80% YES in ED

[Huguenot]

My love has no boundary today for the wonderful people of ED.

I'm so glad that my heart for the UK sits in East Dulwich.

From the temperance of Loz to the enthusiasm of Killer Queen what a truly beautiful demonstration of the care and consideration that we have for our society.

Get out, get yourself a pint, send me the bill (no chance of me paying it, but I want to see the joy ;-))

[Marmora Man]

Seems to me that, for ED, the result goes to prove the old 80/20 rule.

In most organisations / businesses / processes / wisdom 80% of the value resides in 20% of the employees, stock room, customers, population etc, etc.

I am proud to have been part of EDs sensible 20% that was not seduced by the very poor arguments presented in favour of AV.

[Huguenot]

There is something of the night about Marmora Man.... ;-)

[Huguenot]

It is of course telling that you don't say 'the poor arguments in favour of AV', instead you say the 'poor arguments presented in favour of AV'.

It's almost like you think governance and democracy are a gameshow, not a crucial decision on what is essentially a social crisis for the UK. For you the conservative party may be about prim dialectic righteousness, for others it's about feeding and educating their children, having a job and a future.

Maybe that's the essential problem with Tories? Smug and snug in their homes, bank accounts overflowing with avocados, they just can't remember what it's like for everyone else.

[Huguenot]

Mind you, for you 'everyone else' presumably falls into that 80% that are insensible and barely deserving of your respect.

This is some sort of Philosopher King argument - you're the Philosopher King and they're the proles? Can't think for themselves? Thank heavens for the glorious genetic rectitude of the Conservatives? Born to lead. Thank heavens that they can lie to the knuckle dragging general population and get them to do what they want.

That's why you were lying earlier right? Because you weren't lying to real people, you were lying to the '80%' who deserve no more respect than dogs?

Come on mate, you didn't really mean that right? Maybe everyone else is just seeing something that you can't?

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

Your ability to create a three volume interpretation of my views, intentions and general philosophy based on a textual analysis of 55 words is impressive but the conclusions you draw are incorrect.

My friends and colleagues would not recognise me from your e-fit description.

Should you ever return from Singapore we should meet for a beer. It's now possible to buy Tiger Tops - which, in my time, was a universal currency for favours in Singapore - so I'll stand you the first round of TTs.

[Huguenot]

Lol, never having traded favours in Singapore I wouldn't know.

I'm not familiar with Tiger Tops, but then I'm not stuck in the 1950s ;-)

MM, I know and love you, but your presentation of the 80/20 rule was just too rich not to pick.

As much as it may not have been intended, it is a very clear reflection of current government policy that has failed miserably to connect with the goals and issues of the population. People still talk about 'cuts' in a government whose social spending is still growing.

There's something priggish about the Conservatives, anmd your 80/20 rule did nothing to dispel it.

[Marmora Man]

Priggish - the Conservatives, come on!

Today's Conservatism grew out of a recognition that individualism, personal rights and freedoms are more important than "Big" government.

The roots of the Labour party and socialism grew out of Methodism and Trades Unionism - neither remarkable for tolerating dissent.

You get a much better red top scandal "sex & sin" from Conservative politicians than from Labour.

However, we clearly agree on one area - current Gov't cuts are not cuts just a slowing down in the rate of Gov't spending. It's a lie perpetuated by all current politicians of all creeds. I personally believe the correction in Gov't spending is both necessary and proper ( note the careful avoidance of the word "right" - lest you fall for more textual analysis)

[thomastillingthe3rd]

And 17% percent of the electorate vote YES in Southwark !!???

so the FTP system delivers a majority for the minority ? Sheesh I am confused

[*Bob*]

That is actually pretty cool.

For a dyed-in-the-wool misery like myself, it has been thoroughly heartening to see the broad support for AV from all the usual suspects on here who I hoped would support it - but even better to discover that there is also a less vocal likeminded majority behind them.

Whatever the merits of 'the 80/20 rule', It feels good to live with the eighties.

Neighbours.. I salute you!

[Jah Lush]

But only 35% bothered to turn up to vote in London. Piss poor turn out for a referendum. I voted and voted yes by the way.

[Atticus]

I vote we have a party!

[edcam]

Maybe one day soon we can have a referendum with options for sensible electoral reform. AV was a ridiculous proposition.

[Huguenot]

If that was why you voted 'No' you're the daftest bloke in christendom. STV is more complicated, and PR gives seats to the BNP. You're never going to get that past the poor mugs who voted no yesterday

Reform is now off the cards for a generation.

[edcam]

Having a different opinion to you doesn't make me daft, what a stupid and ignorant thing to say. The reasoning behind AV was massively flawed, so this was the right result. This nonsense about PR giving seats to the BNP is alarmist and has no basis in truth.

[StraferJack]

The reasoning behind both Av and fptp (or Any system) is imperfect

So that alone is no reason to vote no

Nor do I have much time for anyone who said the campaign for either yes or no wasn't good enough. Do people only form an opinion based on a campaign? Surely not

A chance for change, in a country that does nothing but mutter and complain about the system, was passed up. If nothing else a change might have taken us into uncharted waters which is at least interesting.

[mockney piers]

PR will never happen, end of. In our lifetimes there will be no more talk of electoral reform. Game over.

[edcam]

Change for change's sake is pointless.

[LadyDeliah]

Depressingly, I agree with you MP.

[mockney piers]

It wasn't for changes sake, it was to reinvigorate a political fabric that the majority of the people no longer feel part of. It was an opportunity to make this country more democratic, hence why those with no interest in real democracy were behind the no vote.

[Huguenot]

I didn't intend to say you were daft edcam, I wanted to say voting No because you thought you were going to get something better was daft, because it is.

'This nonsense about PR giving seats to the BNP is alarmist and has no basis in truth.'

That only goes to show that you don't understand PR. In the UK you'd need only 50,000 votes to gain a seat under PR. At the moment they're scattered around the nation (apart from a hotbed in Burnley) and AV would have made it harder for them to get a seat than FPTP.

However, if you think the BNP won't get 50,000 votes then you need to think again.

[Huguenot]

Sorry scratch that, we don't get 100% turnout, so for the BNP to get a seat under PW they'd need around 35,000 votes.

I think you'll find they get more than 1 seat.

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot wrote

>

I'm not familiar with Tiger Tops, but then I'm not stuck in the 50s

>

Tiger tops - ice cold Tiger Beer poured to within an inch of an ice cold glass and topped off with an inch of ice cold lemonade. Usually drunk immediately on arrival at the Singapore Officer's mess poolside after a hard day's work onboard ship -often used to repay minor debts & favours eg: I'll do your duty watch, I'll supervise the store ship day, I'll let you copy my spherical trig astro navigation workings.

Cooling, long with just a touch of sweetness. I'm now stuck in my 50s, but in the early 70s Singapore was a fun place for a ship visit, en route Australia.

[Huguenot]

Kept the Ozzie doctors fully employed... ;-)

[alistair_piggott]

By my understanding, if passed, AV *might* have changed the outcome in around 30-40 constituencies. This does not mean that we will suddenly free ourselves from the shackles of a two party system. Nor does it mean that the political elite will be forced into revisiting the question of electoral reform - the incentive won't appear after so subtle a change.

In fact the question of further electoral reform is likely to be unchanged by the outcome on Friday - which ever way it had gone. Old Tories and old Labour don't want it as they're traditionally less centrist and FPTP skews results away from the centre - hence the Liberals / LibDems spending years battling with nothing to show. The young guns from the two major parties may visit the electoral reform question again but only after something else brings about the end of the two party dominance and they have nothing further to lose. N.B. The referendum on Scottish independence is a threat here!

All voting systems have their pluses and their minuses - even these two. The real problem is that they're so similar there really is little point arguing between them. We may as well sit around arguing about whether black cats are better than brown ones.

A