Page 3 | Yes, No, Meh? Alternative Vote Webchat with John Prescott and Katie Ghose, TODAY at 11am

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:03

@HarrietJones

Nick Clegg says yes- I think do the opposite

David Cameron says no- I think do the opposite

Argghhh

I hope you will pay attention to the issues, not the personalities .

purits · 27/04/2011 11:03

With FPTP you get the favourite person, even if that person is the favourite of only 30ish% of the electorate.
With AV you get the least unliked person. Talk about damning with faint praise.

I think that, under AV, if a party wants to consider itself for Government (so exclude all those local issue people like Dr Richard Taylor of Kidderminster) then it has to field a candidate in every constituency.

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:04

@purits

Katie has said 'the alternative vote is a small change that will make a big difference - making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say'.

purits has said (on another thread) "It is strange that all this talk is about what the electors will do. Do you really think that the politicians will meekly sit there and accept it. No, they will be plotting behind the scenes. We will get even fewer 'conviction' politicians and more 'do whatever it takes to get elected' politicians. Less passion and more grey suits. They will wind up trying to be all things to all people.
We need to think more about unintended consequences."

Can I have your reaction to that please?

Our current Parliament isn't full of characters! Seriously, what's unreasonable about politicians having to reach out beyond their core supporters and talk to more of us about our concerns? I think it'll make them more honest about their differences as well as where they agree with each other.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 27/04/2011 11:04

at JohnPrescott

Mumwithadragontattoo · 27/04/2011 11:05

I am in favour of electoral reform and would like to see the UK to move to a genuine system of proportional representation. I think most people would consider PR to be the fairest system even if they objected to it for practical reasons such as leading to (weaker) coalition governments or losing the constituency link.

However, I do not support AV as I think it is a difficult hybrid approach which leads to the least worst candidate winning, who is liable to be the most bland.

How should I vote on May 5? Do I vote "yes" to signal my support for electoral reform in general (I don't want anyone to assume that I am happy with the current system). Or do I vote "no" on basis that AV is not in my view an improvement in terms of fairness on FPTP and would probably be more costly to administer?

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:05

@MrsMichic

Well if it is true and you are interviewing these people, I would really like to know is:
a) WHY there isn't a live TV debate about this, given that it's possibly the largest electoral reform our country has seen in a LONG time - surely it's as important as the election? People DONT understand what this!!! So won't vote - and our country could drift into electoral reform without even realising it.

b) Why the pros and cons of both seem to be the same?? For example, both sides argue that voting the other way will allow minority parties such as the hideous BNP to gain more strength - which is true???

MrsMichic, we would welcome a debate like today anytime and anywhere, and I agree with you that we should have had more debate on the issue itself on TV. This is the first time we are being asked to have a say on the rules by which MPs get and keep their jobs and we may never be asked again so I believe we should be having as wide a range as debate as possible.

At the moment, we have a lot of politicians squabbling amongst themselves and I feel the public is being left out of the conversation.

The BNP is campaigning for a NO vote because it is the anti-extremist system. Last week, the BNP Deputy Chairman, Simon Darby, said ?we are never going to get our feet under the table under the AV system?. That is right and that is why the BNP are saying No.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:06

@katieghose

[quote Missingfriendsandsad]

John, You said many times that AV wil result in more coalitions, but there is no evidence at all that this is the case. Why are your jeaopardising your political integrity by leading with your chin with false statements that areee easy to knock down. Are you secretly a Yes campaign stooge?

You are right. It is wrong to say AV will somehow lead to permanent coalitions. Its just another of the myths and scaremongering we have had.

What it means is that MPs will need to have a support of the majority of their voters which is not the case now.[/quote]

Well I don't think anyone's called me a stooge and the real issue in politics is that people vote for manifestos and that is the decision making process you need to watch. AV undermines this.

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:06

@purits

With FPTP you get the favourite person, even if that person is the favourite of only 30ish% of the electorate.
With AV you get the least unliked person. Talk about damning with faint praise.

I think that, under AV, if a party wants to consider itself for Government (so exclude all those local issue people like Dr Richard Taylor of Kidderminster) then it has to field a candidate in every constituency.

The problem now is that most of our MPs have jobs in Parliament although most of us don't support them. AV will change that and pick a winner who can command the support of a majority of voters. I disagree about having to field a candidate everywhere. But AV does mean getting rid of 'No Go' areas in safe seats. Only a handful of us (1.6%) determined the result of the last General Election - that can't be right.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:06

@Missingfriendsandsad

John, You said many times that AV wil result in more coalitions, but there is no evidence at all that this is the case. Why are your jeaopardising your political integrity by leading with your chin with false statements that areee easy to knock down. Are you secretly a Yes campaign stooge?

AV is the first step towards Proportional Representation and that does produce coalitions. Coalitions are not about people power they are about politicians fixing results; meaning manifestos are dead and that?s why I?m very much against it.

DamnYouAutocorrect · 27/04/2011 11:08

John: so you're just opposed to any change from FPTP, full stop? Did you oppose all non-FPTP systems being used in local and mayoral elections when you had responsibility for devolution (as I think you did at one point)?

NessaRose · 27/04/2011 11:08

At the moment I am not sure about either. Can you convince me to support the yes or no?

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:08

@JohnPrescott

[quote katieghose]

[quote Missingfriendsandsad]

John, You said many times that AV wil result in more coalitions, but there is no evidence at all that this is the case. Why are your jeaopardising your political integrity by leading with your chin with false statements that areee easy to knock down. Are you secretly a Yes campaign stooge?

You are right. It is wrong to say AV will somehow lead to permanent coalitions. Its just another of the myths and scaremongering we have had.

What it means is that MPs will need to have a support of the majority of their voters which is not the case now.[/quote]

Well I don't think anyone's called me a stooge and the real issue in politics is that people vote for manifestos and that is the decision making process you need to watch. AV undermines this.

[/quote]

Under FPTP, millions of us are forced to hold our nose and vote for someone we don't want, to keep out someone we want even less. AV is a simple change; it means we vote for we want to win. But if they are knocked out we still get to have a say. There's not a scrap of evidence AV opens the door to more coalitions - you may have noticed we have a coalition under FPTP!

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:09

@MarioandLuigi

Will having AV mean that parties like The BNP and UKIP will have more chance of having MP's?

The BNP are saying No because it makes it harder for them to win seats. AV rewards candidates and parties that can reach out beyond its core vote which is why the BNP are opposed. Other smaller parties are more confident of being able to reach out like the Greens and UKIP which are both supporting a Yes vote.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:09

@DamnYouAutocorrect

My challenge, if you choose to accept it, is for each of you to say one positive thing about your position that doesn't fall foul of Channel 4's Factcheck.

(So Katie, you can't say: that there's a link between safe seats and the expenses scandal; that AV would lead to fewer safe seats; that MPs under AV would need to get 50% support (although most will have to aim for it); or that David Cameron was elected using AV (he wasn't, it was multi-round voting.

John, you can't say: that the change would cost £250 million and require expensive voting machines; that it would lead to more hung parliaments or coalitions; that AV would benefit the BNP or other extremist parties; that AV gives some people's votes more weight than others'.)

And, if I'm allowed another question, aren't you both a bit ashamed of the distortions and dishonesties that have characterised both campaigns?

The main positive benefit of FPTP it gives greater stability in government and the better chance for parties to carry out their manifestos they were elected on and not fix policies behind closed doors.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:09

@katieghose

[quote purits]

With FPTP you get the favourite person, even if that person is the favourite of only 30ish% of the electorate.
With AV you get the least unliked person. Talk about damning with faint praise.

I think that, under AV, if a party wants to consider itself for Government (so exclude all those local issue people like Dr Richard Taylor of Kidderminster) then it has to field a candidate in every constituency.

The problem now is that most of our MPs have jobs in Parliament although most of us don't support them. AV will change that and pick a winner who can command the support of a majority of voters. I disagree about having to field a candidate everywhere. But AV does mean getting rid of 'No Go' areas in safe seats. Only a handful of us (1.6%) determined the result of the last General Election - that can't be right. [/quote]

Well, the electorate in AV can decide the candidate but cannot decide the resulting policies - it's not people power, it's simply people-power for the candidates...

DuelingFanjo · 27/04/2011 11:10

Are the BNP ever going to get their feet umder the table under any voting system? Not in most places and if that changes then surely hat change would be seen using AV too?

DuelingFanjo · 27/04/2011 11:11

Isn't bringing the BNP into it just scaremongering anyway - or invoking Godwin's law?

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:11

@NessaRose

At the moment I am not sure about either. Can you convince me to support the yes or no?

AV is an upgrade - takes the best of what we have, especially the relationship between you and me and our local MP, by strengthening the constituency link. Most MPs are in Parliament although most of us didn't vote for them. Is that right in a democracy? AV changes that - to be a winner you have to aim for 50% of local people's support. That means politicians spending more time on our doorsteps talking to us about our concerns, from childcare to climate change and less time squabbling with each other.

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:12

@ilythia

I would like John to explain why the No campaign is made up of lies and falsehoods to try and convince people that AV is wrong For example, the 'some people will get 5 votes' thing, all this means is that some people will end up with their 5th choice being elected, those with 1 vote get their first choice. Why are you misleading the electorate with your campaign?

I would just like to wish Katie and the Yes campaign the best of luck, as a mathematician the No campaign is offending me through lack of logic so I can hardly imagine how frustrated they must be.

Thank you for your good wishes ilythia. It is tough breaking through all the negativity from the NO campaign. So many of the politicians want to cling on to the old system but there really is nothing to be afraid of. This is a very modest change. It just means swapping an X for preferences ? 1,2,3. And if you still want to just put an X you can.

The ballot paper remains the same as now. It keeps the principle of one person, one vote. You keep what is best about our current system ? the link between a constituency and their MP ? but strengthen it by ensuring MPs get majority support.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:13

This issue of AV isn't just about the type of voting, it's part of a major constitutional fix by this Coalition. They are fixing the vote, they're reducing the number of MPs by 50 and increasing the Lords, reducing the chance of removing the Govn by a confidence vote. It's a constitutional fix and a policy that nobody voted for.

DamnYouAutocorrect · 27/04/2011 11:13

John, there's no evidence at all that AV produces more coalitions. You know that, surely?

katieghose · 27/04/2011 11:15

A few of you are asking about the BNP. They are voting No because - in their own words (Deputy Chairman Simon Darby), 'we are never going to get our feet under the table'. AV rewards candidates who can reach out and win majority support. Say what you like about the BNP - as extremists, they will never be able to reach out and win 50% of the majority. AV is the most extremist proof of voting systems.

DamnYouAutocorrect · 27/04/2011 11:16

I agree that the boundary fixing is not good (although the system is currently unfairly skewed in Labour's favour, isn't it?).

I like fixed term parliaments myself.

Neither of these things is on the ballot paper though so talking about them here is a bit of a red herring. Keeping FPTP won't mean that the boundary changes don't go through.

JohnPrescott · 27/04/2011 11:16

@DuelingFanjo

Are the BNP ever going to get their feet umder the table under any voting system? Not in most places and if that changes then surely hat change would be seen using AV too?

PR, which is what AV's about strengthens minority parties, you can see that all over Europe and minority parties can change governments overnight by changing their alliance and the electorate have no say. Witness Germany, France, Belgium and even Australia whose last labour govn was helped into power by the Greens and 2 farmers - probably good the farmers and the environment but not much about people power.