More misery for Clegg as Alternative Vote bid lost
Saturday 7th May 2011, 11:30AM BST.
Britain has rejected adopting a new electoral system after the No To AV campaign won a crushing victory in the referendum, including in Shropshire.
But David Cameron and Nick Clegg have insisted their coalition will continue, despite the humiliation handed out to Liberal Democrats in the elections and the referendum on the Alternative Vote.
Thirteen million of the voters who turned out for the UK-wide referendum on Thursday said they would rather keep the present first-past-the-post system than switch to AV, compared to 6.1 million who wanted a change.
In the Shropshire Council area, a total of 68,732 people voted no to AV while just 27,221 voted yes. The turnout was 42.15 per cent.
While in the Telford & Wrekin Council area, 36,213 voted no and 14,097 voted yes. The turnout was 43.05 per cent.
While voters decisively rejected Lib Dem-backed proposals to change the way MPs are elected, the party suffered another blow in local elections by losing about 700 councillors in England and haemorrhaged support to the Scottish National Party north of the border.
Mr Clegg admitted the results were “a bitter blow” for the Lib Dems, but said the party would “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and move on”.
Grassroots calls for Mr Clegg to be removed as leader were quickly slapped down by senior Lib Dem figures at Westminster.
The Prime Minister said: “I believe that what the British people want us to do now is to provide a good, strong, decisive Government in the long-term national interest of this country, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats working together.”
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Proper PR is what people want – not AV, which is a very poor substitute.
Report abuse
If the people wanted PR then they should have voted YES to AV. This in turn would potentially allow more Liberals to be voted in as MPs at the next election, then with more MPs in Parliament they would have had more clout to push for PR but it didn’t happen and won’t for a very long time.
Report abuse
err! you know this for a fact, or are you just spinning a line?
Report abuse
With the failure of AV, PR won’t get a look in for a lifetime.
That is, if revolution doesn’t make all this arbitrary. Anyone else feel it in their water that’s it’s on the cards ? Something tells me troubles a brewing. The centre (ground) cannot hold.
Report abuse
There is absolutely no chance of a referendum on PR,now AV is dead.
AV would have been a step in that direction.This is the first referendum in 30 odd years so the odds are stacked against another referendum for a very long time unless there’s a seismic shift in politics.
Report abuse
Common sense prevails.
Report abuse
I suspect people would prefer proper PR rather than the grossly unfair current system. I also suspect more people would have considered voting for AV were it not for an at times personalised, unpleasant and dishonest Conservative led and funded NO campaign. There are many within the Conservative party who should be ashamed of themselves because they made the whole referendum an issue about Nick Clegg (their partner in coalition) rather than about voting systems.
Report abuse
I’d agree with that. I’d also say that the ‘no’ campaign insulted the voters’ intelligence by dismissing AV as too complicated. The counting system itself is not that difficult to understand given a bit of effort but to suggest that voters couldn’t get their brains around the idea of numbering candidates in order of preference shows absolute contempt for the electorate.
I still haven’t made my own mind up about which system best serves Britain’s interest. Clearly, AV was always a compromise. I currently live in a country which uses PR and the post-election period is invariably marked by unedifying horse-trading, while FPTP leaves huge numbers of voters effectively disenfranchised.
What was it Churchill said about democracy?
Report abuse
Better question what did Churchill say about AV ?
The people are disenfranchised when the political elite get to carve up the outcome of an election between themselves in secret after the voting, just like they did after the last one.
Report abuse
In case you missed it in my post :
‘I currently live in a country which uses PR and the post-election period is invariably marked by unedifying horse-trading.’
That’s about PR. Meanwhile, the elite did indeed ‘carve up’ the last UK election but wasn’t it held under FPTP?,
If you could clarify your own opinion on these systems, I’d understand your point a bit better and we could discuss. Your posts so far do suggest a certain hostility to AV, but on what grounds?
As I also said in my post, I’m very much undecided. I don’t live in the UK now, didn’t vote in the referundum and don’t know how I would have voted if I did. I just can’t stand politicians telling people that putting 1,2,3 on a ballot paper is ‘too complicated’.
Report abuse
James I am against PR and AV because they actually do disenfranchise the voters by placing power in the hands of the political parties.
It is up to the political parties to set out their stalls and offer alternatives to the voters and it is the voters to make the choice.
Under AV and PR that situation is reversed allowing the parties to decide who and what, after an election.
We had the unedifying spectacle after the last election of an unpopular administration who had clearly lost the support of the country trying to hang onto power and the eventual formation of an unwanted coalition simply because none of the parties offered choice on any of the really big issues, not because there is something intrinsically wrong with FPTP.
Report abuse
Thanks. I understand that and do agree up to a point. The point about ‘setting out stalls’ certainly makes sense. I also tend to believe (though I’m beginning to waver) that the elections that brought in Thatcher in 79, Blair in 97 and even, to an extent, the present government, reflected a very clear wish among the electorate for a change from what went before.
But in 97 definitely and 79 probably (I was only 9 at the time of that one), there was an awful lot of tactical voting going on to ensure the unpopular administrations were booted out. So were voters really making a ‘real choice’? They were voting against, rather than for something after all.
One thing that appeals about AV is that an MP who would have sneaked in under FPTP with, say, 40% of the vote, beating his nearest rival by, say, just 1%, would have to prove (under AV) that he’s not actually unpalatable to at least some of the 60% who didn’t make him their first choice. If, in theory (I realise I’m being extreme here), he was the last choice of all of those 60%, I’d say he’s been comprehensively rejected and doesn’t deserve his seat in parliament.
As I say, I’m not convinced and I realise that I’ve probably contradicted myself here. But, while my experience of PR systems makes me very suspicious, I wish AV had at least been given more of a hearing. At least there should have been a far far better debate on it than there actually was.
Report abuse
Interesting argument but AV will not stop tactical voting it will probably give it greater leverage.
I agree about the debate but feel the yes side did not have much choice as AV is really not defensible on any of the grounds they offered, it does not make voting fairer ( their slogan ) it just changes the emphasis, it does not make MP work harder, it does not stop safe seats and so on. The No side did not even seem to get going until very late in the day and then they seemed to rely on silly arguments and scare stories about costs and letting in the BNP ect.
But the whole point about the debate is that it was not wanted by the people and changing the voting system will not address any of the problems we have with our democracy. The whole argument about left and right is meaningless whilst we remain within the EU, because most of the laws that affect the ordinary person are made outside of this country in what is a socialist system, and how we elect those who implement those laws is really immaterial.
Report abuse
The things people will do to grab a little bit of power, sell out principles, support the opposition anything to keep hold of a little bit of power, the grass roots and genuine people will have their day Nick see you on the dole line. LOL
Report abuse
Absolutely.
The gamble went against him and his party. The Lib Dems will be wiped off the map at the next General Election – they may even cease to exist as a party.
Right now they cannot leave the coalition as they know if a GE was called tomorrow they’d be finished. They’re in schtuck big time, forced into slavery under the Conservatives and knowing that their freedom would be something even worse.
Time to break up the party me thinks, let those in the LDs who feel betrayed move across the house, and the rest of them (probably just Nick Clegg/Danny Alexander) can stay with the coalition.
I’m not gloating, I genuinely think it’s a shame….but they didn’t half bring it on themselves.
Report abuse
Good post.
There were two reasons why this failed:
Firstly, AV was indeed a ‘shabby little compromise’. It wasn’t what the Lib Dems were after prior to the election, and whilst many people (myself included)would be prepared to consider changes to our voting system, this was a hastily-concocted and half-baked attempt.
Secondly, the Lib Dems have moved so far from their stated election aims and commitments, and there is real anger at their betrayal of the people who voted for them, especially amongst the young.
I feel genuinely sorry for the many decent Lib Dem supporters, who have seen their aspirations dissolve in this rush for pseudo-power.
I believe many Lib Dem MPs will indeed be looking to sever their ties with the party in its current form – hopefully we will see significant disruption to the regressive Tory policies that are being forced upon us, and ultimately an early election. I really can’t see this lot lasting the full 5 years – no matter how much they tinker with parliamentary rules to try and stay in power.
Report abuse
clegg deserves all he gets
he stole my vote, by lying about being a centre left party, he is actually centre right, had he made this clear from the beginning i would have voted green or stayed at home, he’s betrayed millions of anti tory voters who just wanted to keep tories out of power but accepted gordon brown had to go too
Report abuse