Joensuu

I'm sure you're on the wrong thread, but your point is reasonable, if irrelevent. The biggest flaw in your logic is the fact that New Labour were in most ways economically right wing, they strongly supported privatisation, private enterprise, outsourcing the public sector, reducing state regulation etc. In some ways you might argue that they retained economic left wing policies, primarily the fact that they seemed incapable of reducing the growth of the public sector. Overall though, New Labour were centre right, and broadly authoritarian, certainly further from being socialist or communist that the BNP. Anyhow, if you want to discuss New Labour, start a new thread.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to read all of that. FWIW, I don't think our existing class system defines society very well. IMO, there is a new 'non-working class', who unfortunately are lumped in with the traditional working class, and tarnish the latter by association. I'm generalising already, but IMO, this new class tend to be politically disinterested, but tend to blame others for their woes - hense, IMO the rise of the various authoritarian parties that we have seen in reacent years. Obviously these are my opinions, and are gross generalisations. NB, does that make me part of your 'liberal elite' who want to supress you?

Missed that thread, and don't want to dig it up. IMO any chant referring to yids or yiddos, sung by anyone is not acceptable. Again, don't want to dig this up if you have already discussed it. I think the only thread I have accused you of isms in was the Elton baby thread. I don't think you crossed the line on the EDL thread (I might have accused you of isms there too, but I'd only have done so if I thought you had crossed the line). NB, agreed entirely that the EDL are just as entitled to a voice, so long as it doesn't incite hatred, or result in violence. Again, I can't be bothered to re-engage with that debate. Good, I will continue to assume the scenario that portrays you in the best light then. I'm happy to change my initial assumption if there is evidence to the contrary. IMO, this is the only sensible course of action, and certainly doesn't warrent accusations of ignorance or jumping to conclusions, when I am doing exactly the opposite - and giving you the benefit of any doubt to boot.

Eh? Why are you bringing racism into it? Straw dummy? These 'liberal elite' folk sound proper evil, supressing our rights and stuff. I'm just confused as to who they are, and who they are trying to supress, and why they are misleading called 'liberal' if do indeed aim to supress. You must live in some scary alternative reality.

Yes dune, it's all the fault of those nasty liberal Belgian elite people isn't it. And or course democracy is something liberals hate. I can imagine such soundbytes would go down well in a BNP or EDL meet, but they stop working as soon as you start thinking about the words you are typing.

Hey, I've accused you of 'isms' in the past, but only when I've felt you stepped too far from the thin line you like to traverse. Who is the guardian of all things PC? I can think of several candidates.. FWIW, there isn't a nationwide hatred of Jews at football matches, although I do think Spurs have a problem. Your avatar doesn't exactly do you any favours, but I assume it must be a parody of racism. There's a big division between impersonation, and racism. There is also a big division between humouring and individual, and humouring a race. Who knows what this happened at this reported incident - it could have been anything from over-zealous (and completely incorrect) policing to outright racism.

Don't tell me what I mean. I mean more likely that extreme parties will not be elected. And typically there you go again with your adjective "outdated" it might be a system that has endured, but whether it is outdated is a matter of opinion, as is your conjecture as to what extremists might or might not do under each system. Okay, I shan't try to interpret what you mean if it bothers you so. I believe strongly that all views should be represented, that the number of MPs in each party should be as proportional as possible to the number of votes cast. I believe that if you exclude extremist voices, their cause grows in popularity as people see them as oppressed (they deliberately play the underdog). I also strongly believe that if you do the opposite, and give the extremist voices enough rope, they do a Griffin and hang themself on Question Time. As I'm not allowed to tell you what you mean, you'll have to interpret why I disgree with you from my opinions above. Flawed argument. Aside from Canada, South Korea, and one of India's two houses, no other major democracy uses the outdated FPTP system. Almost every major democracy, from Sweden to Japan uses the far fairer PR system. AV is the half-way house, it is much fairer than FPTP, but still shy of full PR. Flawed argument. Is Sweden a major democracy? LOL. And what a list! From Sweden to Japan. Wow! who'd have thought that there were so many! I think that I read somewhere that over 60% of the World's countries used FPTP. I don't want to go into a debate about PR, but again I don't accept that as a fairer system either. Why don't you just add "in my opinion" before stating that one system is fairer than another, as really that is all it is. Yes, Sweden is definately a major democracy. We are going around in circles here - I've already listed the countries on this thread, and now you are chastising me for not wanting to list them all again. If anyone is interested, the list of countries who have bypassed AV, and gone for the fairer PR system can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation. I'm only bringing PR in to this to explain why the 'only Australia' argument against AV is a non-starter - most other sensible countries have simply dismissed FPTP completely, then leapfrogged the fairer AV system, and ended up with the fairer still PR system. 60% is nonsense. 48 countries use FPTP (in any form), thats under 25%. Here is a list of those great democracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system Oh, and the evidence determining that AV is indeed fairer than FPTP is so overwhelming, that I don't see the need to caveat my words. That would be a bit like a biologist adding doubt to a science text book because some people can't get past creation myths. Most countries that have a democratic voting process have historically gone for FPTP as the starting point and most have kept it. I don't know whether that's true or not. It might be, but I can't be bothered to work it out. Certainly, it can only possibly be true if you are saying that Tuvalu, Malawi, Lebanon, Yeman, Ethiopia, Ghana, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan and all your other leading lights of FPTP have actually put much thought into how to make their democracy fairer. But naturally you get some countries where government changes produce a groundswell of opinion wanting change, mostly because as in our case, it suits one political party to change it. Changing to AV (or preferably PR) is not because it favours one party over another, it is because is a more representative system of holding elections. The only reason not to change is when you have parties in power who benefit from the election system that brought them into power, and who see no reason to undermine their own jobs by improving democracy. Make no bones about it, this vote on a change to our system has been brought about purely because the Lib Dems had the leverage to exact that referendum as the price for their support for the Conservatives and because they would be the main benefiicaries of that change. I make no bones about it. I wouldn't care if this was UKIP or the Greens who had forced this referendum. Voting yes is a benefit to our democracy. Unfortunately, as the large parties don't want to undermine themselve to improve our democracy, one of the smaller parties was obviously going to be tarnished with acting in their own self-interest were they ever to succeed in forcing the hand of power. It is disingenuous to suggest that the only reason that the Conservatives want to keep FPTP is because that benefits them, while not admitting as a Lib Dem that you want to change the system because that suits your party. Not at all. If you took the parties out of the debate, and assessed the systems fairly, FPTP would pick up few if any supporters. Some lib dems might be acting in self-interest - if they are they should be ousted from politics. All Tories/Labour No voters can only be acting in self interest. All Tory and Labour Yes voters can only be acting for the benefit of the country. Naturally you'll say you want the change because it's fairer, therefore I'll argue that the current system is fairer. IMO, not one of your arguments holds water. If you genuinely believe this (after you have tried to remove your party aliegences from the equation) then I'm lost for words. I simply can't fathom the logic of your position if it isn't an attempt to ensure that the party of your choice retains a system which favours it. Useless analogy. Is that the best you can come up with? Who said anything about whether something tried and tested was necessarily the best? Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I assumed that this was your cornerstone argument. It's simple tried and trusted innit. But at least people are familiar with something like that, they know its strengths and weaknesses, which is more than can be said for AV or PR in this country. If somebody is therefore more comfortable with something they are familiar with, then that is up to them. Of course, who'd want change eh? Who needs TV when you have radio? I'm comfortable with the wireless, but I'm not familiar with this newfangled television box machine. Just as your opinions seem just the same thing to me. Or do you believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong? Yes, you probably do. Honestly, yes, I do. Not because you are saying them, just because of what you are saying. If you make any points that I agree with, or can even see sense in, rest assured I will tell you. It seems to me as if you are filtering out the logic, and accepting merely the straws that suit your chosen outcome. Keep on driving your old clapped out Rover, just don't try and sell it to us as if it were a modern vehicle. I'll keep on driving my classic Rolls Royce and you can keep your Sinclair C5. Nice. Almost fitting. I assume your Roller is starting to rust, and does 5 miles to the gallon. I'm not sure the C5 is my cup of tea, but swap it for a Tesla, and you're analogy makes pefect sense. And that is quite enough of this debate for me. I'm not going to change your mind and you're certainly not going to change mine. Agreed. (See, when you make sense, I agree with you!) I have work to do as well, and am going to have to make up the time I've spent on this. As Dune astutely observed, the greatest mechanism for democracy is the referendum. All of this debate is useless in the light that the voting public will have their say in a few days time. I do hope that once the result is in, that will be the end of it. Dune & astutely in the same sentence? I can assure you that whatever the outcome of the public vote, this won't be the end of the press for a fairer electoral system.

So you'd prefer complicated, then. Complicated is better, make eveything more difficult to understand, solutions to problems ought to be difficult to solve, yes? Not at all, I'd prefer 'fairer'. AV isn't complex, it is merely fractionally more difficult to comprehend than FPTP. If FPTP is learning your alphabet, AV is like learning to spell CAT, not complex like writting Shakespeare. Get real. The social demographics of a place have a far larger impact on which way a person votes than the voting system. That won't change just because the voting system changes either. Yes social demographics have a large say over votes. Under FPTP this means that the outcome of excessively wealthy or excessively poor seats is determined before a vote is cast. Only a handful of seats determine the election. If you live in Eastleigh or Winchester your vote counts, if you live in Shefield or the New Forest you might as well not bother under FPTP. Well, I'm glad it is, because the crux of the FPTP election is that the person with the most votes wins. You'd rather the person who comes second or third wins, or have I over-simplified that? No, the crux of FPTP is that you can win with a minority of support. You can easily have candiates who are hated by 65% of the voters winning the seat. Similicity is often a blessing, but not in this case. No, Because the person with the most votes would probably not be elected under your system. Exactly, but the person who appeals to the constituants as a whole will be elected instead. Simple equates to simple. It IS easier to Police. It IS easier to prevent fraud. True (but irrelevent) wrong, & wrong. Evidence please for these claims. I thought that it would be obvious that the simpler a system is, the less likely it is to be open to abuse. Do you disagree? No, that is not evident whatsover. The simplest forms of organised government are dictatorships and oligarchies - which, if we apply your logic, as they are so simple, they must be less open to abuse, right? If you are going to make sweeping claims, please provide some form of evidence. That depends what you are discussing, how flawed, how much simpler and fairer. In any event, I don't accept that the FPTP system is fundamentally flawed. I think that AV is though. How flawed depends upon your scale. Lets say Anarchy is 0, and PR is 100, I'd say AV would be around 90, and FPTP around 85. But heck thats just subjective. FPTP isn't as flawed as a completely non-democratic system. But when it's compared to more representative forms of democracy it is obvious how open to abuse it is. And abused it has become, but the larger parties. Maybe not a lot, but certainly more Agreed, it is likely to cost a small amount more in the first few elections, mostly to train people in the new system. Sorry, I thought you were a democrat. This is a democracy right? Or are you arguing for a dictatorship here? Don't be silly. It doesn't make you look very bright jumping to such strange conclusions Sorry, think I must have misunderstood you. Looking back at your original statement here "It makes the removal of an unpopular Government easier" - Firstly, I don't consider that FPTP does this any more effectively than AV does. Secondly, I believe AV will help to encourage more central, balanced and moderate governments. No I didn't. You add whatever words come into your mind to make you happy if you like. Fair enough. I can only assume you don't undertand the differences between FPTP and AV then. What a load of garbage! Just who precisely is able to predict what the second, third or fourth choices might have been in any particular seat? Evidence is something factual, therefore there is no evidence, just idle conjecture that cannot be proven. Agreed that nobody knows for sure, as voting patterns will change (especially as under AV suddenly people will be free to vote for the candiate that the want to without wasting their vote). However, I based my claim upon various attempts to analysis the data (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm ). You base your counter claim that this is 'garbage' and 'idle conjecture' upon? It is not a myth. It is a matter of opinion. Well you are welcome to your opinion. However, opinion without substance isn't a sensible foundation for making any decision. I disagree (naturally) But I'm not about to go into any detail, as this debate isn't about political history. Suffice to say that there has always been the possibility of having more parties that would be electable, were they to have policies that were attractive to the electorate. Take the Lib Dems as a prime example. I disagree (naturally). Most voters (say 60%) are entrenched in either the red or blue camps. The other 40% of the voters have rarely had representation. Do you not agree that the left right swing is damaging? If Labour support unions, the Tories dismantle the industry, if the Tories change rules making small business loans cheaper, Labour will increase taxes on now profitable small companies. It's a relentless swing, with both parties detesting ther other, and undoing each others policies. Each swing adds layers of complexity and beuracracy. If both sides were more moderate, the country would be advancing smoothly not endlessly deconstructing.

Blimey, some of you have got paranoid haven't you? It's all the fault of the liberal elite etc... Anyhow, back on track, either the police were completely out of order here, or we are not being told the whole story... all it would take is the singer making a eye gesture or something and the whole story would sound very different.

Finally one of the opposing groups coming clean about their opposition. They might as well have prefixed their statement with "AV is indisputably the better system, but... "

It is deceptive to suggest that just because something is 'simple' it has to be the better solution. The engine's on an Austin Rover used to be simple. How is it fair to have a 'simple' system in which the outcome of an election is determined by a handfull of seats - live in the wrong place you might as well not vote under FPTP. Your argument here is itself oversimplified. Exactly. So you will be voting Yes then? There you go with that simple nonsense again. 'Simple' doesn't equate 'good'. No FPTP isn't easier to police. No FPTP isn't less open to fraud. What makes you suggest such? Simple simple simple simple simple - is that your only rational? Are you going for the Hovis vote or something. I ask you this - is it better to be simple but fundamentally flawed, or mildly less simple and much fairer? NB - your 'cost less to administer' line is wrong. Unless you have anything to back it up with, I assume you are drawing upon Australian evidence? In which case, you hold any form of election (AV, FPTP, PR whatever) where voters a spread thinly across hundreds of miles of scrubland, and you try to find a way to keep the costs down eh? Try AV in the UK and the change in cost will be negligable, if any. Sorry, I thought you were a democrat. This is a democracy right? Or are you arguing for a dictatorship here? You missed the words 'fractionally' and 'theoretically'. Firstly: AV is only fractionally more likely to cause coalitions. Evidence suggests no election result would have been different in the past 30 years. Secondly: Coalition governments have a track history of working very well in a broad range of countries. There is no evidence that they are 'weaker' - that is a myth. They do however help to prevent the endless swings from left to right, with each side undermining the changes implemented by the other. If you like coalitions help to reduce the short-term nature of modern politics, they help to moderate the exteremes of government that have been inflicted upon the UK in the past 50 years. Not having more coalitions could be the very reason this country is in such a mess. You mean more likely to ignore anyone with a different opinion. If you don't include all views proportionately you get a growing resentment of politics and apathy towards voting. This breeds extremist views. A move away from the outdated FPTP system will help reduce this apathy, by helping to reflect society more accurately. Do this and watch the extremist crumble. Flawed argument. Aside from Canada, South Korea, and one of India's two houses, no other major democracy uses the outdated FPTP system. Almost every major democracy, from Sweden to Japan uses the far fairer PR system. AV is the half-way house, it is much fairer than FPTP, but still shy of full PR. FPTP has been tried and tested - and it has been found wanting. No countries are moving to FPTP, many (such as New Zealand and South Africa) have seen it's fundamental flaws and moved away. Again, just because your Austin Rover is tried and tested, doesn't mean it's the best on the market. Really? They seem rather illogical attempts to try and legitimise personal bias to me. Keep on driving your old clapped out Rover, just don't try and sell it to us as if it were a modern vehicle.

I will. Additionally, I assume that if you consider yourself a democrat you will accept the publics right to continue to petition for a more representative voting system, irrespective of the outcome.

By itself it won't. It is merely the first of a series of changes that are needed to help our government better reflect the wishes of our people. This is simply because the AV part of the Tory Leadership election system is the part relating to the voting by MPs - and not the voting by members (as by the time the memebers get to vote the contestants have been whittled down to 2 anyhow - making AV at this stage null and void). So, had the entire Tory Leadership election system been replaced with FPTP (with MPs voting - not members), then based on the results of the first round of voting Davis with 62 votes would have been elected (beating Cameron's 56 votes into second place). Now of course you can argue that this isn't a like for like as the FPTP model prevents the members from voting - but essentially that's just splitting hairs. The fact is, had the first round of the Tory Leadership election been decisive (FPTP), Davis would now be leader

Vote NO or Wes Tender pulls the trigger?

Shh, that's exactly what the No campaign want to avoid at all costs - they can't possibly pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate if they are forced to actually debate the relative merits of the systems...

No. Why not? Simply because IMO there isn't a direct correlation between the electoral system, and that behaviour of those elected. As I said before: "While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this. "

I can think of two reasons: 1) Self interest - aka, they are hard-line Tories/Labour, and would prefer to see Tory/Labour policy implemented rather than see our democracy made more representative. 2) Stupidity - aka, they haven't/are unable to consider the arguments themselves, and have instead been blinded by one of the No campaign's adverts. As such, they now live in fear of Baby's dieing, or Nick Clegg looking smug, or extra money being spent etc..

Exactly, the ONLY reason to support the No campaign is self interest (whether left or right). The No campaign could be summed up as "Career over Country" - exactly the sort of behaviour we need remove if we are to clean up our democracy.

Ay... let us remind ourselves the depths to which the No campaign have slipped (and they have the nerve to pick holes in leaflets which contain slightly unclear text FFS).

Having read the linked PDF, it's clear to me that the Yes campaign are playing on the need to change politics generally, and associating this with voting yes. This is IMO largely irrelevent to the current debate, and in an ideal world should really have been avoided. The leaflet isn't inaccurate per se, but it is associating changing the voting system with changing the political system (of which this is merely one component). While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this. All considered, this leaflet is a long way shy of the No campaign's deliberate attempts to deceive and distort the truth (e.g. cost £250m more etc).

Yup, this, or a scan would do if you can't link to it.

Excellent post. Agree entirely. With little to defend the existing system, the No campaign has had to rely upon confusion, misdirection and scare tactics. If only there were a law to limit the debate to the subject in hand, ie the relative pros and cons of FPTP and AV - the latter would win by a landslide.

Good to see you being so, err, gracious. Vote yes, because it would be fun to imagine the rage on Dune's skinheaded face.

Vote yes, anything that ****es off Dune and Thatcher has to be a good idea.

Dune in 'can't stand Muslim shocker'.