Politics UK
Why did the "Yes" campaign in the AV referendum fail so badly?
Party president orders inquiry into disastrous Yes campaign, which was described by staff as a 'living nightmare'
A.H.
Because of the lack of funding for the Yes campaign, they should've had an equal footing and the public should've been correctly informed. I would've voted Yes, if i could, not least to have a fairer system in this country.
D.C.
People didn't understand it, didn't care, didn't like it, wanted PR instead, liked FPTP, voted against it as it was seen as a vote against Clegg and the campaign being undermined by tory propaganda...cough media. Think I got them all.
D.C.
plus what Alex said
S.F.
Plus 'people' wanted to 'punish' Nick and the Lib Dem for what they took as a betrayal (going into a coalition with the cons)
Alan J B Wyllie
Because it was a "miserable little compromise" which nobody wanted.
M.C.
I worked (for minimum wage of course...) for the Yes! campaign in the West Mids and whilst I wouldn't say it was a living nightmare, a lot of things coming from HQ certainly didn't help.
Added to that, we were also up against Labour's New Labour dinosaurs such as Prescott, Reid and others, as well as the full weight of the conservative press and party machine (some left wing media swung against us towards the end too. Still, I think we could have won it with the right battle plan.
And Alex, there was plenty of funding for the Yes campaign to begin with, sadly it was too quickly and wasn't at all wisely spent from what I could see.
M.C.
Alan, that quote is often misquoted. Clegg said that in relation to Labour's offer of AV for a coalition deal when the Conservatives had already offered the same.
A.H.
Mark, i meant in relative terms about the funding. The No campaign had all the millionaire Tories and right-wing media financial support, but i agree that the Yes funding was severely wasted :S
B.D.A.
So agree with S.F.even though I voted yes because I wanted change. Clegg could have stormed the YES vote if he hadn't been such a wet lettuce.
Clegg is still pretty much in la la land refusing to accept the buck stops at him while punching at straws looking for an answer.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg leaves a polling station after casting his vote in the AV referendum, which saw a resounding defeat for the Yes campaign. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty
M.C.
True Alex, the No campaign had pretty much limitless funds from Conservative doners.
M.K.
The yes campaign relied on telling people the facts once, the no campaign made it about politics all the time. As well as all this the Sun, Daily Mail and other quality publications were telling people AV was complicated and too hard to understand. Oh and low turn out because some people saw not voting as a protest. Protests only work if you tell someone you're making them.
S.C.
There is that added ingredient.....not many people wanted it ( AV )
S.F.
Barry, I would have voted YES as well!
28 June at 06:43 · Like
M.R.
Because AV is a daft system.....PR is the only representative democratic mechanism......its used in more countries than any other system, its used in many European countries, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.......No point making excuses AV is not fit for purpose.....simples...imho
S.F.
PR would have been better, yes.
And I live and pay taxes in the UK so I think I have all legitimacy in being interested into UK politics.
M.C.
Mark, AV would have been a step towards PR or one of the other more proportionate systems out there. AV is just a small evolutionary step from FPTP that would have been a good small improvement to our democracy. I mean people can still vote for just one party if they want under AV, effectively using FPTP themselves.
Some of the guys in our region's campaign found some research that showed how countries who made a small electoral reform step, tended to go on to further changes. New Zealand is a good example of this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand
I can't remember who said it but this sums it up well "people who want PR and won't vote for AV are like people who want to win the lottery but won't buy a ticket."
Ah well, we electoral reformists are a patient lot and there's a lot of us now still pushing for modernising out democracy. FPTP will be consigned to where it belongs in history eventually.
M.R.
M.R.C.......I do not agree...sorry....only the English could consider AV to be electoral reform.......the principle problem with AV is that it is totally constituency based....and therefore replicates most of the wrongs of FPTP......and you are right, most people would still only vote once, or have one vote counted.......In my personal view.....anything less than PR is totally undemocratic.....AV is undemocratic, so, as a person who wants to see real Electoral Reform, I reject it completely.......
M.C.
I didn't say most people would only choose one preference, just those who are very tribal can choose just one if they want. I think a lot of people would like to register a number of preferences, I know I would.
AV would most definitely have been a step in the right direction and a nice evolutionary step at that.
R.F.
It would have been better than nothing, Mark. Now we won't get a chance at PR for a long time :(
The yes campaign was in the lead early on, and evidence showed that the more people understood it the more they were in favour. What happened to change that? A sustained program of misinformation and propaganda in the (mostly right wing) media. It never had a chance, the media tycoons have all the power.
B.H.
Ironic that those bleating on about democracy the loudest are also the ones complaining the loudest about the democratic outcome on the issue. The people have spoken: we do not want to give up FPTP.
R.F.
Democracy doesn't work when it's undermined by lying, scheming media interests.
B.H.
So democracy only works when it gives the outcome that you want it to, does it?
C.S.
The campigned focused more on point scoring on both sides, AV linked with Clegg and Lib dems in mostg of public eyes, most ppl thought it was to complicated, Even more uninterested, nowhw
C.S.
Nowhere near enough televised or public debates on this referundum. A wasted oppunity. Pity.
J.B
As someone who volunteered on the same West Midlands Yes campaign M.R.worked on, I'd argue that it largely did come down to the national Yes campaign being just a tad useless.
I've basically concluded that we lost because the national campaign did a horrible job attempting to sell people a solution for a problem they didn't think they had. NOtoAV then worked to make our proposed solution seem scary and bad, and that combined with the status quo bias the national campaign wrongly figured they could plough through with a generic anti-politician rant, meant we were slaughtered on the 5th.
(if anyone feels like reading a wall of text from me on this, I'm happy to post the other 710 (!) words I wrote about this back in May)
No comments:
Post a Comment