speculative stage and I'm sure they will be more so in the future.
    If genetic biologists were to prove that homosexuality is genetic and therefore natural, the Catholic Church would refute the claim on the basis that "we find insufficient dogma to support that evidence".
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2011
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.