The Red Flag's flagging a bit... Lol.

[teamsaint]

What are they? I've never paid a lot of attention to the NHS so can't claim to understand much about the reforms.

in very simple terms, the reforms, which are made to look as though they are devolving budgets down to GP level, (dubious policy in any case) in fact are really an open invitation to big healthcare companies, especially american companies, to take control of the NHS through the back door.
We will get big local practices and groups, who will find the administation of budgets too time consuming, and who will hand the whole nasty thing over to healthcare companies, with the inevitable increase in costs, and no doubt profiteering.

Its VERY scary.

Well done Cameron.

And Clegg.
people who will NEVER have to depend on the NHS, because they have enough cash to opt out if the need arises,a luxury not open to many of us who actually work for a living.

[french frank]

Oh come on, Frenchy. There's no such thing as 'Tory policies passed by the Tory/LibDem coalition'. They are Government policies & Bills, passed by a Government made up of Tories and LibDems.

You're moving the goal posts, Floss. The question you asked was what influence the LibDems had had on coalition policy, implying scepticism that there had been any. I gave you a list in Msg #45 of specific LibDem policies which had been introduced that weren't already Tory policy.

[Ariosto]

The big problem for the LibDems was that the AV/PR referendum came about one year after the coalition had been in power, so by that time people were fed up with the LibDems. Even if people favoured voting reform, they, like me, probably thought it a bad idea to vote in favour and give the LibDems even more power in the future.

So I voted against for that reason and also because I considered AV to be a poor alternative. It seems the Tories really shafted the LD's because they knew that the electorate would turn it down for those obvious reasons.

It probably means that the LD's and Labour will take at least 20 years to get back to where they were in April 2010. The Tories will have a free reign and will not hesitate to use this to take over the UK and turn it into a little America.

[scottycelt]

... to say AV would cost £250m for electronic counting machines was simply untrue; to say that the candidate who comes second can win (and compare with an athlete in a race) is distortion to the point of untruth, since under AV the winner is the one with 50% of the vote and winning the first round may be a 'win' under FPTP but it isn't under AV. To say that some voters can keep on voting in subsequent rounds whereas others only get a single vote is untrue: every voter has a vote in every round right up until the last one (unless they opt to stop at any point before the final round).

Even you say the system is 'ludicrously complicated' when most people can cope with putting a number opposite a name to express their favourites.

Well, i never took a conveniently round figure of £250m anything like seriously and I suspect not a lot of other voters did either. Dodgy-sounding figures are banded about all over the place at times of political campaigning and in any case it is a rather minor consideration and a pretty paltry figure when dealing with a choice of the country's electoral system!

You say that to claim the candidate who initially comes second under AV can win is 'distortion to the point of untruth'. On the contrary, it is incontrovertibly true. What is the point of the AV exercise other than to deny the person with the most votes under the 50% threshold immediate victory, and give others lower down the popularity poll a chance of gaining the seat through secondary 'preference' votes, etc.?. I hardly think 'distortion to the point of untruth' was entirely on one side of the debate, FF. Another utter gem from the YES campaign was 'don't worry, guys, AV still means one person, one vote, y'know' ...

As to your final point, .. AV, whether ludicrously complicated or a simpleton's dream as you appear to suggest, ended up being decisively rejected by the electorate who voted (well over 50% against!), so what could be more truly democratic than that in settling the argument ...?

[french frank]

Maybe if Clegg hadn't been so dishonest of the student fees issue then we might have had a slim chance of actually getting long overdue electoral reform but sadly he seems to have blown that one as well

How would that have worked, exactly?

[french frank]

You say that to claim the candidate who initially comes second under AV can win is 'distortion to the point of untruth'. On the contrary, it is incontrovertibly true.

No it's not true. Under AV the person who would have come first if it had been FPTP may not win. But it isn't FPTP, it's AV. You don't get the same results under AV as you do under FPTP, and if you did get the same results there wouldn't be any point in changing the system.

What is the point of the AV exercise other than to deny the person with the most votes under the 50% threshold immediate victory, and give others lower down the popularity poll a chance of gaining the seat through secondary 'preference' votes, etc.?

It is to ensure that the person who wins does so with the consent of the largest number of people. Under FPTP, the winner may have the consent of as few as 29% of the voters. AV stops the person who is most disliked from winning.

Another utter gem from the YES campaign was 'don't worry, guys, AV still means one person, one vote, y'know' ...

That is true: one person, one vote in a preferential system, in the sense that only one vote from each voter is actually counted.

Your main argument against AV (and there are undoubtedly arguments against it) seems to be that it isn't FPTP and doesn't work the same way. You're so hung up on the FPTP principle that you can't see the flaws in the system - such as the most disliked candidate getting elected and the totally disproportionate results arising from arbitrary constituency boundaries.

[PatrickOD]

What would I know about British Party politics?
But, in the spirirt of providing an off-stage view on the current play, I would suggest that one of the problems of the Coalition has its origin in the No campaign for AV. First PR was rejected out of hand, so it was relatively easy to reject the next best option forced on the LibDems. That rejection in turn saw the LibDems lose even more face, and was interpreted as a vote of confidence by the Tories, who proceeded to stymie attempts to introduce LibDem reforms. Nick Clegg has not much choice but to hang in there, the system being what it is. Unfortunately the PR debate has been buried.
If I may, I would point to Irish Presidential campaign which will use PR. All commentators agree that no one candidate will reach the necessary quota on the first count. They will all depend on transfers. Each has his/her core support, and FPTP would ensure that the largest faction would win the election, a totally unsatisfactory outcome. So, all the candidates have to work hard to persuade voters to give them their transfers i.e. they have to appeal to a relatively broad slice of the electorate. Some satisfaction will be had from the number of first preferences, but all know that is not enough. In the British election FPTP has merely elected a faction, and moreover, a faction that has confused 'coalition' with 'broad support'.
Just a few cursory thoughts from a victim of another coalition that he did not vote for.

[teamsaint]

Our politics are an utter sham.

you get a choice of three parties, all of which support our parasitical financial services industry (the city) support endless foreign wars, trident, and all of which use the established media to keep the country "on message" instead of debating real issues like the desperate housing shortage, youth unemployment,rubbish public transport, huge wage inequalities, energy and food security etc etc.

One day , perhaps not too far from now, the young people in this country, (and perhaps people of my age who will be lucky if they ever retire) will wake up, and rise up.

[french frank]

Our politics are an utter sham.

you get a choice of three parties, all of which support our parasitical financial services industry (the city) support endless foreign wars, trident, and all of which use the established media to keep the country "on message" instead of debating real issues like the desperate housing shortage, youth unemployment,rubbish public transport, huge wage inequalities, energy and food security etc etc.

I think most of those issues are debated quite extensively. But you seem to want a form of politics where the good guys wave a magic wand and suddenly everything is sunshine and happiness. If there was a party promising that, would you vote for it?

Rubbish? What's to debate about rubbish?

[teamsaint]

I think most of those issues are debated quite extensively. But you seem to want a form of politics where the good guys wave a magic wand and suddenly everything is sunshine and happiness. If there was a party promising that, would you vote for it?

Rubbish? What's to debate about rubbish?

Not at all. I am all in favour of debate. but perhaps the debate about how to run the economy might encompass controls on the city, which none of the 3 big parties will discuss.
perhaps it could include debate that actually included the some , any, potential solution to the desperate housing shortage that our young people in particular face.

it would be good to have a major party that opposes attacking other countries.

It would be good to have a party that actually suggests ways of dealing with energy issues that doesn't have us utterly reliant on oil supplies or big engineering. (it can be done if we want it.)

it would be good if debate included the idea that big corporations and the ultra rich actually paid their fair share of tax.

But on all these issues the " debate" is about a few peripheral details. we live in a county where youth unemployment is heading into crisis levels...where the city is out of control...where housing is all but impossible to afford in many areas....where the government spends endless money on foreign wars AGAINST the will of the people...where we continue to pour money into europe against the peoples will...where train travel is a luxury item ....where ordinary kids face a £50k bill to get a university education....where 20% of school leavers are close to illiterate and innumerate.
i would like REAL debate on this stuff.
Oh yes, I would vote for the magic wand party...but round my way only one party ever gets their candidate elected ...and its not the MWP !!!!!

[scottycelt]

No it's not true. Under AV the person who would have come first if it had been FPTP may not win. But it isn't FPTP, it's AV. You don't get the same results under AV as you do under FPTP, and if you did get the same results there wouldn't be any point in changing the system.It is to ensure that the person who wins does so with the consent of the largest number of people. Under FPTP, the winner may have the consent of as few as 29% of the voters. AV stops the person who is most disliked from winning.That is true: one person, one vote in a preferential system, in the sense that only one vote from each voter is actually counted.

Your main argument against AV (and there are undoubtedly arguments against it) seems to be that it isn't FPTP and doesn't work the same way. You're so hung up on the FPTP principle that you can't see the flaws in the system - such as the most disliked candidate getting elected and the totally disproportionate results arising from arbitrary constituency boundaries.

I feel I might be considerably less 'hung up' on FPTP than some apparently are on the recently decisively-rejected AV system, FF.

You very conveniently want us to use a different language from Plain English when discussing AV. 'It is not a race' and clear and simple words such as 'win' have apparently been dropped from the AV dictionary.

The simple fact is that even under the 50% threshold the candidate with the most votes under FPTP (or primary votes under AV) is obviously the most popular. He/she cannot possibly be the 'most disliked' unless you turn the law of arithmetic completely on its head. Taking a footballing analogy, we readily accept that the team that wins the most points deserves to come top. We don't add up the points of all the other teams in the league and, because the total is larger, then decide on a compromise winner ... mind you, on reflection, there's a wee glimmer of hope for Partick Thistle!
Getting back to Plain English, AV clearly does not mean 'one person, one vote'! Everyone may well have initially the same number of votes but that equity decreases when any preferential votes are counted and some candidates knocked out.

Constituency boundaries are a separate matter, which will always require constant review, but I'm not aware of any Liberal Democrat MP (or Tory and Labour) complaining about their own! Whichever system is adopted presumably some body will have to 'arbritarily' determine these boundaries?

I come back to my central point. You might think AV is the bee's knees while I consider it to be hopelessly complicated and arguably less fair than FPTP. The only thing that really matters is that a good majority of the electorate rejected it and, for any democrat worthy of the name, that must surely settle the issue.

AV, for national elections at least, is as dead as a dodo. If the PR lobby comes up with a more acceptable system to eventually present to the people that's just fine. I've always said I'm not against PR in principle, but I certainly would never vote for a form that I consider to be less worthy and practical than FPTP, which the majority of the electorate clearly continue to prefer and retain.

[MrGongGong]

How would that have worked, exactly?

well the Lib Dems might have retained a smidgen of credibility and we could have ended up with PR which would have been a good thing.

[french frank]

The simple fact is that even under the 50% threshold the candidate with the most votes under FPTP (or primary votes under AV) is obviously the most popular. He/she cannot possibly be the 'most disliked' unless you turn the law of arithmetic completely on its head.

The 'law of arithmetic' is clear: three candidates, A, B and C, A having right-wing views, B & C are broadly left-wing. The voting goes:

A - 40%
B - 35%
C - 25%

Under FPTP A wins, even though 60% of those who voted didn't vote for him. In fact 60% marked Candidate A as their third choice making him the least favoured candidate. You claim that nobody fell for the No campaign's arguments, yet, leaving AV aside, you clearly don't grasp the basics of a preferential voting system. Here it is again:

In the case of A, B and C above, I mark my ballot paper:

C - 1
B - 2
A - 3

My preference for B over A (who under no circumstances do I want to see elected) is not (NOT) some sort of second class 'vote' which shouldn't be given as much weight as a first preference. Quite the contrary, my preference for B over A is much, much stronger than my preference for C over B.

I come back to my central point. You might think AV is the bee's knees

And your central point is wrong.

Taking a footballing analogy

Let's not. General elections are not sporting competitions: they are ways of discovering opinions, and should be gradable by preferences.

Getting back to Plain English, AV clearly does not mean 'one person, one vote'! Everyone may well have initially the same number of votes but that equity decreases when any preferential votes are counted and some candidates knocked out.

The only way 'equity' is decreased is by a voter choosing not to give a preference for all candidates.

AV, for national elections at least, is as dead as a dodo.

Let's hope so and that next time we're offered a much better system.

[MrGongGong]

I'll scrap what I was going to say and let the indignation be given its full rein.

"There's no point at all in having policies if you are simply going to abandon them." If you were actually in politics instead of merely talking about it you'd think that was an oversimplification.

just picking up on this

Indeed i'm not in politics
BUT
acting with honesty and integrity is simple
there really is no point in having any electoral process at all if the people we elect (albeit by a more than slightly flawed system) simply see it as permission to do whatever they see fit regardless of what they said before. We could simply appoint clever people to run the country for us and stop pretending that somehow we should be asked our opinions (which is , in a way, what happens with many things that require real skill, surgery, flying aeroplanes, playing the Bach Chaconne etc )

[scottycelt]

The 'law of arithmetic' is clear: three candidates, A, B and C, A having right-wing views, B & C are broadly left-wing. The voting goes:

A - 40%
B - 35%
C - 25%

Under FPTP A wins, even though 60% of those who voted didn't vote for him. In fact 60% marked Candidate A as their third choice making him the least favoured candidate. You claim that nobody fell for the No campaign's arguments, yet, leaving AV aside, you clearly don't grasp the basics of a preferential voting system. Here it is again:

In the case of A, B and C above, I mark my ballot paper:

C - 1
B - 2
A - 3

My preference for B over A (who under no circumstances do I want to see elected) is not (NOT) some sort of second class 'vote' which shouldn't be given as much weight as a first preference. Quite the contrary, my preference for B over A is much, much stronger than my preference for C over B.

And your central point is wrong.Let's not. General elections are not sporting competitions: they are ways of discovering opinions, and should be gradable by preferences.The only way 'equity' is decreased is by a voter choosing not to give a preference for all candidates.Let's hope so and that next time we're offered a much better system.

Your repeated assertion that I don't 'understand' the AV system is curious. Anyone, even I, can 'Google' and find out the facts for themselves, if they are in any way doubtful about those!

As for yourself, you now seem to be saying that AV is indeed a poor system so why castigate anyone else for daring to say so?

Also, while a general election may be not be a sporting competition, it is not a consumer survey with various ratings of points out of ten, either. We are asked to choose the best single candidate to represent us, nothing else.

Again, advocates of AV have this obsession with 'negative' votes. We are not asked to choose someone 'not' to represent us, merely to make up our minds positively, even though our selection may not be (indeed probably never is) 100% to our liking.

Whether you approve or not, someone has to ultimately 'win', like any other 'competition'. I, and obviously quite a few others, merely consider that the candidate who gets the most votes in any ballot, whether over or under 50% of the votes cast, has the strongest mandate to represent. It's that simple.

We've not been 'offered a much better system' because nobody has, as yet, come up with one!