Why is it being claimed that AV would create this kind of situation?
It is because last year, some months after we had elected a hung Parliament under FPTP, NO2AV noticed that the Australians had just elected a hung federal Parliament under AV?
In fact since 1919 when the Australians moved to AV for their federal elections, they've had FEWER hung federal Parliaments than there have been hung UK Parliaments.
And in New South Wales, which holds its state elections using the same variant of AV we would have, what they call "optional preferential voting", there was a single party Labor government for 16 years until two weeks ago when those scoundrels were comprehensively booted out of office - another antipodean event, but one which apparently went unnoticed in the "no" camp.
Or is it because of information provided by opinion polls in this country, such as the YouGov poll reported last week by Channel 4 which led to the following predicted results if we were to have a general election in the near future:
So which of those general election outcomes would necessitate the formation of some kind of rainbow coalition through backroom deals?
Would it be the one where Labour got an overall majority of 60, or the one where Labour only got an overall majority of 34?
The reality is that nobody knows how often AV would lead to hung Parliaments, compared to FPTP - not even the omniscient Matthew Elliott, who even though he's normally the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance apparently doesn't know that the costs of the referendum will be borne out of national taxation and not local taxation.
But we do know that under AV the predominant role in deciding whether or not any single party should be trusted to govern alone would be taken by the electorate, just as it was in May 2010 under FPTP.
1 comment:
Why is it being claimed that AV would create this kind of situation?
It is because last year, some months after we had elected a hung Parliament under FPTP, NO2AV noticed that the Australians had just elected a hung federal Parliament under AV?
In fact since 1919 when the Australians moved to AV for their federal elections, they've had FEWER hung federal Parliaments than there have been hung UK Parliaments.
And in New South Wales, which holds its state elections using the same variant of AV we would have, what they call "optional preferential voting", there was a single party Labor government for 16 years until two weeks ago when those scoundrels were comprehensively booted out of office - another antipodean event, but one which apparently went unnoticed in the "no" camp.
Or is it because of information provided by opinion polls in this country, such as the YouGov poll reported last week by Channel 4 which led to the following predicted results if we were to have a general election in the near future:
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/alternative-vote-alternative-outcome/15032
Under FPTP:
Labour 355 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 16 MPs
Under AV:
Labour 342 MPs
Tories 255 MPs
LibDems 29 MPs
So which of those general election outcomes would necessitate the formation of some kind of rainbow coalition through backroom deals?
Would it be the one where Labour got an overall majority of 60, or the one where Labour only got an overall majority of 34?
The reality is that nobody knows how often AV would lead to hung Parliaments, compared to FPTP - not even the omniscient Matthew Elliott, who even though he's normally the Chief Executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance apparently doesn't know that the costs of the referendum will be borne out of national taxation and not local taxation.
But we do know that under AV the predominant role in deciding whether or not any single party should be trusted to govern alone would be taken by the electorate, just as it was in May 2010 under FPTP.
Post a Comment