tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post88395806946772109..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: So where did it all go wrong for AV? Three theories of a referendum defeatTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-45257107401293310152011-05-09T10:03:58.682+01:002011-05-09T10:03:58.682+01:00Apologies for the deletion - blogger.com duplicate...Apologies for the deletion - blogger.com duplicated my post...13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-28516789992221012392011-05-09T10:02:38.329+01:002011-05-09T10:02:38.329+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-68117460382664785512011-05-09T10:01:42.932+01:002011-05-09T10:01:42.932+01:00@Hal,
(Abuse? Calm down, dear...)
I have to assu...@Hal,<br /><br />(Abuse? Calm down, dear...)<br /><br />I have to assume that the reason you even ask the question is that you've fallen in the trap the Yes2AV camp set for itself - trying to portray FPTP as "Tory".<br /><br />The simple fact is there are many conservative Labour voters who would never vote either for the Tories or for AV.<br /><br />Scotland rejected Labour and AV comprehensively with barely anyone voting Tory.<br /><br />Blair's 2005 majority would have been unchanged by AV, since adoption of AV would not address the gerrymandered boundaries that caused it.<br /><br />If you were outraged in 2005, you should be pleased that the next GE will be contested over new boundaries around drawn around fewer constituencies.13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-28457965764743860312011-05-09T09:17:58.160+01:002011-05-09T09:17:58.160+01:00@13eastie
Cameron's general election poll has ...@13eastie<br />Cameron's general election poll has got *everything* to do with it. You submitted an argument that implied that No2AV won because over 60% of the voters were 'anti-progressive'. I replied that, if that were the case, it's not clear why Cameron didn't win over 60% of the vote in 2010. You don't owe me or anyone else an explanation for anything, but it does rather undermine your argument if, when challenged on your assertions, you resort to abuse rather than argument. <br /><br />As a matter of fact I *was* outraged that Blair got a majority of 66 in 2005 on 35% of the vote. But that's the kind of thing that tends to happen under First Past the Post - a system you support, and I don't.T.N.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13994761000416067940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-67918358078810965722011-05-08T22:47:02.110+01:002011-05-08T22:47:02.110+01:00@Sunder,
I'm not sure your category (1) cover...@Sunder,<br /><br />I'm not sure your category (1) covers this. It implies that voters are docile and, facing anything remotely complex, simply opt for the status quo.<br /><br />I don't think this is at all the case. The average voter (like the average motorist) truly believes his position is at least as valid as the next man's.<br /><br />He does not recognise the right of the supporters of 'losers' (or the BNP if we wish to continue both sides' hysteria) to have "another go" at knocking his man off his perch.<br /><br />The average voter has not gone with status quo re. AV. He has deliberately rejected an idea that he simply finds morally objectionable.<br /><br />My point is not that the argument was unwinnable. It is that arrogance and paternalism allowed the left to dismiss out of hand a massive constituency that was able to devastate its opponents with ease.<br /><br />The failure was deserved.<br /><br />@Hal<br /><br />What on earth has Cameron's general election poll got to do with this, and why in the world should you think I owe an explanation for it?<br /><br />For what it's worth, 35% got Blair a majority of 66 in 2005. Presumably you were outraged?13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-74983107979934873002011-05-08T21:51:59.566+01:002011-05-08T21:51:59.566+01:0013eastie - your argument fails to explain why Came...13eastie - your argument fails to explain why Cameron only secured 36% of the vote - a loser's share, in most post-war elections - in last year's general election. If your analysis was correct the Tories would be averaging 50 to 60 percent of the national vote every election. Whilst I'm sure you'd like that to be true, there is (fortunately) no evidence to support it. <br /><br />No2AV didn't win over 60% of the vote just because of the Tories. They won 60% because a majority of Labour voters - and indeed a majority of Lib Dems(!) joined them in the No bloc. There is a complex web of reasons for that - which I am confident Sunder will untangle over the next few days.T.N.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13994761000416067940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-42189932941556369952011-05-08T21:31:43.237+01:002011-05-08T21:31:43.237+01:00just to attempt to stick to my categoriation! ...
...just to attempt to stick to my categoriation! ...<br /><br />13eastie ... your argument strikes me as in category (1), unless there was a much less elitist campaign for electoral reform which might have won. You put the case against a very narrow progressive elite rather more strongly than I do (from within it!), but you will see at least a little bit of overlap and some acknowledgement of that in the post on the Yes campaign's strategy.<br /><br />salazarbooks ... 'we could have won on PR, not AV' is a category (2) explanation: that the LibDems made the wrong calls in the Coalition deal.<br /><br />I think that general point is very plausible, and will think about this for the next post. But I very much doubt a May 2011 referendum for PR could have been carried.Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-82443815153001606172011-05-08T21:09:52.519+01:002011-05-08T21:09:52.519+01:00You propose to deal with "anti-democratic&quo...You propose to deal with "anti-democratic" influences through imposition of your own brand of reform?<br /><br />How many votes did Pol Pot get with such an approach?<br /><br />And there was me, just a couple of posts back of suggesting the Yes2AV people had been a tad paternalistic...13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-84849915632443233832011-05-08T13:31:18.028+01:002011-05-08T13:31:18.028+01:00@13eastie -
Not at all. Its a call for progressi...@13eastie - <br /><br />Not at all. Its a call for progressives to first off recognise that they will never, ever be able to 'win' an electoral reform referendum because 80% of the press will be against it under any circumstances. Secondly - stop fetishising process, as progressives are wont to do. Make the argument that the anti-democratic influence of the Murdoch's and Barclay Brothers etc. make the running of a democratic referendum impossible and impose reform - REAL reform - through parliament.Daragh McDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049701674340138205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-71596313649031820582011-05-08T10:56:07.479+01:002011-05-08T10:56:07.479+01:00Daragh,
This is satire, right?
Blame the voters ...Daragh,<br /><br />This is satire, right?<br /><br />Blame the voters for the referendum outcome?<br /><br />"Re-interpret" a truly unequivocal result by<br /><br />a) counting the abstentions as ayes<br /><br />b) changing the question retrospectively<br /><br />Hilarious13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-57822893048813702362011-05-08T10:14:30.770+01:002011-05-08T10:14:30.770+01:00..and of course AV would have made those who do n.....and of course AV would have made those who do not vote at all of no interest to anyone . This is why , for the Labour Party to back the odious idea was a betrayal of the very people they should be there for .<br /><br />Not poncy Liberal second choices. The poor and educationally disenfranchised.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-30038031896806724752011-05-07T23:04:24.453+01:002011-05-07T23:04:24.453+01:00I think the relevant figure here is the 60% who DI...I think the relevant figure here is the 60% who DIDN'T vote. They're the ones who bought into the stultifying myth that electoral reform doesn't matter to 'real' people and is a distraction from 'real' policy. <br /><br />We should also admit that the press will always, and everywhere be hostile to the aims of electoral reform. There is a direct correlation in the empowerment of people and the securing of actual democratic reform, and the decline in the power of the press oligarchy. We may have a free referendum, but we will never have a fair one because the propaganda war will always be desperately one-sided.<br /><br />So given that the overwhelming majority of Britains either said 'Yes' or 'I don't care' to electoral reform, we should aggresively interpret that as a mandate to act through parliament. Work to build a coalition of 330-odd MPs willing to pass PR-STV through parliament. Tories have always stressed the ultimate sovereignty of parliament - play by their rules.Daragh McDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049701674340138205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-90257665552462962912011-05-07T22:22:28.422+01:002011-05-07T22:22:28.422+01:00Will look forward to your ruminations, Sunder, (an...Will look forward to your ruminations, Sunder, (and I'm sure I can trust that, unlike a good many other #Yes2AV folk, you will resist the temptation to blame the voters themselves) but perhaps you might also consider another explanation alongside the other three?<br /><br />It might be more painful to consider for self-professed 'progressives' than any of the others.<br /><br /><b>"Progressives" have failed to understand the electorate, and they have done so since we can remember.</b><br /><br />The evidence is piling up that this is the case, and it is not just about AV.<br /><br />Who are the voters?<br /><br />I don't believe many progressives meet them, but I do every day. They are van drivers. Self-employed tradesmen. Would-be first-time entrepreneurs. Daily Mail reading grandparents. They exist in their millions and they turn up to their polling stations like clockwork.<br /><br />People who want to believe that their hard work, unaided, can make their families' lives better.<br /><br />People who have nothing at all in common with Laurie Penny or the Fabians.<br /><br />Tony Blair understood this. He DID "get aspiration".<br /><br />Thatcher LIVED it.<br /><br />Deficit-denial might work in the Islington focus groups, but is a huge turn-off for people with young kids whom they know will be penalised for every penny of "progressive" profligacy.<br /><br />Real voters of all persuasions trust themselves to express a sensible preference. They do not feel it should be cross-examined by fringe followers. Why did the "progressives" not recognise this before the referendum?<br /><br />I suggest that it is because they never look beyond their own circle.<br /><br />Labour's run of popularity never depended on doing so - a benign economic inheritence and a dysfunctional outgoing Govt saw to that. When the real lunacy started, the public saw through the fiscal smoke and mirrors way before the left's political elite did.<br /><br />I suggest that the "progressives" are, in fact, a tiny, tiny, first-name-terms minority. No more than a conceited clique of self-congratulatory snobs.<br /><br />Why on earth don't they bother to find out what people believe, rather than telling them what they think they SHOULD believe?13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-70677168454920132252011-05-07T22:14:23.381+01:002011-05-07T22:14:23.381+01:00It is a profound mistake to suppose a system that ...It is a profound mistake to suppose a system that works for one place will work in another and whilst you may be right that the Conservative Party top table are misty eyed about the union very few of their voters are, Most are more than ready to cast off the bag of wet oats that is Scotland.<br />You have omitted the possibility that the British understood the question and answered it, simply not to your satisfaction<br /><br />As a fully paid up member of the regressive majority I was delighted to see what I have been saying for years demonstrated indisputably.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-26739320154070353462011-05-07T20:25:08.815+01:002011-05-07T20:25:08.815+01:00What about people who wanted Electorial Reform but...What about people who wanted Electorial Reform but not AV?<br /><br />A lot too who wanted it until the Liberals joined the Tories - and then saw it as an opportunity to punish them.<br /><br />The Liberals claim it was them taking the blame for the Coalition - this is probably true. A lot of liberal supporters feel betrayed by the party. Very few Liberal voters wanted to see a Tory government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com