Forum

Latest News
  • Will Croft elected Leader of the Conservative party
  • South Pacific nations agree new alliance to counter China
  • Budget 2016: Chancellor faces global slowdown
  • Ministers embarrassed by ‘Legion’ leak
{"effect":"fade","fontstyle":"normal","autoplay":"true","timer":4000}

No Campaign  

  RSS

Richard
(@richard)
Member A-team
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 159
02/08/2019 4:13 pm  

For campaign events in opposition to STV.

Rick the Admin - The Resident Psephologist
Admin for Cabinet, PM's Office, DPM's Office, Defence, Energy, Regions, Environment, Transport, Communities, Elections, and Advisor to Labour and the Lib Dems


Quote
Steven Andrews
(@steven-andrews)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 120
03/08/2019 11:36 pm  

(OOC: Yay, another f***ing mainstreet...)

Steven Andrews campaigned in the South East Region against STV/in favor of FPTP

To one voter, he discussed the Yes campaign:
"The Yes people keep talking about other countries' records, but several of the countries they've listed don't use STV. Australia doesn't, New Zealand doesn't. Only Ireland really does, and I don't think you can really say that Ireland is any better-governed than the UK is. If anything, STV made them more susceptible to political chaos when the market crashed."

To another voter, he discussed the recent reforms:
"If you read the Times or watch Westminster at all, the reforms that got jammed through were a half-baked implementation of a passable concept. Labour and the LibDems threw a whole bunch of stuff against the wall to see what would stick and they've already made a total hash of the Senate.  There's no mechanism for breaking a deadlock like you see in most countries; they didn't even keep the Parliament Acts as a short-term transitional measure. Given the mess the Government made of the Senate, we should really focus on straightening out the Senate before we try to completely overhaul the Commons as well."

To yet another voter, he spoke about government stability:
"Proportional systems can work alright when you have a couple of stable coalitions, like you've traditionally seen in Germany.  We don't really have that in the UK.  Passing STV is a guarantee that the next generation of governments will be at the mercy of either the LibDems or the SNP for votes regardless of what the voters actually want."

Steven Andrews, MP for Croydon South

34 Policy/18 Media/23 Parliamentary


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 76
03/08/2019 11:41 pm  

Shadow Secretary of Home, Mr. Roger Brigham, went canvassing across the East Midlands with local supporters of the campaign against STV, he did some door to door, speeches and answered the questions of voters:

One undecided voter, asked why he should vote against STV, Mr. Brigham answered:

“Our campaign strongly believes that this referendum is not about who remains in power in Downing Street, it’s about democracy, and we believe that the current System is the most democratic that we can have in the moment, because first of all, the value of one vote is the same here in the Midlands and also in London, because it’s a System of one person, one vote, there is nothing much democratic that a vote with the same value for everybody. Secondly, FPTP  is the best System to have better links between constituents and members of Parliament, because you have the right to elect one MP, while in Proportional Systems you elect a closed list and you will have to vote for somebody that you don’t now, with FPTP this doesn’t happen and you can share proposals, concerns and some words with your MP, this obligates politicians to be closer and contact their constituents to guarantee their seat, there is nothing more democratic in a democracy than this, let’s take back our democracy, let’s share this message with undecided voters and vote against STV”

A second voter, asked about the effects of the STV in the political System:

“The effects of having a new electoral System would be dramatic, Proportional Systems tend to overrate minor parties that don’t have important support of the population, let’s take a look to the Greens and UKIP in the Senate elections. FPTP guarantees stability of British politics, where largest parties can rule the country, with FPTP minor parties wouldn’t be overrated and our Parliament would be more stable, Senate elections shown that Proportional Systems are a mess, nobody has a majority, we have the danger for the first time in history to have both Chambers in a situation of hung Parliament, with no party with enough force to have a majority, we don’t want this, because instability brings more poverty, less jobs and less growth, vote against STV, vote for democracy.”

A third voter, asked Roger about the effects of the referendum, he said:

“This is not only a referendum to decide our electoral System, this is a referendum on democracy, because a Coalition with no will to accept the results of 5 years ago, when British voted massively for FPTP, introduces a new referendum to try to revoke your decision, the decision of the British people, the true sovereigns of this land, a complete shame, we must be sure and vote again to say to our government: We want our Voice to be respected, and that’s why we should vote to preserve FPTP. This will also be a referendum on Government, with a Proportional System like STV, we would have decades of Coalition ruling because the System would overrate them, that’s why they propose the reform, we can’t accept more years of economic stagnation, poverty, mismanagement and dark deals with secessionists, in this referendum on government you must vote against STV and send them a message, let’s maintain FPTP and let’s finish Coalition’s disrespectful actions against you. For us, this is about democracy, for them, this is about power.”

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Sir Geoffrey Birch
(@sir-geoffrey)
MP for Bexhill & Battle
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 98
03/08/2019 11:42 pm  

Prominent Conservative backbencher Sir Geoffrey Birch spoke to voters on the subject of the disadvantages of STV compared to our current system.

 

On the complexity of STV: "STV is a very complicated system. The Yes Campaign will say you just need to number some boxes on the ballot paper, and trust they'll be processed correctly. Unless you understand how the votes are counted, how can you possibly trust the results? The instructions for counting run to several pages. The process includes a phase called carrying surpluses, which either involves unfairly counting some ballots and not others or relies on computers to carry out the complex calculations. Whatever was wrong with just having the person with the most votes win?"

 

On the ability to kick-out a bad MP: "In our current system, it's very simple to remove a scandal-ridden MP. With STV, that'll be practically impossible. An individual MP need only 1 voter in 5 to get elected. Even if a majority of voters disapprove of an MPs behaviour, so long as they have the support of their base, their position is impervious. Our current system delivers accountability. Do we really want to change to a system that allows unpopular MPs to keep their jobs and power with impunity?"

 

On forming a democratic mandate for government: "With our current system, a party needs to get their MPs to make up a majority of the House of Commons in order to be entrusted with the government of the country. If you don't like the government, voters have a direct power to influence the government but voting for the other party in their area. Under STV, that power for voters to choose their government is lost. Governments are decided not in the ballot box but in back-rooms where the deals are stitched together, away from the public's eye. British democracy demands that government is decided by the people, not by politicians. Demand that right, and vote No!"

Sir Geoffrey Birch | Conservative Party
MP for Bexhill & Battle (2001-present)
Former MP for Northampton South (1983-1997)
Parliamentary experience: Novice (28)
Media experience: Novice (22)
Policy experience: Unknown (12)

Formerly: Deborah Carpenter, Conservative, MP for Hertford & Stortford, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer


ReplyQuote
Mike Jordan
(@mike-jordan)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 5
04/08/2019 12:31 am  

 

 

 Mr.Mike Jordan , went around the North East of England convincing anyone who would listen to vote no against STV:

One undecided voter, asked why he should vote against STV, Mr. Jordan  answered:

“Our campaign strongly believes that this referendum is not about who remains in power in Downing Street, it’s about democracy, and our current system is doing just fine,  the STV  proposal is just another power grab  attempt by the opposition. The disadvantages are clear

  • In sparsely populated areas, like the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to enormous constituencies. 
  • The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote takes place.
  • A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates can be prone to what has been termed ‘donkey voting’, where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot.
  • Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better. Some argue that a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters.
  • In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather large and potentially confusing

 

So i urge you to do the best thing for yourselves Because by saying no to STV you are saying yes to democracy 

Thank you for having me

Mike Jordan

MP for  East Hampshire

Parliamentary 12

Policy 11

Media 20 

 


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 76
04/08/2019 4:43 pm  

Roger Brigham, the Shadow Secretary of Home, campaigned in English South Est, holding events with important numbers of people, trying to convince them to vote against STV, specially the polling team of the campaign targeted zones with high levels of undecided voters and Mr. Brigham targeted them together with other zones:

To one undecided voter, Mr. Brigham answered:

“Our future as a country and our future as a civilization is at stake in this referendum, the fight for democracy is also at stake, we have to win this referendum, because there is nothing more democratic than one person one vote and closer links between MP’s and Constituents. Fellow citizens like you want institutions that work, that solve problems, with the STV we will have more possibilities to have a hung parliament, where nobody would be able to reach a majority of the seats in both Chambers, leading our country to endless political battles for power and deals between forces that represent the opposite, we can’t have a Parliament plunged into partisan battles, we need a Parliament that works in an effective way to solve your problems, and this will only happen with FPTP, because we are knowing what a hung Parliament is, and under FPTP is very rare to see one, but with PR always happen, let’s look our European friends, vote for you, vote for democracy, vote against STV”

To one voter worried about the European issue, Mr. Brigham said:

“As citizens we may have different opinions on the topic whether we have to be in the EU or not, but as a democrat I believe that the people should decide on this topic in the polling stations, voting to decide its future because it belongs to you. Currently, the Coalition opposes the idea of a referendum to decide our membership in the EU, we support a referendum, and we can’t have an electoral system like STV that would reward parties that go against your democratic right to vote, voting for STV means rejecting your right to choose your future, with FPTP pro referendum parties like ours would be able to have more seats and hen more probabilities for you to decide your future freely, if you believe in democracy, your vote should be against STV, let’s defend a system like FPTP that will put ballot boxes in your hands to decide on important matters”

Finally, Mr. Brigham talked with a local media activist about the importance to vote for FPTP in the referendum:

“Media activists have an important role in this century and specially in modern politics. I want to convince you to share with your public the benefits of voting against STV. Maintaining our current electoral system, we make our democracy stronger, because FPTP is the most democratic system, one person has one vote while in Proportional Representation, big cities have like London have more power of influence and votes are not treated equally. For more democracy and more equality, you must vote against STV. Secondly, with FPTP, we are avoiding and preventing the entrance of extremist parties like in our institutions, there’s nothing more democratic than ignoring those that want to attack our democratic society. Third because this referendum is also on government, because STV would mean more decades in power of a Government that uses public funds and institutions to intimidate the Opposition, a Government that is destroying our economy by raising inflation and destroying wages and at the end a government of mismanagement. Maintaining FPTP you have the opportunity to have a better future. Let’s share our message in your media: Vote against STV for more equality, democracy, fairness and a better future.”

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 76
04/08/2019 4:47 pm  

Billboard 1

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 76
04/08/2019 4:47 pm  

Billboard 2

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 76
04/08/2019 4:48 pm  

Billboard 3

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Sir Geoffrey Birch
(@sir-geoffrey)
MP for Bexhill & Battle
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 98
04/08/2019 5:53 pm  

Prominent Conservative backbencher Sir Geoffrey Birch spoke to voters in Yorkshire on the subject of the disadvantages of STV compared to our current system.

 

On STV failing to provide MPs with a mandate: “Under STV, some MPs will get elected despite only getting the support of 1 voter out of 5. Do they really have the support of local people? Do they really have a mandate to carry out their plans, or to block a government from carrying out theirs? I think MPs need to earn their place in parliament and in government. If a person can’t convince more than one in five people in their area, they don’t deserve to be an MP. If a party can't win enough support to earn a majority, they shouldn't be able to cobble together a coalition of losers to impose their will on the British people. We don’t need a system the produces weak coalition after weak coalition. We need a system where winners win. It’s just common sense.”

 

On the Government’s history of constitutional change: “The Senate has been a shambles. It was so badly thought through that we now have the SNP with the power to hold the government to ransom and we’re already having to re-write the rules. That’s the danger of rushing into massive constitutional change without thinking. Now, the makers of that mess want to fiddle about with the constitution through STV. Can we really trust them not to mess it up again? This referendum could change the course of Britain forever, so we need to make sure that what we’re doing is right. We were right about the problems with the Senate and I fear that we’ll be right again if we rush into this decision. Let’s stop this pointless tinkering with the British constitution. Instead, vote No, and let us get back to solving real problems like stagnant wages and a slowing economy.”

 

On STV’s lack of transparency: “The Yes Campaign are treating voters like children, saying it’s like writing a list of your 5 favourite sweets. No, it’s electing a Parliament and a Government that will run this country, and deserves to be taken seriously. FPTP takes your votes and counts them. STV takes your votes and applies an opaque procedure to them to find out who is elected. You can do a recount and get a different answer! That’s not letting voters express their will, that’s the system producing a result, and it’s fundamentally undemocratic. Unless the Yes Campaign can explain to you what happens to your ballot paper after you fill it in, how can you trust any result that STV produces? I can tell you how it works now: we count the votes, and the person with the most votes wins. You can’t say that about STV.”

Sir Geoffrey Birch | Conservative Party
MP for Bexhill & Battle (2001-present)
Former MP for Northampton South (1983-1997)
Parliamentary experience: Novice (28)
Media experience: Novice (22)
Policy experience: Unknown (12)

Formerly: Deborah Carpenter, Conservative, MP for Hertford & Stortford, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer


ReplyQuote
Roger De Gruchy
(@roger-de-gruchy)
MP for Chelsea and Fulham
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 17
04/08/2019 8:23 pm  

Conservative MP, Roger De Gruchy, spent the day in Glasgow speaking to locals about the STV referendum.

 

When asked why the Scottish people should oppose STV, De Gruchy answered:

 

“The people of Scotland fought long and hard to win back political autonomy on many decisions and the fight, to some extent, has continued to this day. If the referendum effort to implement STV were successful, then the Scottish people, much like the Welsh people, Northern Irish people, and the people in rural England would be handing an incredible amount of power back to London. This is because London is, by far, the most populous part of the country: it has more population than does the entirety of Scotland, meaning that any kind of proportional voting system would lead to London controlling more elected seats than Scotland does. Our current system has built-in safeguards to ensure that places like Scotlandare given an adequate voice, even if that means that they have more seats per person than some other parts of the country. That is very important to maintaining an independent and distinct Scottish voice in Parliament.”

 

When asked what STV is, De Gruchy answered:

 

“Well I think this illustrates a key issue with this referendum. We’re being promised a bill of goods by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats that nobody quite understands and nobody knows how it can be delivered. STV is a significantly more complicated method of election that will not only prove more confusing for the average voter but will also prove significantly more time consuming and expensive than our current system. Ultimately, STV means that some people will get one vote and others will get three or four: you get a vote until you vote for someone who wins. It’s a convoluted, unfair, and expensive system that Britons don’t want or need.

Roger De Gruchy
Shadow Foriegn Secretary
Shadow Leader of the House
MP for Chelsea and Fulham

Parliamentary: Unknown (15)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (10)


ReplyQuote
Roger De Gruchy
(@roger-de-gruchy)
MP for Chelsea and Fulham
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 17
04/08/2019 8:27 pm  

Roger de Gruchy, delivered a High Profile Event speech in London today wherein he defended the first-past-the-post system and decried the STV proposal. [EDITED BY ADMIN]

 

“Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your warm welcome. Many of you, I am sure, agree with me already: the proposed changes to Britain’s electoral system will do nothing more than destabilize the governing institutions of this country which has served it so well for so long, and continue to prove both highly effective and principally fair in a modern democracy. To those of you who already agree with my position, one which is shared by millions of British voters up and down this country from the white cliffs of Dover to the peat moss and craggy cliffs of the Hebrides, I apologize, but the majority of my speech will not be directed toward you: you already understand the grave importance of this decision, you already understand that these changes cannot be so flippantly made as to imperil good government in our country, and you already understand that the First-Past-the-Post system, while still imperfect, is the best and fairest way of electing Members of Parliament. 

 

“And there may even be, among us, some who already disagree with me. I can hear your hollow heckling even now from where I stand. You, with pious and self-righteous pie-in-the-sky idealism, claim that the current system is unfair because, in some constituency somewhere, the third party got 70% of the vote and you believe that the spill-over majority should count for seats in Parliament. You believe the current system is unfair because rural communities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given their rightful voice in Parliament and are not drowned out by the constant bleating of the urban liberal elites. You believe the current system is unfair because it gives to each and every Briton one vote, instead of giving everyone the chance to vote until they are successful in returning someone to Westminster. My address today is, similarly, not directed at you. You have given up on reasonable discourse sometime in the last five years, when the country last rejected proportional voting systems because you have seen what reasonable discourse leads to: namely, your complete and utter destruction in the field of ideas.

 

“No, my address is primarily directed toward those men and women across Britain who, for one reason or another, are sat at home or who are presently with us and are confused: why are we going to the ballot box for this? What does STV even mean and what will it mean for my representation in Parliament? What do you mean I shall have to vote for multiple people? Do we really need to go back to a system with multi-MP constituencies? I thought that was done away with in the 18th Century-- why are the progressives now drudging it up? All of these questions (fair questions) are ones which I shall endeavor to answer and, I believe, by so doing, prove to you that Britain is better off voting ‘No’ in the upcoming referendum on electoral reform. 

 

“So what is it, this Single Transferable Vote claptrap that is being bandied about and didn’t we already choose to stick with First Past the Post not five years ago? The answer to that last question is ‘yes, absolutely!’ Five years ago, the British public voted overwhelmingly to maintain our system of voting as First Past the Post and, in doing so, rejected these ridiculous and complicated forms of proportional voting and so on. What is clear is that since the results of that referendum were announced, the proponents of taking a sledgehammer to constitutional convention and effective good government began working immediately to find a way to subvert the British public’s voice on these matters and get what they want, even if it isn’t what you wanted. And here is the Achilles heel of the pro-STV camp: they make the claims that theirs are efforts to give a voice to the people; but the people had a voice and they did voice their concerns five years ago: we want First Past the Post elections. No, ladies and gentlemen, the ‘Yes’ campaign do not want to give you a voice; they want to increase their voices. They have seen the writing on the wall: they cannot proceed with their radical and revolutionary political agenda if they play by the current rules, so they want to change the game, diminish their opponents and augment themselves. Britons will not stand for it and can see right through it.

 

“This highlights the great divide between the two camps--interestingly split along party lines. For the Conservative Party, First Past the Post is about democracy; for the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party -- this coalition government which has floundered from failure to failure and now seeks to cling on by whatever means it can muster -- STV is about power. Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, this referendum on STV is nothing more than an attempt by the coalition government to cling to power and it, therefore, represents a kind of referendum not only on our voting system but also on our coalition government. If we allow them to have their way, then coalitions will become the only method of government this land will know. We have seen it across Europe, where government coalitions are the norm and governments are unstable and inept and where the economies are slow, sluggish, and poor as we have recently seen evidenced. We must, therefore, ask ourselves the question: do we wish to see more coalition governments like we have these last few years? Do we wish to see more Labour-Lib Dem coalitions like we one we see now? Hardly a picture of stability and good government, I should think. That’s what we will be in for, should we vote for this STV proposal.

 

“We stand today in what is the greatest city in the world. It is a multicultural city, with regions and communities which are distinct. These communities deserve close and appropriate representation. This is precisely what is offered by First Past the Post: constituencies have Members of Parliament who are directly responsible for their representation in Westminster. This means that the multiplicity of interested groups across London and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom are represented. If we should go down the track of Proportional Voting systems, then that is lost. Members of Parliament are no longer beholden to a local community, but are beholden only to the party whip. Already, complaints abound in the press and among members of all parties that the whips are getting stronger, that the ability of MPs to adequately represent their constituents has been curtailed. How much worse would it be, I ask, if these members were no longer tied to a particular community?

 

“What’s more: the introduction of STV makes it far more likely and far more possible for parties on the fringes of political life, parties who are out of lock-step with the values that we as British people hold, to be elected and, as so often happens in Europe, become kingmakers. Do we really wish to see a government propped up by and beholden to extremist voices like the Communist Party or UKIP or the BNP? Take a moment to reflect on what that might look like for the multicultural and shining city that is London. It would be disastrous and it would be exactly what we signed up for if we vote in favor of STV.

 

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I began this speech by telling you who I was speaking to: the undecideds at home who may or may not even vote in this referendum. To them I make one final plea: do go vote and vote against STV. The core values which we, as Britons hold, those like fairness, subsidiarity, and democracy, are at stake. We know, already, that the significant minority of British people who are adamant that Labour and the Liberal Democrats should be allowed to continue to run this country into the ground, through radical and revolutionary means, will go out and vote. It therefore comes down to you, ladies and gentlemen, who are perhaps less interested in the intricacies of government but who, nonetheless, want stability and strength from your government, to counteract that vocal and vicious minority. Therefore, I implore you, for all of the reasons I have above explained and for the reasons which doubtlessly will be brought to your attention in the closing days of this referendum campaign, to vote against the power grab, vote against revolution, vote against unfairness. Vote No on STV. Thank you very much.”

This post was modified 3 months ago by Richard

Roger De Gruchy
Shadow Foriegn Secretary
Shadow Leader of the House
MP for Chelsea and Fulham

Parliamentary: Unknown (15)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (10)


ReplyQuote
Steven Andrews
(@steven-andrews)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 120
04/08/2019 11:53 pm  

Shadow Chancellor Andrews went mainstreeting in the North West of England. Meeting with voters outside of Manchester, he talked with them about why they should oppose STV.

To one Labour voter, he spoke about the uselessness of manifestoes in the future:
"Look, we don't necessarily see eye to eye on policy in Westminster but I can't imagine you're thrilled with the LibDems writing most of the policy that came out of the Government in the last year or two. If we go with STV, there's a very good chance that Labour will never be able to implement a manifesto again since they'll have to put together a coalition with the LibDems, SNP, and so on.  At least the last two coalitions were a historical abnormality; STV will make these sorts of situations the norm, where politicians take your vote and then decide to do whatever they want when they get down to London. If you ever want to know what sort of policies your vote will get you on Election Day, you need to vote no on this referendum."

He spoke to another voter about the Government's record on Constitutional reform:
"I'd be very wary of how the Government has handled this. They already made a total hash of the Senate reform, pushing it through half-baked and forgetting to figure out how to sort a deadlock between the two Houses. Even if you think some form of proportional representation might be the way to go someday, the Government should probably get the Senate sorted out before we go and rewrite the rules for the Commons.  They rushed everything in that bill; with all they forgot with the Senate who knows what they forgot on this one?"

Finally, another voter asked about not having to vote tactically under the new system (versus under FPTP). Andrews responded:
"You might think that, but under STV there's the question of how to rank your preferences. You can just as easily waste your vote under STV casting your first and second preferences for a "weak" candidate in one party or another, finding them eliminated. Or you can waste your vote on a candidate who already has more than enough votes...just like now...only to find that your second, third, and fourth choices were eliminated before your vote had a chance to matter there, too. STV doesn't fix these problems, it just hides them under a layer of foundation and makes more of a mess with them at the same time."

 

Steven Andrews, MP for Croydon South

34 Policy/18 Media/23 Parliamentary


ReplyQuote
Share: