Cameron won't lead the charge against AV

Kevyn Bodman

So:for the short term of gain of keeping the coalition together the Conservatives will not campaign against a long term change to the voting system even though they don't support it?
Is that what you are saying?

If that's the case then Dave and the Cameroons really do manage to combine selfishness and wimpishness.

Marcher Baron

"If the referendum on AV was lost, Nick Clegg would face loud and sustained calls from his party to pull out of the coalition." No matter that, if it were lost, it would be the will of the people who didn't vote for change when asked. Typical politicians who think they know best.

an ex Tory voter

Despite a lifetime of support for the Conservative Party, they did not get my vote last time. The reason is quite simply, I don't trust Cameron to fight for what I know to be vital principles. Once again he is fence sitting and prevaricating. The only thing likely to stiffen his backbone is a good kicking from the backbenches and the 1922 Committee. Power is more important to DC than principle, he cannot be trusted.

Cogito Ergosum

Surely it would be undemocratic if the lib-dems walked out in a huff after an AV referendum were defeated?

Mycroft

Is it really the case that the LDs went into the coalition solely to get a change in the voting the system? Clegg and those who were involved in the negotations at least have put a much more positive interpretation on it. I think this is all based on a false premise (even if many LD activists may see that concession as the main gain). Though I can't help thinking that Cameron really believes that it is always going to be extremely difficult now for the Tories to get an absolute majority (which is a fairly evident fact in my view), and this is not an issue that is worth making a desperate fight about.

lescam

an ex Tory voter
June 6th, 2010 3:41pm

"Despite a lifetime of support for the Conservative Party, they did not get my vote last time. The reason is quite simply, I don't trust Cameron to fight for what I know to be vital principles. Once again he is fence sitting and prevaricating. The only thing likely to stiffen his backbone is a good kicking from the backbenches and the 1922 Committee. Power is more important to DC than principle, he cannot be trusted".

I too didn't vote Tory this time, for the first time in 50 years of voting. Cameron is simply a waste of space, I bitterly regret him ever having become party leader.

If we had to have a Tory government, I would have much preferred a minority one, even if likely to be facing another election soon, rather than this mishmash of different views fighting each other. I absolutely hate the idea of losing FPTP, because PR allows minorities, some of them stupid or racist, to get into power. Do we really want Nick Griffin and his ilk to hold the balance of power? At least FPTP keeps all extremists out.

bernerlap

I think Cameron needs to be very careful over this. If the libdems spit their dummy out after losing a referendum then all to the good for the Conservatives. He needs to campaign and campaign hard. If he doesn't then I have to wonder what is the point of having a Conservative party at all.
I support the Conservatives because they are better than the alternatives. If they go for a preferential/proportional system then they lose their USP and my membership, donations and hard work will go to a party that more accurately reflects my views - UKIP.

alexsandr

Cameron needs to be making it certain the tories get an absolute majority when the next GE comes. and it will be soon when the coalition rents asunder.

libertarian

@Lescam

Really, I don't see that FPTP kept out the last lot of stupid, extremist anti English rascists called NuLabour.

Direct election for PM/Executive is the ONLY democratic way forward

John Richardson

You explain Cameron's position is both 'consistent'
with campaigning FOR f.p.t.p and
'consistent'
with 'being prepared to see AV referendum pass'.

Huuum.

Looks as though the liberal, Corporate MSM is 'consistent' with it's coverage of Mr David Cameron and what he stands for.

Verityred

Yawn, hear the dinosaur spent rump of the Tory party right whinge and gibber. Things have moved on, just as old Labour were made irrelevent, so shall the old Tories become.

Mycroft

Cameron can't be trusted to fight for 'vital principles'. But is upport for ftpt really a vital principle? Isn't the real reason for most Tories' opposition to it the fact that they don't believe that they can get an absolute majority with a more proportional system? So their reasons for opposing it are just as selfish as those of the LDs (and some late coverts in the Labour ranks) in supporting it. All this stuff that one hears about wanting to keep extreme parties out is sheer humbug, it is the middle that will hold the balance, as now. A large part of the public rather like that, even if the right wing suicide squad (who would prefer to have no Tory policies rather than most of them)don't.

Liz Brown

Surely it would be naive to pull out of the coalition if the AV vote was lost - the will of the people should come first
If Cameron isn't necessarily going to campaign for or against, if it wasn't contained in the Tory manifesto, then it will be a free vote in the House before being put to a referendum, Tory MP's can vote according to their conscience so this seems to be a bit of a non story

JohnPage

What is the democratic case against AV? Or the Tories' case, anyway?

I'd vote against any change involving party lists. AV doesn't. On the face of it, it's more democratic. It may be less convenient for the Tories, but that's not my problem.

Michael Booth

Looks like another false promise to go alongside the Tory and Lib Dem (opposition) commitment to scrap the NHS database. Now they are to keep it. Trust politicians? Nah!

Robert Eve

It is not worth giving up FPTP just to keep the coalition afloat.

Fergus Pickering

Like Mycroft I cannot see that FPTP is a principle. It's just a method of election. What is unprincipled about other methods. Of course, as a Tory, I prefer methods that get us in and keep other people out. But I can't dres it up as a principle. To be able to perform that sort of gymnastics I'd have to be e leftie. They do it all the time. But surely WE don't.

paulg

I'm not to au fe with AV or PR and I was not listening properly when people were trying to explain it re: Alex massie and LMc. Any chance of them giving us a synopsis of what it will entail and what advantages it will yeild the conservative party( I will look it up once they have done that)

If it does not look like we get anything...sod Cleggs bruised feelings. He loses its called democracy.

TrevorsDen

Cameron is prime minister, maybe he thinks it better he try to behave err, prime ministerial?

Why should losing the vote affect the libdems? Why should they just up and leave a system which is to their benefit? Their poll ratings have dropped in the last month, they did badly in the election but find themselves in govt.

If AV is lost they may well want to revisit the notion of forging a closer alliance may be even merger who knows?

There is no evidence that AV would benefit the LDs anyway. The important change is to get fair constituencies.

John Bracewell

Any voting system that creates the post-election spectre of a party conducting open talks with another party whilst holding secret talks with the third party, on a regular basis, is not one which appeals. FPTP has done that occasionally (once? 2010) but without it the haggling, backroom fixes etc. would become the norm. All voters would end up voting for a party and its views and getting some policies from other parties. No doubt both LibDems and Conservatives supporters now feel that their best policies are being dropped in favour of policies they did not vote for. AV or PR creates the situation in which only the minority parties will benefit, since they will be able to wield undue influence on the parties which get the most votes/seats. This is what the LibDems are doing now, they have 57 MPs to 307 Conservatives, yet have their 4 main election policies intact, it does not represent a fair result considering how the votes were cast. I subscribe to the view that we have got the lowest common denominator not the highest common factor, and that would apply after all elections if the system is changed. No thanks.

David Lindsay

David Cameron will not lead the inexplicable campaign by his partisans to save an electoral system which is enormously to their detriment.

Both the Old Right and the New Right should be in the vanguard of those demanding a lot more than the Alternative Vote, and instead looking to something far more radical to enable them to wipe the dust of Cameron's party from their feet and start again on their own terms.

an ex Tory voter

No doubt there are arguments for and against AV, no doubt it can be said "it is not a principle, merely a form of election". I don't give a tinkers cuss for any of that. The only thing that matters to me is that it is yet another commitment given by DC which he will fail to honour. I repeat, "he cannot be trusted".
"new start" @ David Lyndsay. I long for a new start and the sooner the better. As for David Cameron, neither he nor his clique will be a part of it. He is a political weakling, devoid of principle and lacking the passion needed to inspire and to lead. His only claim to fame is that he nearly defeated the worst government this country has had in modern times.

Fergus Pickering

If David Cameron - who is now Primw Mniste - is a political weakling, then what words have you got for the previous three leaders of the Tory party, none of whom got anywhere near being Prime Minister. And who did you have in mind to replace him. The Vulcan? David Davis? And what is all this tripe about a political clique? Eric Pickles? Teresa May? Whassissname Hammond? What clique is it that these ministers belong to? And put a sock in this endless bleating about Cameron breaking promises? Do you think politics is a romantic novel? He PROMISED me! Promises, promises, mate. The world is as it is and you have to deal with it. Pragmatically. The tory philosophy is to have no philosophy. Philosophy is for the leftie prigs. It is YOU who are political weaklings. The great Maggie had no objection to a thumping lie if it had to be told. Remember the Belgrano. She was right to sink it and right to lie about it. Or do you not agree?

Olaf

They won't walk. Some power is better than no power.

Also they can now credibly say they have experience of governing. That ends if they walk.

Mycroft

Well said F P! And a further point, the constant criticism that is directed here against Cameron for 'having no principles'. The people who say this are almost invariably people with very right wing views who are really criticizing him for not automatically sharing all of their principles; there is all the difference in the world between that and having no principles at all. He is a liberal Conservative. Furthermore anyone who has to exercise real power has to reach an accommodation with people whose views are not entirely his own: the LDs of course here, but also these very right wingers who are carping from the sidelines and MPs on the back benches who share their views.

General Zod

If the LibDems walked out of the coalition because the referendum was lost, Cameron would call and win an election, so the LibDems would not walk.

David Bouvier

Agreed that AV is arguable as a system, but so is our current system of plurality voting (FPTP is strangely more accurate a description of AV than our current system).

Neither are in any way "proportional" in the sense that the link national share of 1st preference votes to proportion of candidates in the house.

AV involves ranking candiduates in order of preference, with less successful candidates being eliminated and votes for them being reallocated to the 2nd or subsequent preferences. The first candidate to get past the 50% winning post is elected.

There is a strange pretence that being elected on a mix of 50%+ of 1st and not-1st preferences is somehow equivalent to the postive first choice of 50%+ of the votes cast.

I expect AV to favour bland populist candidates trying to be uncontroversial and without a strong opinions, since the goal must be to be "less disliked", whereas under plurality voting, you have the to be "most liked" person.

I do not see that this is an improvment, and suspect that it will entrench the kind of all-things-to-all-people, obsfucating politicians that people so hate.

I think that the person whom more people than anyone else want to be their MP is a pretty good person to be the MP. It balances the need for the person to represent the community electing them, with the possibility of an MP having a strong character and view that represents the core of the community. You regularly here people with MPs of strong character whom they would never themselves vote for, none-the-less respecting them for their beliefs and character.

I wouldn't use plurality votnig to elect a say a town mayor, but as one member of a diverse parliament I think it is the best choice.

Any truly proportional system strengtens central party control, increases patronage, makes it impossible for corrupt individuals to be ejected by the electorate, and brings in extremists (12 BNP MPs would be "proportional"). It makes MPs loyal to the party not to the voters.

Funny that the libdems seem to prefer only the degree of proportionality that maxmises their benefit (STV) while still blocking small parties. So no great principle at stake there for them.

Given that in the last general election the lib dem second preferences were relatively evenly split, AV might not be so bad for the Conservatives. But I still don't like it.