Comments on: To vote, or not to vote…

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:56:00 +0000

brown, he's been stewing in his own juices for months. very tender

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:52:00 +0000

@Jon If you had to eat one of the three on a BBQ, which one would it be?

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:43:00 +0000

far too drunk too meaningfully comment. other than i than to say that i hate nick clegg with every bone in my body

By: Sam Watts

Sam Watts — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:37:00 +0000

I don't think he left out the information, what I put was wrong, which is why I deleted it, after more careful reading- my apologies- for anyone reading this, I was contesting that Nick Clegg's policy for schools was just for primary schools not secondary schools, but as Chris pointed out, this is incorrect, which was my mistake. I'm going to stop typing before I do anything else silly – p.s.and yeh, the bigot one was very funny, but I was referring to the debates.

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:22:00 +0000

Yeh I did think that one was fun. Funniest slip up still goes to the hater of bigots though, I reckon hehe.

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:21:00 +0000

What did you change? Isn't that just the same point, minus the stuff I just contested? Kinda ruins the line of argument if someone tries to read it.Also disguises the fact you conceded the point. Is that not an issue though, that he did tell things wrong or left out information? The telegraph is not the only source: looking up the information yourself proves it wrong. The schools one is a big one – its one of their big policies, and its clearly wildly unrealistic, or he promised to the whole country something they aren't planning to deliver.

By: Sam Watts

Sam Watts — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:15:00 +0000

P.s. Did you not think the funniest slip up of them all in the debates was when Cameron said "I was in Plymouth the other day, when some 40 year old black guy came up to me who had been in the navy for 30 years…." How can a 40 year old man have been in the navy for 30 years??? hahaha very hench 10 year old I suppose.

By: Sam Watts

Sam Watts — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:14:00 +0000

A bit of editing after that little slip up …. In relation to Nick Clegg telling lies- the only source this comes from is the Telegraph, which is, quite frankly, the biggest piece of Tory propaganda in the country next to the Daily Mail. There was no attempt to substantiate this claims (correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm pretty sure there were no other broadsheets agreeing with this, surely it would have been mentioned on BBC as well. However, Cameron's claim about the Lexus rom the first debate was shown as false on the ITV news very soon after. Again, maybe not the best source of information, but I have no doubt it is more reliable than the telegraph. In response to Nick Clegg saying you only have two choices in the local elections then saying something different in the nationwide debate- The fact of the matter is, in Sheffield Hallam, the statistics demonstrate there ARE only two choices, whereas nationwide, this is not the case. Maybe he could have clarified this point more, but I don't think it's something that should be held against him.In relation to PR- yes, it may be unfair in that aspect, but in general, I believe it it a much fairer system and does give a more accurate representation of each voter. For example, Labour only got 22% of the electorate votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005 in the 2005 election, but were still winners- sounds like a very unfair system. The thing that IS worrying in my opinion is the fact that Italy have used this system and have had about 60 different Governments since the war. In relation to Vince Cable, whereas some of his claims may not have been as accurate as lib dem voters may have liked, he did say we should have nationalised northern rock 6 months before we actually went ahead and did it- and Darlings budget saying we should tax more on those earning more than £150,000 has been a lib dem policy for a good while.

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:01:00 +0000

Nick Clegg's statement "That's why we've got a plan, fully costed, to provide schools with additional resources so that they can bring down the average class size in a primary school, for instance down to 20, and the average class size in a secondary school down to 16."Clearly what he is implying there is that across the nation, class sizes in primary would go down to 20, and secondary to 16. It doesn't strike me as mega honest if the plan is only to actually do that to some schools, because that's not how it comes across.I don't really have the time to chase up each of the references in that article – which I do agree is obviously biased – however, as someone who works in the NHS, the chance of an entire Neonatal Intensive Care Unit being left open due to lack of doctors seems incredibly unlikely. What, the whole NICU ward is shut down, and ill babies in Cardiff aren't treated? And I've attempted to download the primary curriculum, and it came to 76 pages, which seems pretty close to what that article was saying.More importantly to me, his not-backed-up-by-his-own-manifesto statements about care and crime were much more irritating. Yes, the point about the "Two Choices" statement was trite, but the local Lib Dem behaviour has been a little pathetic. If you live in Hallam, surely you can resonate a little with my comments on the comparison between the mature(ish) literature Labour and Conservatives sent round compared to the facile stuff the Lib Dems sent.Regarding PR, I think it is not something I want us to rush into. I think a referrendum on it is a good idea, and I think we really need to look at the evidence behind it, since it is statistics like Italy, and Israel that make one a little concerned about it.Vince Cable I think is a sensible bloke. He did make some early calls right, although he also made them wrong too – he said that we shouldn't spend public money to support the economy, then changed his mind, if you click the links above.Ultimately, I think the Lib Dems are pretty good. I think Labour are a wee bit better, but there's not much in it. What I'm hoping for is a hung parliament, with the three parties working together, stopping squabbling, and potentially give us the greatest government we've ever had.

By: Sam Watts

Sam Watts — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:24:00 +0000

Hey chris, sorry if I've misread your note (really enjoyed it by the way)- but I just wante to point out that the lib dems policy on making class sizes smaller is jut for primary schools, not secondary as well, so it wouldn't require such a high figure as you've proposed to fund this proposal. So, I think it would be relevant to approx 20,000 schools as opposed to the 27,000 you have said. However, yeh, £2.5 billion will be short of what is needed here, but I don't think by as much as you have quoted. Also, in relation to Nick Clegg telling lies- the only source this comes from is the Telegraph, which is, quite frankly, the biggest piece of Tory propaganda in the country next to the Daily Mail. There was no attempt to substantiate this claims (correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm pretty sure there were no other broadsheets agreeing with this, surely it would have been mentioned on BBC as well. However, Cameron's claim about the Lexus rom the first debate was shown as false on the ITV news very soon after. Again, maybe not the best source of information, but I have no doubt it is more reliable than the telegraph. In response to Nick Clegg saying you only have two choices in the local elections then saying something different in the nationwide debate- The fact of the matter is, in Sheffield Hallam, the statistics demonstrate there ARE only two choices, whereas nationwide, this is not the case. Maybe he could have clarified this point more, but I don't think it's something that should be held against him.In relation to PR- yes, it may be unfair in that aspect, but in general, I believe it it a much fairer system and does give a more accurate representation of each voter. For example, Labour only got 22% of the electorate votehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005 in the 2005 election, but were still winners- sounds like a very unfair system. The thing that IS worrying in my opinion is the fact that Italy have used this system and have had about 60 different Governments since the war. In relation to Vince Cable, whereas some of his claims may not have been as accurate as lib dem voters may have liked, he did say we should have nationalised northern rock 6 months before we actually went ahead and did it- and Darlings budget saying we should tax more on those earning more than £150,000 has been a lib dem policy for a good while.

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:52:00 +0000

I agree, although as I put above under "Don't mention the war(s)!", I also think that none of the other parties would invade without good reason should another situation like that arise. The anti-humanitarian link actually takes you to the BNP website.Also, whilst I wasn't in favour of the war, I also think that at the time, the press was very much pushing for it. The previous failures of the Iraq government to comply with weapons inspections, and a statement from the Lead weapons inspector Hans Blix to the UN Security Council that "while Iraq was cooperating in terms of access, Iraq's declarations with regards to WMD still could not be verified", means that there were some grey areas. And the overwhelming weight of public opinion was in favour of the war. In the US, about 80% of the public were in favour of it in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_US_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#April_2003) – can't find statistics on the UK. Ultimately though, there was a debate in the UK parliament, followed by a vote, where a large majority of our elected officials voted in favour of the war. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-47.htm) As we know, democracy dictates that we obey the will of the people, and that is what happened. Can we really say that Lib Dems, had they been in power in 2001 would guaranteed not have invaded? Because let's face it, they were a minor party in opposition at the time. Of course they were going to contradict the government. In reality, as a majority party, responding to 9/11, to the press, to the public; it is impossible to say that its a certainty they would have opposed it.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:28:23 +0000

But one of my big points above, about the Lib Dems, is their failure to explain themselves in their manifesto.

That’s fine, you can tell me that they have always proposed multi-member STV. But I can’t seem to find that in their manifesto, or on their website under “What We Stand For”.

When there is a multitude of variants of STV, they need to be specific. That’s the problem with their whole campaign – vague statements with no substance.

And… I’m not necessarily agreed that PR *is* better. Single winner STV is clearly more empowering, with no downsides to what we have currently. Multi member is debateable.

By: burkesworks

burkesworks — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:46:18 +0000

Chris – the LibDems have always proposed multi-member STV as their preferred choice.

By: Nick Lowry

Nick Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:17:00 +0000

Hey, regarding no one producing anti-humanitarian policies, remember that Lib Dems are the only party who were voting strongly against any war in Iraq, and would probably do the same should another 11/9 happen.

By: Nick Lowry BSc

Nick Lowry BSc — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:17:00 +0000

By: Noel Slevin

Noel Slevin — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:48:00 +0000

Not. For any of them.

By: Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:42:00 +0000

Yes mate and I will check with my wife to

By: Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis

Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:42:00 +0000

Yes mate and I will check with my wife to

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:40:00 +0000

sounds good. need to check with wife. can i get a haircut too? I look like a haystack lol

By: Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:34:00 +0000

You want to go out with dogs and kids sunday after church

By: Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis

Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:34:00 +0000

You want to go out with dogs and kids sunday after church

By: Chris Lowry

Chris Lowry — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:31:00 +0000

hehe exactly!

By: Steve Lewis

Steve Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:29:00 +0000

Not

By: Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis

Steve 'Tyrannousaurus Menace' Lewis — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:29:00 +0000

Not

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:30:48 +0000

@David, so I read that article, and @burkesworks, I read yours too.

STV is *not* PR. It is often used in a PR system with multi-seat contituencies, but ultimately, all “Single Transferable Vote” means is that if you have a ballot paper in front of you, you can put your candidates in preferential order.

If just STV alone was used in our current system, it would mean your local vote for your MP had a bit more value. That’s all. No downsides that I can see there.

Now, @David, when you start mixing in PR, then you get potential downsides, and I agree – that’s why I am hesitantly against PR. Basically the trade off is that it makes your vote more important nationally, but less valuable locally.

@Burkesworks According to the wikipedia article on Single Transferable Vote – “The single-winner variant of STV is known as instant runoff voting and produces results similar to a two-round electoral system rather than proportional representation.“. In other words, using STV as I proposed it is the same as Instant Runoff – also known as Alternative Vote.

The only point I will concede is that I don’t know whether Lib Dems are proposing multi member STV or not. I can assume multi member, but they haven’t given any more details in their manifesto than the words Single Transferable Vote. So, they leave me to presume… whatever I want?