so are you going to bother to vote on the electoral reform referendum?

[easternstar]

Or not?

To be honest I don't think either AV or first past the post is the best method.

When I did my government and politics A-level donkey's years ago I always thought that the fairest method was to have larger constituencies and make up the difference with a party list system based on percentages.

I mean, particularly the Royal Wedding since while loathing the other examples of cash burning, at least they a political. Not that I loathe the Royal Wedding more than the NHS reforms/nuclear weapons....

:) not to mention my fave costs...

• the increase in uni fees will mean massive borrowing from the government and most of it won't be paid back for ten years- I resent that

• pushing people out of work from public sector and onto the dole costs money without any output in return (fact fans - employment usually means the worth of your labour is more than the cost of your salary) - as well as reducing consumption which reduces corporation tax and vat income and depresses the economy - I resent that!

These lot are scary! but I still think democracy is worth paying for even if it is just tested every now and again.

BTW did you know osbourne is using the 'economy is like a household' analogy that thatcher liked..

Gideon is the son of Thatcher, same smug sneering persona, same could not give a shit about anyone but his "type" attitude.

A bastard of the highest order.

ds's school would be very very very grateful for £450. Government cuts mean we have less money but are being charged more - we are going to have to start paying for LEA services that have always been 'free' i.e. not charged separately to school budgets. So the LEA are going to charge us £200 for the school's own website and £6k for internet access for staff and children, apparently (am a governor, but not on finance & premises).

well you need to have a political system that doesn;t allow greedy rich people with no real overall country mandate to get into power using only their core vote.

also gideon does not have a clue about economics how many economists does it take to educate gideon osborne

Interesting link, HHL. Blanchflower has a great track record - wasn't he the only member of the monetary policy committee, month after month, who made the right call on interest rates and where the economy was going?

edam - they are all very, very impressive economists. And there are plenty more average economists who hold the same view of dear old gideon.

My favourite is Delong (prof of ecomomics at Berkeley and served in the Clinton administration) - he puts it very bluntly at the end of his section "Cameron, Clegg, and Osborne dont tell us (where growth will come from). They don't tell us because they are clueless dorks"

My favourite is Delong (prof of ecomomics at Berkeley and served in the Clinton administration) - he puts it very bluntly at the end of his section "Cameron, Clegg, and Osborne dont tell us (where growth will come from). They don't tell us because they are clueless dorks" :o

Thats my type of economist, does not beat about the bush and accurate with it. :o

My favourite economist is John Appleby at the King's Fund. He tells it straight in words non-economists can understand, while being jolly clever and right. (As in, I have gone back to double check that what he predicted would be the case did indeed turn out that way.)

Thank you for a fascinating debate.

I'm going to vote against AV.

Giddy, that's one of the reasons why I've decided to vote no. AV won't make a difference in this constituency. PR might, but I think that if AV is accepted then PR will be decades away.

AV is a complete waste of time!

The more I read about both the less I want to vote for either.
I want PR. I think now I might (for the first time in years) not bother voting at all. But then I can't complain. SO spoil the paper? I am wondering if writing 'bollocks' on my ballot paper would at least make me feel better (short term). Or a big P.R. scrawled across it.
Is this what 'they' want though? Enough people not voting to be able to say 'see no-one wants any change' ? But we (well some of us) do.

It amazes me that people who are in constituencies where more than 50% of people support a particular MP are choosing to not vote for AV only because it won't make a difference to their constituency - it will make a difference across the country - democracy is not about predicting things your way its about best representation of the people combined with an ability to hold strong government first past the post does the latter but often with parties that don't have a real national mandate (eg like now).

The government is decided on by actions across the country, not just in the 50% + already constituencies!

But my constituency is not unique, as giddypickle pointed out.
And I did say it was one of my reasons for voting no.

oh god - when people use the term 'safe seat' they don't necessarily mean one that has over 50% of the vote supporting the encumbent! Many Many seats inthe country are 'safe' with only 40% of the vote (nearly two thirds!)

These are seats where AV will make the count more representative.

By the way saying 'oh no but PR is better - wait for that' its like saying 'don't move out of your tiny damp flat unless you can afford a mansion' it just doesn't make sense.,

For the record though, I like the idea of PR, but in practive it means each debate needs to reach consensus rather than have a decision made which is more time-consuming. I think AV is better than PR for this reason.

If you would prefer full PR you still need to vote "Yes" in this referendum as a "no" vote will be taken as wanting to keep the "first past the post" system.

AV will probably only make a difference in a few constituencies but that and having equal population seats will make the system fairer.

I HAVE NEVER SAID AV IS 'PROPORTIONAL' it means the winner has a measure of support from the majority of constituents and won't allow someone in who has a core vote, of less than 50% who has no measure of support from voters for other parties. That is why the winner has to reach out to more than their core vote in constituencies with split support.

I don't mind areas where more than 50% of the electorate support the encumbent already with their first choice - that's fine to me and means the candidate can reasonably be said to represent the constituency - its the other constituencies where the support is less clear and where an MP can survive on representing only 30% of her/his constituents where AV is useful - and that is two thirds of the seats in the UK.

I must admit that debating this has made me much sure of the merits of Yes than I had at the beginning! I wish there was more stuff out about this.

Apparently there is a BBC debate on TV today, but I can't find out where but I will try to post when I do find out unless someone beats me to it!

ooh! have found it now amongst the clips - on BBC 2 today sometime..