There was a bunch of people trying to get people to vote yes outside Oxford train station. I ignored them as my train had been late.
Alarm wrote:
I voted this morning. A political leaflet arrived in the post after I had voted. Great organisational skills and planning, Plaid Cymru.
Especially considering the fact that you live in Basingstoke.
MaliA wrote:
There was a bunch of people trying to get people to vote Yes outside Oxford train station.
Fucking Prog Rockers.
myoptikakaka wrote:
Alarm wrote:
I voted this morning. A political leaflet arrived in the post after I had voted. Great organisational skills and planning, Plaid Cymru.
Especially considering the fact that you live in Basingstoke.
He doesn't live in Basingstoke.
Just had a heated discussion on Twitter with someone who thought that AV would lead to more negative tactical voting, not less. 
myoptikakaka wrote:
Just had a heated discussion on Twitter with someone who thought that AV would lead to more negative tactical voting, not less.
Maybe you'd be better off doing some work?
Alberto wrote:
myoptikakaka wrote:
Just had a heated discussion on Twitter with someone who thought that AV would lead to more negative tactical voting, not less.
Maybe you'd be better off doing some work?
At least if I'm on Twitter I'm not waking you up from your snooze in the van.
Nik wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Not really. In every debate I have seen, and every jsutification given by both sides, the 'NO' reasons are very shallow, and easily refuted. I've not seen a single person in any media argue even vaguely convincingly on any single point re: the 'NO' vote.
Unless there are a hidden cabal of people voting 'NO' for reasons that have not been raised by a single person, then yes, they're voting either to keep a particular party in power and increase the influence of financial/business interests, or because they have believed the lies or poor reasoning from the well-funded propaganda campaign.
Unless there are a hidden cabal of people voting 'NO' for reasons that have not been raised by a single person, then yes, they're voting either to keep a particular party in power and increase the influence of financial/business interests, or because they have believed the lies or poor reasoning from the well-funded propaganda campaign.
So basically "no one voting 'no' has personally explained their reasons to me, so therefore they can only possibly be voting that way because they've believed a crappy campaign"? That's astonishingly arrogant. Also "because I haven't heard any good reasons means there can't be any good reasons" is obviously flawed logic.
*le sigh*
Not sure if you're a rabid 'YES' voter in a paddy or if you're just being pedantic for the hell of it.
Shall I rephrase?
I have spoken to a number of 'NO' voters, as well as studying very closely their websites, their arguments put across on news shows and their electioneering pamphlets and leaflets that have been delivered to homes across the country. Whilst this does not grant me mind-reading powers, and I cannot know in tiny detail exactly why everyone in the country is voting the way that they are voting, it would be fair to say that the study of the above would, beyond reasonable doubt, give an insight into why the vast majority of people who are voting 'NO' are doing so.
These are primarily:
[*] A desire to do what they are told, and 'back their party'
[*] Agreement with the campaign literature
[*] Belief that one person/party should rule with supreme power
Since the third point is pretty damned flaky (it would back dictatorships to the hilt, and believes that a minority vote is a good, strong mandate), it seems only reasonable to posit that this is a shallow argument (and you could indeed say that it has been spun well by the media assassination of Nick Clegg).
I agree that I don't know the mind of every voter, but the opposite stance is that most 'NO' voters are voting that way for none of the reasons above, and are keeping their wholly reasonable and well thought out arguments to themselves. That is both unlikely, and if somehow true then morally reprehensible.
P.S. I voted 'YES' today. Go 'YES' votes!
Tomorrow will be an interesting day, for sure.
Well, Miss Malabar's mum has voted for No, as, well, AV is complicated. Meanwhile, her dad is against AV (but fortunately not voting) as he thinks the party with the most votes should win, in a fantastic show of not understanding FPTP or AV.
Meanwhile, I've persuaded three other people to vote Yes.
Meanwhile, I've persuaded three other people to vote Yes.
I have persuaded a fair few people to vote 'YES', which does make me wonder how we might have done if the playing field was level and both sides were backed equally by funding and media.
Ho hum.
ANyway, I am fully expecting the 'NO' vote to win, as people fear change.
Ho hum.
ANyway, I am fully expecting the 'NO' vote to win, as people fear change.
myoptikakaka wrote:
Just had a heated discussion on Twitter with someone who thought that AV would lead to more negative tactical voting, not less.
AV will lead to different tactical voting, not more or less.
voted yes, as did my gf and her sister!
neither of them were going to vote yes before!
Malc
neither of them were going to vote yes before!
Malc
Heard two people discussing what AV actually is. On their way out of the polling station. 
It'll be interesting to see what the turnout is.
It'll be interesting to see what the turnout is.
We've only got an AV vote, no local elections. When we got there at 7pm there was a queue of three people (including us) to register. The attendant said "Ooh, our first queue!"
Even if 'yes' wins, I can see the result being ignored on the basis of piss-poor turnout.
Even if 'yes' wins, I can see the result being ignored on the basis of piss-poor turnout.
Been done that voting thing, now.
MaliA wrote:
Been done that voting thing, now.
Whatever. We were all doing it when it was still cool.
Craster wrote:
Even if 'yes' wins, I can see the result being ignored on the basis of piss-poor turnout.
As I understand it, if the public approves the change, the relevant parts of the Act come into force automatically. Unlike the devolution referendums in the 1970s, there isn't a threshold that has to be met, nor does any subsequent legislation have to be introduced to Parliament.
Kern wrote:
Alarm wrote:
I voted this morning. A political leaflet arrived in the post after I had voted. Great organisational skills and planning.
I'm still waiting for my 'Vote YES' pamphlet.
Kern wrote:
Craster wrote:
Even if 'yes' wins, I can see the result being ignored on the basis of piss-poor turnout.
As I understand it, if the public approves the change, the relevant parts of the Act come into force automatically. Unlike the devolution referendums in the 1970s, there isn't a threshold that has to be met, nor does any subsequent legislation have to be introduced to Parliament.
Ah, here we go:
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, section 8:
Quote:
Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—
(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and
(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions.
(3)An order under subsection (1)—
(a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day as the coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, but
(b)does not affect any election held before the first parliamentary general election following that day.
(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—
(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and
(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions.
(3)An order under subsection (1)—
(a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day as the coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, but
(b)does not affect any election held before the first parliamentary general election following that day.
I'm confused, where was the Whig option?
Anyway, I voted Yes, and I also voted Lib Dems - primarily in protest at the media-assassination of the Lib Dems. Just having a one party opposition? Jesus Christ, see how that turned out for America!
Anyway, I voted Yes, and I also voted Lib Dems - primarily in protest at the media-assassination of the Lib Dems. Just having a one party opposition? Jesus Christ, see how that turned out for America!
We received a pretty plain, small piece of paper today for the 'Yes' campaign. It was waiting on the doormat for me at 6pm when I got home, and didn't really explain a damn thing on it.
It's annoying that virtually everyone I know, or talk to online, is voting Yes, yet I'm still pretty certain the No vote will win
NervousPete wrote:
Anyway, I voted Yes, and I also voted Lib Dems - primarily in protest at the media-assassination of the Lib Dems. Just having a one party opposition? Jesus Christ, see how that turned out for America!
Don't worry—I'm sure we'll still have a two-party opposition. It just happens that one of those parties will be UKIP. Everything's fine!
...
*cries*
Yes'd.
This is funnier:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olley.html
Honest to God, that's a non-story even by the Mail's shitty standards.
Honest to God, that's a non-story even by the Mail's shitty standards.
Quote:
Around the wrist of her other hand, she appeared to be wearing an elastic hair band, though this afternoon she let her blow-dried locks hang loose.
THIS IS KATE MIDDLETON
KATE MIDDLETON HAS A TROLLEY
KATE MIDDLETON
TROLLEY
KATE MIDDLETON WITH A TROLLEY
WAITROSE.
I think there's a few photos that could have been left on the cutting room floor, there.
Still, would.
KATE MIDDLETON HAS A TROLLEY
KATE MIDDLETON
TROLLEY
KATE MIDDLETON WITH A TROLLEY
WAITROSE.
I think there's a few photos that could have been left on the cutting room floor, there.
Still, would.
I wouldn't, they are part of the John Lewis group, therefore communists.
MaliA wrote:
I wouldn't, they are part of the John Lewis group, therefore communists.
Nobody came here today for a lecture on being never knowingly undersold
Oh, my.
Worst Liberal Democrat results since the 1980s. They have said it was "inevitable" as they are in government, but have since promised a more "business like relationship" with their coalition partners. This is going to pressure them to assert their own independence. Tory party has suffered less, Labour on the up swing.
In Scotland, the SNP looking to have an overall majority. The LibDem vote collapsed here, too, and Labour didn't do too well.
Worst Liberal Democrat results since the 1980s. They have said it was "inevitable" as they are in government, but have since promised a more "business like relationship" with their coalition partners. This is going to pressure them to assert their own independence. Tory party has suffered less, Labour on the up swing.
Attachment:
Results.JPG
In Scotland, the SNP looking to have an overall majority. The LibDem vote collapsed here, too, and Labour didn't do too well.
Aw, christ.
Whelp, he must surely be regretting that Faustian bargain. And me voting for him. Seriously, my vote is the Kiss of Death to political parties.
Whelp, he must surely be regretting that Faustian bargain. And me voting for him. Seriously, my vote is the Kiss of Death to political parties.
Well it was always going to happen, wasn't it.
Tories not even listed in Liverpool results. Always makes me smile.
kalmar wrote:
Well it was always going to happen, wasn't it.
Governing parties tend to lose such elections.
For me, it'll be interesting to see if the experience of power changes the party and its support. In the past, it's always been the choice for those thinking 'oh, at least they're not bombing Iraq as bad as Labour/the Tories' - I'd like to know if the vote represents their base level of support, rather than just soft and fickle protest voters.
As for the coalition, I think it's better for the LibDems to be in power, even as a junior party, than for them to be sitting on the opposition benches where they've been for the last 90 or so years.
MaliA wrote:
In Scotland, the SNP looking to have an overall majority. The LibDem vote collapsed here, too, and Labour didn't do too well.
Blimey.
I doubt, however, that the SNP would risk a referendum on independence unless they were dam sure they could win it. Also, the effects of the financial settlement if the Scotland Bill is passed will be interesting for how they govern North Briton, once they have to find most of the cash themselves.
I hit the wrong link on the BBC News site, and came across a list of the most popular phrases on Twitter during the recent nuptials. I wasn't expecting the Beeb to print one of them:
I hope it gets into the Oxford English Dictionary.
BBC wrote:
QILF (best not to ask!)
I hope it gets into the Oxford English Dictionary.
Kern wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Well it was always going to happen, wasn't it.
Governing parties tend to lose such elections.
That'll be why the Tories have fared so poorly then - oh wait.
Kern wrote:
As for the coalition, I think it's better for the LibDems to be in power, even as a junior party, than for them to be sitting on the opposition benches where they've been for the last 90 or so years.
They were screwed either way. Even 'confidence and supply' would have shown they didn't have the balls for power, and they'd pledged to join with whoever won the most votes—which they did.
The problem is that the Lib Dems haven't made enough noise about what they've done (in terms of getting fairly big chunks of their manifesto into place, or taking the edge off of Tory plans) or haven't been 'allowed' to (due to a rampantly Tory press that was hoping for a snap reelection and a Tory majority) and have not only lost too many of the big battles, but also haven't shown enough independence when doing so. Perhaps this is naïvety on their part, but it's pretty clear—and especially during the AV debacle—that the Tories are pulling no punches, so the Lib Dems shouldn't either. I suspect it's too late now, and, to some extent, the party deserves a kicking for lacking the honesty and integrity it's often had in the past; I'm just not sure it deserves quite this much of a kicking.
From a voting perspective, it's all very odd. Fine, 'punish' the Lib Dems if you must, but the Tory vote largely held. So, presumably, everything going on now isn't their fault. And with AV likely to fail, we're now effectively back into a two-party system, which will swing from Con to Lab every decade or so, and where each party will spend most of its time demolishing what the predecessor did due to idealism. (The anomaly is Scotland, where the SNP will rule with a rod of 'it's the fault of the English'; curious that most Scots I know are dreading the next couple of years. Also curious that the Tories got more seats there than the Libs, but there you go.)
The tiniest flicker of a silver lining was summed up succinctly on Twitter by Jon Snow: "coalition will sustain for full parliament: after last night none of parties especially Labour(!) can afford for it not to!" And he's right. Lab's gains weren't enough and wouldn't necessarily be repeated in a general election. We'd probably still end up with a hung parliament, but this time with an even weaker junior party. Worst-case scenario is if UKIP continues to strengthen and becomes the third party in the UK—although that at least might spoiler the right.
*depressedface*
myoptikakaka wrote:
Kern wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Well it was always going to happen, wasn't it.
Governing parties tend to lose such elections.
That'll be why the Tories have fared so poorly then - oh wait.
Ha.
The Liberals have always benefited from being a protest vote for people - that doesn't really work now that they're in the government people want o protest against. I would have voted Green for our local council if the twat hadn't turned up to canvass at my door wearing nothing but shorts and leather sandals. I don't vote for topless guys with beer guts, as a rule. As it ended up, I voted Lib Dems again, in the hope that keeping them afloat is important if they're actually going to discover their balls post-AV-referendum-shenanigans and stand up to the Tories and not, for instance, vote in favour of that abortion of an NHS bill.
Also, of course, the Tories aren't going to lose Tory for supporters for doing Tory-ish stuff. Of course their vote is holding - the people who vote for them like what they're doing and want them to do it. The Liberals were only ever going to do badly in this election as they've sold out - both in terms of how people perceive them and, to be honest, in what they've actually done. They're not acting how Lib-Dem voting people think Liberals should act, so they're being punished by people who voted for them thinking they were a better left wing option than Labour, and got Tory-Lite instead.
Still, I predict a couple of general elections' worth of wilderness for the LDs - they're not going to get any more popular during this parliament, and they're almost certainly going to lose the AV vote (sadly), setting back voting reform by decades. They should have made an actual amendment, not a referendum, the condition for coalition. Cameron was always going to screw them over.
Clegg's properly fucked up.
There was me thinking people actually voted in the local elections on local issues and local people, regardless of the party they happen to be in
Trooper wrote:
There was me thinking people actually voted in the local elections on local issues and local people, regardless of the party they happen to be in
The same logic could be applied to voting for your MP, seeing as they're supposed to be a local representative.
Tribal behaviour comes into it in both, of course. You know if you get a Tory council they're going to be cocks if you need, for instance, assistance with disabled children.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I would have voted Green for our local council if the twat hadn't turned up to canvass at my door wearing nothing but shorts and leather sandals.
The Greens bother me. They get so much right and their policies almost all align with my political leanings, but then they chuck in shite like wanting to ban research on stem cells and to push hard for 'alternative medicine',, Gnh.
Quote:
They're not acting how Lib-Dem voting people think Liberals should act, so they're being punished by people who voted for them thinking they were a better left wing option than Labour, and got Tory-Lite instead.
That nicely highlights the problem with modern politics and left/right. In a left/right axis, the Lib-Dems are mildly right, as are the Tories and even Labour (who may now move left). Economically, the Libs have always been more Tory than Lab, but with an underlying conscience (hence fighting for a 50% tax rate). The real difference in the parties is apparent when placing them on a liberal/authoritarian axis where the Libs remain 'left' on that, but Lab is 'right' of even the Tories.
Quote:
Still, I predict a couple of general elections' worth of wilderness for the LDs - they're not going to get any more popular during this parliament, and they're almost certainly going to lose the AV vote (sadly), setting back voting reform by decades. They should have made an actual amendment, not a referendum, the condition for coalition. Cameron was always going to screw them over. Clegg's properly fucked up.
Agreed totally. Ashdown and Kennedy must be particularly furious with how things have gone—all that work tossed down the drain.
Trooper wrote:
There was me thinking people actually voted in the local elections on local issues and local people, regardless of the party they happen to be in
One bloke who works here has won his seat in his local election for Labour. Although it wouldn't matter what party he was with, I'd vote for a potato over him. *
* Based entirely on his lack of common sense, particularly where technology is concerned. Once, he came into our office, brandishing the the basic Nokia candybar phone he'd been given, asking us if it was an iPhone.
Calls for Clegg to quit
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
Michael Jordan wrote:
Our willingness to fail gives us the ability and opportunity to succeed where others may fear to tread. I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
MaliA wrote:
Calls for Clegg to quit
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
Michael Jordan wrote:
Our willingness to fail gives us the ability and opportunity to succeed where others may fear to tread. I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
I love that mini-speech.
MaliA wrote:
Calls for Clegg to quit
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
Michael Jordan wrote:
Our willingness to fail gives us the ability and opportunity to succeed where others may fear to tread. I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
Stop stabbing every leader in the back, you fucking useless cretins.
Malabelm wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Calls for Clegg to quit
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
He should remember what Michael Jordan said:
Michael Jordan wrote:
Our willingness to fail gives us the ability and opportunity to succeed where others may fear to tread. I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty six times, I've been trusted to take the game-winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.
Stop stabbing every leader in the back, you fucking useless cretins.
Jordan's not a cretin