Psychotext
Member
Really? Politicians lie all the time in campaigning. Why have we not seen more of them in court over it?
Usually they just say they're "mistaken" on something when pulled up on it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Really? Politicians lie all the time in campaigning. Why have we not seen more of them in court over it?
Usually they just say they're "mistaken" on something when pulled up on it.
Even if they did, I really doubt cost was anywhere near the deciding factor.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
What were the actual lies regarding how AV works? I looked into it myself before deciding, so I ignored all the campaigning
Visualante2
Member
One place I read we won't recover to 2007 levels for 2 years, another place it is 8 years. I'm guessing it all depends on Osborne's gamble.
All we know is no one knows. Anything can effect the economy in a small way that can end up being a domino effect, both good and bad.
I think we have some solid fundamentals, I also think we whine more than any other developed nation.
2007 levels were arguably inflated in any case, at least house values and consumer spending, the latter of which was funded by people re-mortgaging year on year cashing their profits in on housing gains.
I would say we can start to actually say "recovery" when we have a year with no negative quarters and growth over 0.5%, so maybe 2014? the Euro didn't implode as many thought it would which helps.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, I clearly give a fuck, since I voted for them along with the rest of that 40%. And probably more of a fuck than the 'wouldn't mind' second and third preference votes.
Anyway, the genesis of this wasn't the relative merits of AV or FPTP, it was the claim that people don't have the requesite knowledge to make an informed choice at a potential EU referendum. And yet here we are, you state repeatedly in your post that the AV system is "simple". So it follows that the British public understood what they were voting on. Yet you, and others, continue to bang on about how the media misleed people and not respect the outcome.
Second and third preference votes aren't "wouldn't mind" votes, they're "I want this person but not quite as much as X" votes.
If I lived in a constituency where the BNP were the largest party on 20% and all the others had 15%, would it be fair to get a BNP MP back if 80% of voters absolutely didn't want them? Would should voters be forced to vote tactically? You can't answer that under FPTP.
Also, if AV was so bad then why did the Tories (who voted against it at the national level) implement it in the police elections?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englan...Commissioner_elections,_2012#Election_details
Why is it that virtually every time we create a new system that requires elections we go with an AV system?
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The cover of the leaflet sent out by the "No" campaign was a picture of 4 men crossing the finish line of a race, with an arrow pointing to the main in forth, with the text "The winner under AV".
It implied that this would happen regularly under AV, which is frankly stupid. Even if you don't consider that outright lying, it's sensationalistic nonsense designed to scare people that wasn't called out.
killer_clank
Member
FPTP is dire. AV would have been an improvement, but no where near good enough. If you want a system that's generally proportional and still retains a strong local member, do what they do in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, have constituency members and regional members. Still not a perfect system though.
IMO I don't see what's wrong with just having 3-4 member constituencies elected using STV. Never been a fan of the "local MP" argument when a hell of a lot of constituencies are massive regardless.
IMO I don't see what's wrong with just having 3-4 member constituencies elected using STV. Never been a fan of the "local MP" argument when a hell of a lot of constituencies are massive regardless.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
But did they actually ever lie?
Sensationalism to get an exaggerated point across to people unlikely to bother reading the full text is hardly surprising.
Clay Davis
Member
the posters were, well, I'll let everyone else decide...
most of these, especially the top three are hilarious and depressing in hindsight.
most of these, especially the top three are hilarious and depressing in hindsight.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Most of them played upon the fact that some people didn't know how AV actually worked, as opposed to saying why it was bad. But I guess that's how these campaigns work.
I especially love the anti-Lib Dem one, while under the current system the Lib Dems get utterly shafted when it comes to seats, compared to their share of the national vote. PR would help them more, though.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Oh man, the Nick Clegg one is incredible! Love the boxing one too.
So basically they never lied about the actual system, but they exaggerated the cost and played on the immense unpopularity of nick clegg.
Seems like politics as normal, if Pro AV didn't do something similar their campaign was doomed from the start
So basically they never lied about the actual system, but they exaggerated the cost and played on the immense unpopularity of nick clegg.
Seems like politics as normal, if Pro AV didn't do something similar their campaign was doomed from the start
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Whenever explicit numbers are mentioned in a campaign poster, it's an immediate sign that something is dodgy.
Clay Davis
Member
the lie, if there were one would be in the shape of false claims.
the money saved from not having AV hasn't gone to give soldiers bullet proof vests, it hasn't resulted in police having more back up and it hasn't resulted in more maternity or cardiac wards being opened, it also hasn't led to massive increase in nurses or doctors.
in fact, the opposite has happened in most cases. police cut, wards facing closure and soldiers also being cut and so on.
travisbickle
Member
"Austerity" is a legitimate reason for reducing soldiers equipment, baby life-saving machines, and police officers!
anonymous_abc
Member
zomgbbqftw
Banned
-0.3%
Almost all of the loss was recorded in the production industries, and basically because of lower oil and gas output. The Chancellor needs to get Fracking. Services and Construction were flat or grew slightly QoQ which accounts for the job creation. Next Q will likely be positive because of base effects.
Almost all of the loss was recorded in the production industries, and basically because of lower oil and gas output. The Chancellor needs to get Fracking. Services and Construction were flat or grew slightly QoQ which accounts for the job creation. Next Q will likely be positive because of base effects.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Yeah, but I was more interested in whether there had been any lies about AV itself, which people have been rather salty about, and t'would seem not.
PJV3
Member
To be fair, you dont need equipment for soldiers, if you sack most of them.
Clay Davis
Member
ah. it doesn't seem like there were any out and out lies about AV itself, but a lot of exaggeration and twisting of the facts.
some would consider that lying, but I guess it's subjective.
Clay Davis
Member
fracking? I can't wait for the horror stories about the local water in those areas becoming undrinkable, flammable and generally ruining people's health.
progress! fuck those who dare live in those areas and stand in our way!
PJV3
Member
Free energy. stop being negative.
Psychotext
Member
I get the feeling that fracking will be one of those things we look back on in 30 years and say "well shit, we really fucked that up didn't we". Probably as half of Blackpool falls into the sea. 
Clay Davis
Member
okay, this was pretty darn funny.
bravo.
I get the feeling that fracking will be one of those things we look back on in 30 years and say "well shit, we really fucked that up didn't we". Probably as half of Blackpool falls into the sea.
well, now I'm torn. blackpool disappearing wouldn't be a great loss. in fact, it'd be cause for celebration.
Can we please avoid fraking. It's bloody awful for the environment. There must be another way to create growth without fucking up a once green and pleasent land. Or as "the fucker" put it
"This used to be a green and pleasent land but now it looks like the colour of the fucking BBC weather map. It looks like anemic dog shit"
QuicheFontaine
Member
I get the feeling that fracking will be one of those things we look back on in 30 years and say "well shit, we really fucked that up didn't we". Probably as half of Blackpool falls into the sea.
I don't see a downside!
(PNE for life)
fizzelopeguss
Banned
I live in the northwest, that shit needs to get here pronto.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I get the feeling that fracking will be one of those things we look back on in 30 years and say "well shit, we really fucked that up didn't we". Probably as half of Blackpool falls into the sea.
I don't see much of a downside...
Not if the media have any say, we might as well already be in a triple dip as far as their concerned.
Clay Davis
Member
does their coverage reflect a wider feeling? I know newsnight did a special a few nights ago talking to people about the current economic climate and they were all down. not because of the media stirring up feelings of a bad climate, but based on what they were experiencing on the ground.
the media is only conveying that feeling to apply pressure to those in power. that's one way to look at it.
the other is they enjoy being sensationalist. I tend to believe it's a mixture of both.
So that could never happen?
Psychotext
Member
So much cruelty to Blackpool!
the posters were, well, I'll let everyone else decide...
most of these, especially the top three are hilarious and depressing in hindsight.
Ok, hold on..... Are any of those statements LIES, and do you guys already think the government is not throwing enough money at those who need it?
Probably a good idea to not throw another quarter of a billion at something thats not really a problem then if things are already so bad. At the end of the day the turnout proved nobody actually gives a shit that we change to a voting system that might win the dems a handful of extra seats...
Psychotext
Member
The £250m figure was flat out wrong as I recall.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
There's a stupidly low chance of it happening. But the leaflet doesn't say "small chance of this happening", or even "this could happen", it reads like a certainty.
Welcome to politics, most of the Labour voters have the strong impression things will go back to the way they were when Labour gets back into power and everything will be reversed. There's a reason they refuse to spell out their plans over hurr duur 50p tax and 2p VAT cut.
I can guarantee Labour will not reverse shit if they win the next election, they will just be thankful someone implemented it for them.... It'll give them chance to run over to Brussels and beg for forgiveness whilst saying "LOL referendum, how much cash do you need!"
PJV3
Member
nobody expects anything, labour did fuck all for the poor whist in power. The only group to get poorer under labour, the bottom 10%, are the ones being clobbered now and being blamed for all our woes.
Ask most labour voters and at most they will expect tinkering at the edges. And the tories will pretend that a few extra billions will send us hurtling into disaster.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think subsequent votes should don't for as much as primary. It might be that you want your second candidate almost as much as your first. It might be that you don't like them at all, but dislike them slightly less than the others. This can be said for the strength of different voters desires in FPTP too, but just getting out to vote suggests some degree of support for a certain outcome. After that, there is no reasonable way to gauge it. It would inevitably lead to certain constituencies where the least-hated gets elected, which isn't the same thing as democracy being served.
PJV3
Member
every vote should count, if 5% vote BNP they should be represented. I fucking hate UKIP with a passion but they should be represented. socialists, greens all should be represented.
We are run by an echo chamber of mediocre managers. free markets and choice for everything except democracy is bollocks.
Let the house of lords do constituency work instead, there's thousands of them.
CyclopsRock
Member
OK, but that doesn't lead to AV being then solution, surely?
PJV3
Member
AV is bollocks, It was Cameron screwing over a very naive Clegg. I wasn't criticising your argument about AV, just pointing out what I feel should be important about any reform.
CyclopsRock
Member
Gotcha!
I think the solution is to devolve power down as far as possible. The smaller the region making the decision, the less chance there is of a given region having a huge population unrepresented. In fact, that would allow people to choose their representatives at various levels based upon what a party or candidates policy is in that area - ie you might vote UKIP nationally, if you care about leaving Europe, but vote Labour at the smaller region that defines local spending etc.
You wouldn't have to take the rough with the smooth so much, with a given party.
AV is an effective half-point between constituency representation and full PR.
AV's biggest benefit would be to kickstart voters into putting their real first preference on the ballot paper rather than their tactical choice. Many people don't vote for minority parties because they don't feel they've got a chance. But as soon as you know your vote won't be wasted, your decision making changes.
I don't think AV is perfect, but it's a million times better than the mess we have right now.
Anyway, this is becoming a bit circular (admittedly I haven't done much to stop that). Shall we discuss our first preference (ha!) electoral system?
I read something recently about how the Pirate Party in Germany was organised; each person was given one vote on decisions, but also given the right to delegate their vote on issues to another person, who in turn could delegate further up. With modern technology I think this could be rather workable - especially with full transparency on who's delegating to who.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
That was my opinion as well. Scotland's mixed PR/FPTP system works well and it doesn't confuse anyone, but I guess it was be utter hell to organise on a national scale.