Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Firstly, does anyone care? Secondly will you bother to turn out and change the system from FPTP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I will definitely vote. And I will definitely vote to keep FPTP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 We should have a vote on more than one system imo, i'm in favour of a PR-based system. All the other ones are far too complicated for yer man on the streets (those who are most disillusioned with politics) to understand comprehensively. Keep it simple, keep it representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 what ever way it goes..can we all just accept it and put it to bed..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I'm pro FPTP, but with constituencies more balanced than they are now (in terms of number of voters per constituency) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 what ever way it goes..can we all just accept it and put it to bed..? On here or in the real world....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I get confused all this talk of AV and Cables makes me want to USB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I will definitely vote. And I will definitely vote to keep FPTP. Of course Dune, Tories have AV to elect their leader, otherwise they'd have Dave Davis on FPTP. Why is it good enough to elect their leader, but not good enough to elevt a government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 After this parliament the Liberals will be even more of a wasted vote than they have ever been. It's only small parties like them that will benefit to a small extent from AV. If you're a Labour supporter or a Tory supporter FPTP is better for your party. And FPTP is most likely to deliver a majority government. Coalitions are rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 (edited) I was torn between voting for AV and abstaining because of the lack of a PR option. Having thought about it, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Anyone who wants a more proportional electoral system with the number of cast votes more closely relating to the number of seats allocated has to vote yes. Anyone voting no, is putting party or politics before the aim of creating a fairer and more proportional democracy. Edit: QED, all about parties, nothing about whats the fairest way for votes to reflect seats: After this parliament the Liberals will be even more of a wasted vote than they have ever been. It's only small parties like them that will benefit to a small extent from AV. If you're a Labour supporter or a Tory supporter FPTP is better for your party. And FPTP is most likely to deliver a majority government. Coalitions are rubbish. Edited 18 February, 2011 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Anyone voting no is putting party or politics before the aim of creating a fairer and more proportional democracy. I see voting against AV as putting the country first because FPTP is the best system for delivering a strong majority government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I see voting against AV as putting the country first because FPTP is the best system for delivering a strong majority government. No real difference on that one Dune. AV is only slightly more likely to deliver a hung parliament than FPTP - however it is substantially fairer (albeit not fair enough IMO). Also, coalitions work well elsewhere. They add balance to the mix, and help to stem the endless swings from left to right with each undoing the other's reforms. More consistancy in the middle will strengthen and stabilise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 After this parliament the Liberals will be even more of a wasted vote than they have ever been. It's only small parties like them that will benefit to a small extent from AV. If you're a Labour supporter or a Tory supporter FPTP is better for your party. And FPTP is most likely to deliver a majority government. Coalitions are rubbish. Trouble with strong majorities, of either colour, is that they can force through whatever cr@p legislation they want. Coalitions at least put some checks and balances in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 No real difference on that one Dune. AV is only slightly more likely to deliver a hung parliament than FPTP - however it is substantially fairer (albeit not fair enough IMO). Also, coalitions work well elsewhere. They add balance to the mix, and help to stem the endless swings from left to right with each undoing the other's reforms. More consistancy in the middle will strengthen and stabilise. So you won't mind if parties like the BNP get a boost? I support the UKIP who want AV because it will benefit them but I will still vote against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 So you won't mind if parties like the BNP get a boost? I support the UKIP who want AV because it will benefit them but I will still vote against it. No, i don't mind. All people deserve for their opinion to be represented, however abhorrent their opinion. AV isn't as fair as PR, but it's a definate improvement over our current biased, and unrepresentative system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 Trouble with strong majorities, of either colour, is that they can force through whatever cr@p legislation they want. Coalitions at least put some checks and balances in place. I haven't decided yet - I'll wait to see the 'manifestos' for each side of the argument. I've always been of the view that a strong government is better than a coalition. You rightly say that a government with a strong majority can push stuff through but what we're seeing with this current coalition is a whole series of policy announcements that are then hurriedly amended / withdrawn. Also, with the current coalition, the Liberal element of it has a hugely disproportionate amount of influence compared to the votes cast for that party in the last election. That's hardly democratic IMO. But I'm open to persuasion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I haven't decided yet - I'll wait to see the 'manifestos' for each side of the argument. I've always been of the view that a strong government is better than a coalition. You rightly say that a government with a strong majority can push stuff through but what we're seeing with this current coalition is a whole series of policy announcements that are then hurriedly amended / withdrawn. Also, with the current coalition, the Liberal element of it has a hugely disproportionate amount of influence compared to the votes cast for that party in the last election. That's hardly democratic IMO. But I'm open to persuasion You will vote in favour of FPTP because you are/were a member of the Labour Party and you know as well as I do that the current system is best for your party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 I care. Only bad MP's fear a fairer voting system. I will be voting and I will vote yes, yes for AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 You will vote in favour of FPTP because you are/were a member of the Labour Party and you know as well as I do that the current system is best for your party. That's voting for all the wrong reasons. This rigging of the seats in parliament HAS to end. FPTP works very well in a 2 party system. We no longer have that. The 'main' two parties got just 66% at the last election, down from the 95%+ they used to get 30 or 40 years ago when FPTP was reasonable. This system just excludes everyone else now. It's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 So you won't mind if parties like the BNP get a boost? I support the UKIP who want AV because it will benefit them but I will still vote against it. I think small parties like the BNP etc would get a boost from outright PR, I'm not so sure they will under an AV system. I'll probably vote for it as it's hard to defend a winning MP only getting 32% of the constituency vote as in Watford apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 If the Liberals are in favour then I'm definitely voting against. That lot have never come up with any sensible ideas. Apart from that, I want to know who I'm voting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 If the Liberals are in favour then I'm definitely voting against. That lot have never come up with any sensible ideas. Apart from that, I want to know who I'm voting for. So the national health service , state pensions, tax credits, were not sensible ideas then, all of which were policies either enacted by the Liberal party or first proposed by them and then taken on by others. FPTP is undemocratic which is why it so appealing to tories, the party that fought universal suffrage tooth and nail. AV is one small step on the road to the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland returning to true democracy not this sham we have at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 So the national health service , state pensions, tax credits, were not sensible ideas then, all of which were policies either enacted by the Liberal party or first proposed by them and then taken on by others. FPTP is undemocratic which is why it so appealing to tories, the party that fought universal suffrage tooth and nail. AV is one small step on the road to the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland returning to true democracy not this sham we have at the moment. So why didn't the Liberals introduce it when they used to be in power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 18 February, 2011 Share Posted 18 February, 2011 If the Liberals are in favour then I'm definitely voting against. That lot have never come up with any sensible ideas. Apart from that, I want to know who I'm voting for. Your call WG. Always best not to think about what to vote for, eh? One point though, AV doesnt prevent you from knowing who you're voting for, it simply increases your options, and allows more people to have their opinions reflected. Voting against AV because you dislike Liberals, is a bit like Finland's reasons for siding with the Nazi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Your call WG. Always best not to think about what to vote for, eh? One point though, AV doesnt prevent you from knowing who you're voting for, it simply increases your options, and allows more people to have their opinions reflected. Voting against AV because you dislike Liberals, is a bit like Finland's reasons for siding with the Nazi's. Also encourages politicians to work together rather than aimlessly pretend there are massive differences between them and fighting campaigns nastily. Reduces the percentage of safe seats. Means everyone has a majority of the votes rather than a plurality which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 So why didn't the Liberals introduce it when they used to be in power? Because the last time they were in power we had a two party system ad FPTP works for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Because the last time they were in power we had a two party system ad FPTP works for that. The last time we had a majority Liberal Government, Labour was a fledgling party with 29 seats, women couldn't vote, and Eire was still sending MPs to Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Interesting piece in the Guardian today, with the views of two politicians who are going against their respective party lines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/19/the-conversation-alternative-vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 You will vote in favour of FPTP because you are/were a member of the Labour Party and you know as well as I do that the current system is best for your party. I am/was a member of the Labour party and am minded to vote for AV at the moment, that said I'm still not 100% convinved either way so welcome debates like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 If the electrol system is going to be changed then we need to look at it as a whole. It can not be right that Labour can form a Govt with a lot less % of the vote than the Tories need. All of the constituencies should contain more or less the same number of voters, and there should be a lot less of them. England should have the same devolved powers that Scotland have, there can be no justification for Scottish MP's voting on issues that don't affect their constituants. Unless all the unfairness in the present system is addressed I will vote no to any change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Unless all the unfairness in the present system is addressed I will vote no to any change. Yes, that makes sense. A vote for AV will increase fairness, no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Yes, that makes sense. A vote for AV will increase fairness, no matter how you look at it. What's "fair" about someone's 5th choice counting towards an election result? Having even constituencies in a FPTP system will also increase this human concept they call "fairness" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 IMO it should be who ever gets the most votes wins...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 IMO it should be who ever gets the most votes wins...... It is mathematically possible with the current system for the party with the most votes to have 0 MPs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 The Tories won the 2010 election with 36.1% of the vote. Labour won the 2005 election with 35.2% of the vote. Labour had a 66 majority, whereas the Tories were unable to form a Govt. Labour have a massive majority in Scotland and The Tories in England, Scotland have their own Parliament and England do not. I presume all the posters looking for "fairness" in our electrol system want these issues addressed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 (edited) What's "fair" about someone's 5th choice counting towards an election result? Having even constituencies in a FPTP system will also increase this human concept they call "fairness" 'Even' constituencies how exactly? If you mean simply by numbers, that rarely results in fairness, particularly in safe seats - the rotten boroughs of our age. Blocs of Labour or Tory or LibTurncoat votes often thwart not only the minority whose views are completely ignored in what is supposed to be a democracy - but even those for whom voting for the inevitably winning candidates is the norm. Many of those are not party fodder - far from it - but have shades of opinion about parties and candidates that are far better represented in an AV system. Only party apparatchiks like you would support FPTP surely - leaving aside the political infant by the name of d*ne. Edited 19 February, 2011 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 What's "fair" about someone's 5th choice counting towards an election result? Having even constituencies in a FPTP system will also increase this human concept they call "fairness" This. Apart from the inherent risks of having hung parliaments, why should, say, my 5th vote count (presumably along with my 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), when someone in a neighbouring constituency only has their 1st vote count. However, I'm still undecided and I need to read a lot more before I make up my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 If the electrol system is going to be changed then we need to look at it as a whole. It can not be right that Labour can form a Govt with a lot less % of the vote than the Tories need. All of the constituencies should contain more or less the same number of voters, and there should be a lot less of them. England should have the same devolved powers that Scotland have, there can be no justification for Scottish MP's voting on issues that don't affect their constituants. Unless all the unfairness in the present system is addressed I will vote no to any change. As I said above, I felt very similar to this, and was tempted to come to the same conclusion. Then I realised that doing so would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Any improvement is better than no improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 The Tories won the 2010 election with 36.1% of the vote. Labour won the 2005 election with 35.2% of the vote. Labour had a 66 majority, whereas the Tories were unable to form a Govt. Labour have a massive majority in Scotland and The Tories in England, Scotland have their own Parliament and England do not. I presume all the posters looking for "fairness" in our electrol system want these issues addressed as well. I think that is a stark illustration of some inherent consitutional problems this country needs to address. Unfortunately these proposals will not do it, whatever the result. I believe the proposed system is used by all of 3 countries in the world to elect their government (Australia, Papua New Guinea and another I can't remember) and is under some scrutiny in those. What I would like to happen is for me to decide who is in charge and everyone else to have to lump it. Frankly, you would be better off than you are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 What's "fair" about someone's 5th choice counting towards an election result? Having even constituencies in a FPTP system will also increase this human concept they call "fairness" Evening the number of voters per constituency would indeed be an improvement over the current mess. However, it would still suffer from many of the same problems as the current system, with a handful of seats being the only ones voters actually have a choice in. However, I disagree about your '5th choice' remark. Either you are trying for an anti-AP sound bite, or you are misunderstanding AP. Very, very few poll cards would ever get down to their 5th choice. This could only happen if the vote in a seat was heavily split, with no party dominating. I could also only happen for voters who have voted for minority parties with each of the top 4 preferences (had they placed any of the larger parties in their top 4 votes they wouldn't stand a chance of their 5th choice ever coming into play). As such, the scenario you paint will rarely happen, if at all. On the rare occasions that it does ever occur, the vote would have to be so tight, that voters whose chosen parties have already been eliminated (and therefore those whose votes (and opinions) essentially don't count in FPTP) get their second and sometimes third choices assessed. Generally, all this means is that if there is a 'marmite' party, who is loved by say 45%, but hated by 55%, even if the 55% of the vote is split, the majority of a constituency still get an MP they can tolerate, rather than one whom they detest. Having read many of your previous posts, I'm sure that you already know all of this. You possibly even agree that AP is a fairer electoral system than the current mess, but you can't help putting your party allegiances before making our democracy more representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 I think that is a stark illustration of some inherent consitutional problems this country needs to address. Unfortunately these proposals will not do it, whatever the result. I believe the proposed system is used by all of 3 countries in the world to elect their government (Australia, Papua New Guinea and another I can't remember) and is under some scrutiny in those. Absolutely, we need consitutional reform, and even if we adopt AV, we won't have reformed enough. It is a small step in the right direction, nothing more. I do love the fact that the three countries who use AV is used but those against AV as if this were reason not to reform. In actual fact, few countries use AV because it isn't fair enough (albeit fairer than FPTP). Take a look at the list of countries who have bypassed AV and opted for a much fairer alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 The Tories won the 2010 election with 36.1% of the vote. Labour won the 2005 election with 35.2% of the vote. Labour had a 66 majority, whereas the Tories were unable to form a Govt. Labour have a massive majority in Scotland and The Tories in England, Scotland have their own Parliament and England do not. I presume all the posters looking for "fairness" in our electrol system want these issues addressed as well. Yes, most definately. Anyone voting against AV must not believe these situations are unfair; they must be placing party before democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Absolutely, we need consitutional reform, and even if we adopt AV, we won't have reformed enough. It is a small step in the right direction, nothing more. This reform is all a sop to the Lib/Dems for forming a coalition. It is not the system they wanted and it's rushed and hurried through to fulfill the coalition agreement. That's no way to reform our electrol system. I cant help thinking that it's been done in such a way that Clegg can appease his party, but there's no chance of it happening so it benefits the Tories as well. Clegg should have stood his ground and insisted on real reform for his support of the coalition. In my opinion the whole thing is a tick box exercise. Clegg can tell his grass roots that he gave them the promised vote on AV (even though it is miles from their goal of PR) and Cameron gets a coalition partner, whilst keeping FPTP (I really cant see this going through with Lib/Dem polls at such low levels) . Everyone's a winner,except the mug tax payer who has to cough up millions of pounds we can ill afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 This reform is all a sop to the Lib/Dems for forming a coalition. It is not the system they wanted and it's rushed and hurried through to fulfill the coalition agreement. That's no way to reform our electrol system. I cant help thinking that it's been done in such a way that Clegg can appease his party, but there's no chance of it happening so it benefits the Tories as well. Clegg should have stood his ground and insisted on real reform for his support of the coalition. In my opinion the whole thing is a tick box exercise. Clegg can tell his grass roots that he gave them the promised vote on AV (even though it is miles from their goal of PR) and Cameron gets a coalition partner, whilst keeping FPTP (I really cant see this going through with Lib/Dem polls at such low levels) . Everyone's a winner,except the mug tax payer who has to cough up millions of pounds we can ill afford. Much as I hate to admit it, this post sums the whole process up. It is just a sop to disaffected LibDems. FPTP is a severely flawed system, which is skewed by the regional discrepencies in the political balance in the 4 home countries, and AV is not going to change a thing, ( see this analysis of the 2010 election - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/alternative-vote-minimal-impact-general-election ). If we are going to change we must go for STV, but the referendum has been fixed by giving us a choice between 'no change' and 'effectively no change'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 This reform is all a sop to the Lib/Dems for forming a coalition. It is not the system they wanted and it's rushed and hurried through to fulfill the coalition agreement. That's no way to reform our electrol system. I cant help thinking that it's been done in such a way that Clegg can appease his party, but there's no chance of it happening so it benefits the Tories as well. Clegg should have stood his ground and insisted on real reform for his support of the coalition. In my opinion the whole thing is a tick box exercise. Clegg can tell his grass roots that he gave them the promised vote on AV (even though it is miles from their goal of PR) and Cameron gets a coalition partner, whilst keeping FPTP (I really cant see this going through with Lib/Dem polls at such low levels) . Everyone's a winner,except the mug tax payer who has to cough up millions of pounds we can ill afford. Agree with you on every point you make. This is my reading of the situation too. But if you look past the politics, it IS a fairer system, it IS and improvement over the current mess, and while not the big step forward Clegg should have insisted upon, the small benefits it does introduce should be something everyone who believes in democracy should welcome. Lib Dem votes have dropped because the party has sold out, and liberals hold their principals in high regard. This of course means that there are still plenty of liberals in the country who will vote for any consitutional improvement, whether or not they will ever vote LibDem again is a different matter. [FWIW, Clegg should not have joined either party in coalition, he should have stuck to liberal principals, and allowed Cameron to form a minority government, and then allowed his MP's to vote for/against any measure as they see fit - the outcome would have been that liberal measures proposed by the Conservatives would have found an easy passage through parliament, authoriatarian ones wouldn't have, the Lib Dems would have retained their voters, and all legislation would have needed to have been balanced to get through the house - everyone's a winner. As it is, Clegg has done the stupidest possible thing; he sold out by placing personal power before party and the opinions of his voters. While Clegg is in charge, the Lib Dems will continue to poll very low numbers, as such, AV won't actually benefit the Lib Dems much at all - it only stands to benefit our democracy.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 Much as I hate to admit it, this post sums the whole process up. It is just a sop to disaffected LibDems. FPTP is a severely flawed system, which is skewed by the regional discrepencies in the political balance in the 4 home countries, and AV is not going to change a thing, ( see this analysis of the 2010 election - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/alternative-vote-minimal-impact-general-election ). If we are going to change we must go for STV, but the referendum has been fixed by giving us a choice between 'no change' and 'effectively no change'. Absolutely, but 'effectively not change' is better than 'no change'. I can't see STV being on the agenda for a long time now that Clegg has killed the Lib Dems, and the two big parties put self-interest before democracy. Voting 'no' because the change is too little, is self defeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 how has clegg killed the lib dems..? ffs, last time I looked he was deputy PM and members of his party are in the cabinet dear christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 how has clegg killed the lib dems..? Because there are a lot of thick people in his party who don't understand what being a minority partner in a coalition government entails. You'd think they would have a clue given they've been advocating PR for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 how has clegg killed the lib dems..? ffs, last time I looked he was deputy PM and members of his party are in the cabinet dear christ Jamie, it's fairly obvious to most, that Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Conservatives without getting a guarantee of Tory whips forcing the party to vote through full STV, was going to alienate most of his voters. Apparently Paddy Ashdown wept when he heard that Clegg had decided to join into coalition with the tories. Liberal voters now feel massively let down by the party they voted for. Student's for example will not now vote for the Lib Dems, despite traditionally making up a core of the party's electorate. I am a liberal voter, and I can't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems while Clegg is still in charge. If you need further evidence you only have to look at he polls - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/, c. 50% of liberal voters appear to have abandoned the party following Clegg's decision. Sure the party isn't killed, but Clegg has done his best to undermine it. Oh, almost forgot to add a 'FFS' to the end of my post to demonstrate how 'stupid' another poster appears to be. Using FFS is childish, FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2011 Share Posted 19 February, 2011 so, libe dems would rather NEVER getting anywhere near power (which is the case) than get a siff, put in a few ideas and curb the tories like they do now. they came 3rd...and in most elections by a long bloody way...did they really expect to come into this, dump trident, dump tuition fees, let out prisoners, let in all the illegals...etc etc.. they are the nearest to power they have ever been...they are getting their voice heard and getting a couple of policies in yet, that is not enough for a small 3rd place party they have their PR now..yet, that is seen as selling its soul..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now