'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

rhyski

navyguy1965 wrote: »

I think that the whole AV thing is a complete waste of money which is quite ironic that the subject is disucssed on a money saving website.

The money that has been spent on this farce could be better spent on other more important matters like health and education. In these difficult times with public spending and jobs being cut how many jobs has this farce cost ?

A libdem backed policy because they simply have no hope of ever getting into power on their own.

Guess what way i am voting ? lol

The claims made by the NO to AV leaflets of the cost of AV are completely false. The cost they stated of £250million included the cost of electronic voting machines - which are simply not going to be used.

The referendum itself is costing £91million, but this cost will exist whether the final outcome is a yes or a no.

You can argue that the cost of the referendum itself is a waste of money - but as it's going ahead whether we like it or not, we might as well make the most of this opportunity... I would suggest that voting against change would be an even bigger 'waste' of money, as the referendum would have achieved absolutely nothing...

AV is the lesser of two evils, but better than nothing.

navyguy1965

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

The claims made by the NO to AV leaflets of the cost of AV are completely false. The cost they stated of £250million included the cost of electronic voting machines - which are simply not going to be used.

The referendum itself is costing £91million, but this cost will exist whether the final outcome is a yes or a no.

You can argue that the cost of the referendum itself is a waste of money - but as it's going ahead whether we like it or not, we might as well make the most of this opportunity... I would suggest that voting against change would be an even bigger 'waste' of money, as the referendum would have achieved absolutely nothing...

AV is the lesser of two evils, but better than nothing.

===================================================
Precisley £91million punds that could have been better spent on more important things like health education and defence I am sure that the thousands of serviceman who are about to made redundant would agree that £91million pounds could have been better spent on perhaps saving their jobs. I do not see it as an opportunity as I will be voting to maintain the current system. I do not see this referendum as a benefit to the country but as a lib dem backed policy to try and get more of their MP.s into parliament as they will never be able to make it on their own

irnbru_2

navyguy1965 wrote: »

In these difficult times with public spending and jobs being cut how many jobs has this farce cost ?

Fewer, if any, than the extra £2Bn on those aircraft carriers.

irnbru_2

navyguy1965 wrote: »

I do not see this referendum as a benefit to the country but as a lib dem backed policy to try and get more of their MP.s into parliament as they will never be able to make it on their own

Unlike the Tories who did make it on their own .... oh no wait ....

navyguy1965

irnbru wrote: »

Fewer, if any, than the extra £2Bn on those aircraft carriers.

Totally agree with you irnbru but thats another discussion on the inadequacies of MOD procurement which are well documented.And yes as you say undoubtedbly contributed to the redundancies facing servicmen. But £91 million pounds could have been put to far better use than the farce that is AV

navyguy1965

irnbru wrote: »

Unlike the Tories who did make it on their own .... oh no wait ....

Or if the libdems had sided with labour then labour would have made it on their own lol. Lets face it whatever your political persuasion the libdems are fence sitters who only went into a coalition with the party that would most closely match their agenda. They will never make it on their own policies especially if they want to waste £91 million pounds on waste of space referendums instead of ploughing money into the real issues that this country faces like jobs,education and health

dtsazza

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Your opinion, mine is that for a great deal of the population, they can just about read The Sun and that's about it.

I'm not that far above that level and I was confused by all the varied information coming at me, before I started reading this thread. You only have to watch one NO advert and one YES advert to be totally confuddled.

True, but that's mainly because the No campaign seems to be going for the FUD angle and deliberately confusing people, and the Yes campaign is amazingly ineffective at promoting AV.

'Course maybe that's because I'm making my decision from the philosophical angle of thinking about the systems themselves, rather than "how can I keep the Tories out."

dtsazza

navyguy1965 wrote: »

I do not see it as an opportunity as I will be voting to maintain the current system.

If I may ask, are you voting this way because you believe that FPTP is a more appropriate electoral system than AV, or because you're opposed to the Lib Dem referendum and are voting No to spite them?

navyguy1965 wrote: »

[The Lib Dems] will never make it on their own policies especially if they want to waste £91 million pounds on waste of space referendums instead of ploughing money into the real issues that this country faces like jobs,education and health

You might be interested to learn that the Lib Dems have arguably the most pro-education policies (well, manifesto at least) of the three major parties.

Whether they'd have the wherewithall required to bring their policies to bear should be form a majoritty government is a different question. I was hoping that being part of the coalition would be a little like work experience for them, but this isn't really working out...

tonyhamm

Vince Cable (The LIBDEM's) came up with the idea that Tuition fees should be tripled to £9000 - not the Tories, dispite campaigning against Tuition Fees to win votes in the election!. Thats the problem with AV - it lets this sort of "Say one thing for voters, say another when in power" become instituitionlised.
These people become the elite who know better than voters whats good for them.

AS CHURCHILL SAID "AV means the most worthless candidates chasing the most worthless votes". i.e. Things they know they cannot deliver on, while they have their own ideas when they get into power.

Lotus-eater

tonyhamm wrote: »

Vince Cable (The LIBDEM's) came up with the idea that Tuition fees should be tripled to £9000 - not the Tories, dispite campaigning against Tuition Fees to win votes in the election!. Thats the problem with AV - it lets this sort of "Say one thing for voters, say another when in power" become instituitionlised.

What's that got to do with AV?