2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

But that's what i've been saying. The Tories are trying put the country first, the Lib Dems are trying to put themselves first. I don't care whether this is the best opportunity for them to do it, it's out of order.

There are at least a dozen things off the top of my head that are more urgently needed than voting reform

I don't think any of us are in a position to make statements about who is putting what first. Your perception may be that the Tories are putting the country first, but their reluctance on yielding on genuine electoral reform will be seen as putting themselves first by others. (I'm leaning that way).

The Tories have made numerous concessions, and I understand they don't have a clear mandate to govern. However it appears the Lib Dems are being patently obstructive here.

Unless you are privy to more info than I am, it's not clear at all what concessions the Tories have made.

Its the Tories that have offered the referendum. The Lib Dems haven't agreed to that yet. The Lib Dems want to bring AV in unconditionally whether the public want it or not. So if the Lib Dems get their way (and they have ALL the power at the moment) I won't even get a chance to vote. Labour have offered unconditionally to introduce AV. So if they form a coalition I still won't get a say in it.

Where did you get the info that the Lib Dems want to bring in AV unconditionally? I've certainly not seen that anywhere.

I know people keep saying "this happens all the time in ............. it's fine" but the fact that we can have 3 years of one unelected prime minister and then 5 more years with another unelected prime minister backed by a coalition of the 2 least voted-for parties puts us on par with a banana republic IMO.

This doesn't happen all the time in ........, but it can happen. However, we don't elect Prime Ministers in the UK. It's a parliamentary Democracy. We elect a parliament. Having said that, I'm not that keen on Lab-Lib myself, I don't see it lasting very long.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

Its the Tories that have offered the referendum. The Lib Dems haven't agreed to that yet. The Lib Dems want to bring AV in unconditionally whether the public want it or not. So if the Lib Dems get their way (and they have ALL the power at the moment) I won't even get a chance to vote. Labour have offered unconditionally to introduct AV. So if they form a coalition I still won't get a say in it.

The Lib Dems want STV, not AV. We'll find out soon enough (well, hopefully soon enough!) whether the Labour & Tory offers of AV are enough for them.

I can find nothing that says that the Lib Dems want to bring in electoral reform unconditionally, whether the public want it or not, & I find it hard to believe they'd consider wanting to introduce a change such as that without any referendum (given that they want referendums on a proper written constitution; Euro entry (if economically viable to bother in the first place etc. etc.); EU in/out (if a fundamental change is signed up to), etc.).

When the Labour Government proposed its constitutional reform bill to introduce a referendum on the AV system, the Lib Dems tabled amendments to add STV instead of AV.[which were then defeated, before the whole bill later got canned prior to the dissolution of Parliament].

What other references I can find, say the Lib Dems support a referendum on electoral reform, not immediate legislation


Labour have offered immediate legislation to bring in AV, that doesn't mean the Lib Dems don't want a referendum - it is what Labour are offering in hope of bribing them.

And as mentioned earlier in the thread, if a Lib-Lab pact tried to pass a bill to bring in AV without a referendum, it could easily fail anyway. Those who think it would be unfair without a referendum would vote no, while many Labour MPs would vote no alongside Tory MPs simply because Labour hates PR as much as they do.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

So right now the UK is a rudderless ship which no one in their right mind will deal with till there is some stability and all anyone can argue about is a voting system. Personally i couldn't give a stuff about voting reform i do care however about getting our public finances sorted out and the future of this country being secured all of which are infinately more important then who votes and what system they use. Seriously this is getting beyond a joke and we are in danger of looking a joke internationally the longer this dog and pony show goes on.

Are you not concerned about the fact that a party that nearly 1 in 4 (voting) people in the UK voted for got less than 10% of the seats in the Commons? I think sorting the finances can wait a couple of days in the light of that democratic absurdity.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

The Lib Dems want STV, not AV. We'll find out soon enough (well, hopefully soon enough!) whether the Labour & Tory offers of AV are enough for them.

I can find nothing that says that the Lib Dems want to bring in electoral reform unconditionally, whether the public want it or not, & I find it hard to believe they'd consider wanting to introduce a change such as that without any referendum (given that they want referendums on a proper written constitution; Euro entry (if economically viable to bother in the first place etc. etc.); EU in/out (if a fundamental change is signed up to), etc.).

When the Labour Government proposed its constitutional reform bill to introduce a referendum on the AV system, the Lib Dems tabled amendments to add STV instead of AV.[which were then defeated, before the whole bill later got canned prior to the dissolution of Parliament].

What other references I can find, say the Lib Dems support a referendum on electoral reform, not immediate legislation


Labour have offered immediate legislation to bring in AV, that doesn't mean the Lib Dems don't want a referendum - it is what Labour are offering in hope of bribing them.

And as mentioned earlier in the thread, if a Lib-Lab pact tried to pass a bill to bring in AV without a referendum, it could easily fail anyway. Those who think it would be unfair without a referendum would vote no, while many Labour MPs would vote no alongside Tory MPs simply because Labour hates PR as much as they do.

I'm going by William Hague here who is the only one talking. He said, and I quote:

They've also said to us, the Liberal Democrats have said to the Conservative party, that they are only only prepared to enter into a coalition agreement with a party that will change our electoral system to the Alternative Vote method of voting.

That makes it quite clear. No referendum. Its either introduce it or no coalition. The public's wishes are meaningless here.

Its the Tories that table the referendum vote, quote:

in the interests of trying to create a stable, secure government we will go the extra mile and we will offer to the Liberal Democrats in a coalition government the holding of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system so that the people of this country can decide what the best electoral system is for the future

And goes on to say that the choice lies with the Lib Dems of which there has not been a response yet.

If Hague is being misleading I would have though I would have thought someone would have contradicted him. Noone has so we can take it as truth until we hear otherwise.

Look if this was negotiation about anti-terror laws, ID cards, something that will seriously affect this country then yes it's fair for the Lib Dems to stand firm. The Tories have said on various issues they they have conceded ground as have the Lib Dems. However this is posturing to feather their own nest and has nothing to with the saftey, security or future of this country. This is to make sure that the Lib Dems get a larger share of the seats next time.

[Flyboy]

In a referendum regarding electoral reform, will people vote on the basis of which system will keep their opponents out of office, rather than what is right for the country?

I ask this question here, although I probably think that in needs a thread of its own, but I am unsure as to whether the moratorium on political threads has been lifted yet. Could the Forum Team give us an update?

---------- Post added at 00:29 ---------- Previous post was at 00:21 ----------

Apparently "Dave" wants to bring back Ian Duncan Smith, David Davis and Michael Howard. What happened to "change?" Along with "Willie" Hague, this is more like "Back To The Future." The public had no interest in them the first time round, why bring them back from the dead now? Is it because he has realised he hasn't got a clue what he is doing?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

I'm going by William Hague here who is the only one talking. He said, and I quote:

That makes it quite clear. No referendum. Its either introduce it or no coalition. The public's wishes are meaningless here.

Its the Tories that table the referendum vote, quote:



And goes on to say that the choice lies with the Lib Dems of which there has not been a response yet.

If Hague is being misleading I would have though I would have thought someone would have contradicted him. Noone has so we can take it as truth until we hear otherwise.

I don't think that the lack of complaints from the Lib Dem camp should be taken as an endorsement of what Hague said. They are in negotiations, this is not a time where you go and quibble in public about what you may or may not have said behind closed doors.

Look if this was negotiation about anti-terror laws, ID cards, something that will seriously affect this country then yes it's fair for the Lib Dems to stand firm. The Tories have said on various issues they they have conceded ground as have the Lib Dems. However this is posturing to feather their own nest and has nothing to with the saftey, security or future of this country. This is to make sure that the Lib Dems get a larger share of the seats next time.

You make it sound like it's an unfair request. Let me say it once more. Nearly one in four people voted Lib Dems, yet they got less than 10% of the seats. How the hell do you justify that?

[Flyboy]

Is Adam Boulton cracking up? The election is over and he still wants to scrap like a street fighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWAkxKQLQs

Originally Posted by danielf

You make it sound like it's an unfair request. Let me say it once more. Nearly one in four people voted Lib Dems, yet they got less than 10% of the seats. How the hell do you justify that?

No one needs to justify it - its been the same for 100+ years has it not ? So why the sudden need to change it other than selfish gain on their part.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Paul M

No one needs to justify it - its been the same for 100+ years has it not ? So why the sudden need to change it other than selfish gain on their part.

So you're quite happy to just disregard nearly 25% of the voting public by appealing to history? Smashing...

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I ask this question here, although I probably think that in needs a thread of its own, but I am unsure as to whether the moratorium on political threads has been lifted yet. Could the Forum Team give us an update?

Chris has been running the Election threads - I'll ask him. At the moment though I would think anything regarding electoral reform would still come under the current GE thread, for the moment.

Originally Posted by punky

I'm going by William Hague here who is the only one talking. He said, and I quote:

That makes it quite clear. No referendum. Its either introduce it or no coalition. The public's wishes are meaningless here.

Its the Tories that table the referendum vote, quote:

And goes on to say that the choice lies with the Lib Dems of which there has not been a response yet.

If Hague is being misleading I would have though I would have thought someone would have contradicted him. Noone has so we can take it as truth until we hear otherwise.

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't think that the lack of complaints from the Lib Dem camp should be taken as an endorsement of what Hague said. They are in negotiations, this is not a time where you go and quibble in public about what you may or may not have said behind closed doors.

What Daniel said ^^^

I don't believe the Lib Dems have really been saying much. They've pretty much been keeping quiet while negotiations are ongoing.

I do not believe that Mr Hague was being misleading, but perhaps he was unintentionally not 100% accurate in his phrasing.

The Lib Dems goal is STV (fair for all parties & for *voters*, other PR systems would favour the LDs more than STV, but STV is the best option according to the ERS), not AV. The Tories would never offer STV though, so they have offered the same as Labour: AV. And I hope Clegg & co. consider it to be enough, as I do.

The Lib Dems have made zero mention previously of wanting to force electoral reform without public consultation. They want a referendum. Not just on ER, but on various other things (written constitution, etc.). They also pride themselves on being the most democratic of the three parties, & I cannot see them being in favour of immediate introduction of AV (or another system) without it being approved by the public.

Re. Labour legislating to introduce AV:

Clarification from them - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8673807.stm

Mr Hague urged the Lib Dems to accept the Tory deal, arguing that to join with Labour would mean "a second unelected prime minister in a row" and the imposition of voting reform without first consulting the public in a referendum.

This was later denied by Labour sources, who said they would pass a law on AV immediately, but then hold a referendum to allow voters to approve or reject it. There were also unconfirmed reports Labour was offering the prospect of full proportional representation at a later stage.

Originally Posted by danielf

Let me say it once more. Nearly one in four people voted Lib Dems, yet they got less than 10% of the seats. How the hell do you justify that?

I don't see how you can

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

You make it sound like it's an unfair request. Let me say it once more. Nearly one in four people voted Lib Dems, yet they got less than 10% of the seats. How the hell do you justify that?

It's not for me to justify it but its not my fault the Lib Dem voters are clustered into disparate constinuency areas. That's a fact of life. Labour dominate the inner cities, Conservatives dominate suburbs and rural areas. Lib Dems have bits in between. Its not my fault, its not the country's fault. The Tories suffered from Labour's gerrymandering you know. Surely its up to the Lib Dems to appeal to the most seats around the country than dominating small pockets of voters.

I have said before I have no issue with the Lib Dems trying bring in a system that suits them. Its self preservation. I'd have no problem if they built a coalition, got the country out of the hole it's in and then a year or two down the line start to pose the question to the public. However they are currently holding our country to ransom over the issue. And the fact they'd rather pal up with Labour if they will guarantee to bring in AV (and they have said, they will) than who would be better at stimulating the economy and protecting rights (clue: its not Labour), adds insult to injury.

Originally Posted by danielf

Are you not concerned about the fact that a party that nearly 1 in 4 (voting) people in the UK voted for got less than 10% of the seats in the Commons? I think sorting the finances can wait a couple of days in the light of that democratic absurdity.

I think the Traders and Investors out there on the markets would disagree with you and rightly so.

I am sorry but I did not vote at this election so non-important issues were dealt with first - Economics should be the top priority, right now we got the Lib Dems truly showing their true colours - that is them thinking of themselves at the next election which could be months/years off* Delete as appropriate depending on who or what entity becomes in power.

[punky]

BTW I suffer from a similar problem as the Lib Dems. My constituency in London is solidly Tory. The majority vote for them because we want them. However my council district covers a small part of my constituency but mostly a large part of inner-city London which is heavily populated with ethnic-minorities. The result: my council is solidly Labour. So me, as well as a lot of other people where I live are ruled by people we didn't vote for despite our majority.

The Lib Dems aren't without my sympathies. However now is not the time to force AV, STV, ITV or BBC or anything else though.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Paul M

No one needs to justify it - its been the same for 100+ years has it not ? So why the sudden need to change it other than selfish gain on their part.

If electoral tradition means why bother changing anything, perhaps the UK should never have bothered with any of the Reform Acts or the various Representation of the People Acts...

It needs to change because it no longer works properly. It is not representative of the desires of the voters. It disenfranchises voters. It means there are safe seats where your vote is utterly pointless unless you want to vote for the incumbent MP. It means that a party can gain only 9% of the seats on 23% of the vote. It means that a party can gain a majority of seats in the House of Commons while losing the popular vote.

STV is fair & proportional, reduces vote wastage, cuts down on safe seats, & keeps a constituency link.

FPTP

STV



If the Lib Dems were so selfish, they would be in favour of one of the other PR systems, rather than STV, which is determined by the Electoral Reform Society to be the best possible system.

And it is not a sudden need to change it: They have been in favour of Electoral Reform for *years*.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I don't believe the Lib Dems have really been saying much. They've pretty much been keeping quiet while negotiations are ongoing.

I do not believe that Mr Hague was being misleading, but perhaps he was unintentionally not 100% accurate in his phrasing.

Come on Matt, if Hague was wrong in what he was saying even though the Lib Dems are furiously negotiating, i'm sure they could muster up at least one person to go on camera and say he's wrong. So come on, conceed that Hague is being accurate.

The Lib Dems goal is STV (fair for all parties & for *voters*, other PR systems would favour the LDs more than STV, but STV is the best option according to the ERS), not AV. The Tories would never offer STV though, so they have offered the same as Labour: AV. And I hope Clegg & co. consider it to be enough, as I do.

I don't think from what I have heard the Tories have offered AV, I think Lib Dems offered it concession to STV.

However it comes back to the point that its just not the time and place to be arguing over election reform.