With the AV referendum drawing closer – and postal votes hitting doormats this weekend – there’s plenty of coverage of it in today’s newspapers, including a rather excellent piece in The Observer by former Liberal Democrat Leader Paddy Ashdown. The majority of Paddy’s piece has its sights firmly set on the increasingly pernicious NO campaign, most pertinently on this week’s “bizarre” intervention into the debate by the chancellor George Osborne – which unsurprisingly makes it onto The Observer front page.
Here’s an extract of what Paddy has to say:
What I am perplexed and deeply disturbed by is that those running the no campaign haven’t once put forward a positive case for the current system and instead have spent their time lying about AV.
I have seen principle-free machine politics in action many times and it is never a pretty sight. But this time really is different.
To have Baroness Warsi stand on the site of race riots in the 1930s and say that a yes vote will help the BNP is as tawdry as it is indefensible. The BNP are campaigning for a no vote. Such extremist parties as have, God help us, been elected in Britain, were elected through FPTP. As a host of independent commentators have argued, AV will diminish their chances, not increase them.
These cynical smears and scaremongering show not only the bankruptcy of the no campaign’s arguments but also how low is the level of its regard for the intelligence the public.
The strategy is clear. Throw as much mud as you can, don’t let the issue be discussed openly and frighten the public over the next three weeks into voting to preserve the power the present FPTP system has given you.
This strategy stinks of the same odour which has surrounded our politics recently.
For the chancellor of the exchequer – the chancellor of the exchequer – to claim that there is something “dodgy” about the Electoral Reform Society donating cash to a campaign in favour of electoral reform is bizarre.
Worse, for him to casually toss out slurs against a British company – Electoral Reform Services – which has widespread international respect for its impartiality in the conduct of elections and which even the Conservative party get to run their elections, is desperate.
And all of this is done by the no camp while they refuse fully to disclose their own donors!
You can read Paddy’s whole piece here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Nigel Farage and Reform UK declare war on evil pixies
Lessons from the Lords #2: how to spend £19m badly, without anyone complaining
Closing the doors after the defector has bolted
#interrail2025: Day 8 - the search for schnitzel continues...
Quiz this Friday at the Corso Street sheltered lounge - all welcome! #dundeewestend
Ping pong over Artificial Intelligence
Mick Scholes
Richard Whelan
Peter Martin
Thelma Davies
Mick Taylor
30 Comments
Then again both campaigns have spent too long talking complete rubbish.
1. From the pro camp: AV will stop expenses abuse. AV will not stop expenses abuse, only a decent expenses system will do this. An MP voted into office using AV could easily abuse the system for 5 years…
2. From the anti camp: AV will cost £xx million. AV will not cost £xxx million this assertion is based on lies.
3. From the pro camp: Every vote will matter: Every vote will not matter, there will still be safe seats.
4. From the anti camp: AV will benefit the BNP: No it won’t a true PR system might but I would live with that for the benefits it would bring. Look at what happened when the BNP were on question time. They looked idiots. I sometimes think the best way to beat them is to let them start to argue to the wider population who will see right through them…
5. From the pro camp: AV is more proportional. No it’s not and the ERS used to state this on their web site.
6. From the anti camp: FPTP gives clear results. May 2010, enough said.
I could go on and on. Both camps need to stop talking pants and start talking AV. If the pro camp want to keep talking about expenses abuses then they shouldn’t bleat when the anti camp stoop to Osbourne’s level. This referendum should be about AV, nothing else. The ERS are not supporting it because they want to make money, neither are those who support FPTP supporting abuses of public money.
A plague on both their houses.
@Steve Way, well said, both camps are talking tosh, the level of debate has been poor.
As for the main article, if we were voting on whether FPTP was a perfect system, then the answer would be a resounding no, but that’s not the question, we’re being asked to switch to AV, therefore it’s upto the yes camp to put forth the argument of the benefits of AV, something they haven’t been able to convincingly do.
The no camp don’t really need to defend FPTP, it’s not about defending FPTP, it’s about whether AV is substantially better and in my opinion, it isn’t.
The argument on electoral reform was lost when AV was announced as the only other ship in the port.
On balance I tend towards AV, but the yes campaign has been abysmal, the second worst campaign I can remember as a voter. The only one worse has been the no campaign. If anything shows that British politicians aren’t to be trusted with electoral reform then it has been the lies and deceit coming from all sides on what, one would hope, is an important issue. I don’t remember anything like this in the run up to referendums on mayors, or Welsh, Scottish or NI devolution. All of which sought to introduce proportional voting measures of greater complexity than AV, and none of which suffered from both sides of the argument lying out of their teeth to win the vote.
The AV campaigns are a slur on politics and those running them are not the kind of people I want in politics.
“What I am perplexed and deeply disturbed by is that those running the no campaign haven’t once put forward a positive case for the current system and instead have spent their time lying about AV.”
Au contraire! Plenty of people have put forward logical an principled reasons for supporting FPTP, you have just failed to recognise them because you lack the awareness to realise that other people have differing priorities and expectations from their electoral system, priorities and expectations that will lead them to different conclusions about the most appropriate system to employ.
On those broader priorities:-
I for one loath party-list PR because it has the dual disadvantage to removing a constituency link and making MP’s subject to party power, therefore discouraging a sense of responsibility to the mandate awarded by the voters who elected them.
I equally dislike an electoral system that greatly encourages coalition government, as it has the dual disadvantage of discouraging radical policy due to the desire to pre-arrange compromise positions with potential coalition partners (yes, this is the experience in Oz), whilst removing an easy link to an electoral manifesto that both provides a mandate for such radical policy, and allows easy punishment at a later date if it proves a disaster.
I further dislike electoral systems that encourage the splintering and narrow factionalism of political ideology, because all that matters to me is national politics within the nation state, therefore I demand that parties of government commit to a creed that is both broad and centrist. An electoral system that encourages coalitions provides legitimacy and influence to political ideologies utterly rejected by the mainstream of society.
You may have guessed by now that principle of proportional representation means little to me, that would be correct, it is far from a priority that matters to me in so much as it actively hinders factors I really do care about.
You may well say that is all well and good but what about all the people who do not find themselves ideologically represented by the big, national, parties of government, that while I may be perfectly represented other are not………….. My answer is simple: I do not care that communists, marxists, BNP, EDL, hard-Greens, etc find themselves without political representation in national politics. If their core and guiding principles cannot appeal to the nation at large then there is a bigger problem than their lack of ‘representation’
Needing to see minority ideologies represented is characterised by transnational-progressivism and the intellectual result of the fascination with using proportionalism in defence of ‘victim’ groups (equality agenda), the institutionalisation of multitudinous identities (unrestrained multiculturalism), and the end of majority rule in favour of power sharing (coalition politics). All things I reject in favour of the following; is the proposal acceptable to Britain?
Further, that I too am imperfectly represented as someone who is a classical liberal, but that it is an acceptable compromise given the priorities I value.
On those priorities specific to the AV referendum:-
While I favour a majoritarian electoral system one of the most important aspects of representative democracy in Britain is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and the evidence shows AV reinforces prevailing trends which in the case of landslides would tend to utterly destroy the incumbent under AV. It is difficult for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to hold the government of the day to account, and thus perform its function, if it is reduced to 70 or eighty seats.
So, AV achieves nothing I value, and manages to knacker all the characteristics I do hold dear, therefore I will be supporting FPTP.
I do not expect you to hold the same priorities I do, and understand this will lead to different conclusions, but the idea that only scoundrels and cads support the continuation of FPTP is ridiculous nonsense.
@Jedibeeftrix
“You may well say…..what about all the people who do not find themselves represented by the big national parties of government……. My answer is simple: I do not care that communists, marxists, BNP, EDL, hard-Greens, etc find themselves without political representation in national politics.”
What about the 65 percent who voted for parties other than Labour in 2005? What about 5 years of Labour government in the 1970s ushered in by an election in which Labour received fewer votes than the Conservatives?
Or 1951, when Labour’s percentage of the national vote was the highest ever obtained by a UK party without the help of an electoral pact? The Conservatives won an overall majority of seats, building on this to govern for 13 years.
Sadly, AV will do nothing to address this denial of democracy.
“What about the 65 percent who voted for parties other than Labour in 2005?”
As someone who is definitely far removed from socialism; tough! I didn’t get the result that I wanted, but the alternative I would have favoured at the time did not make a case that appealed to a ‘majority’.
“What about 5 years of Labour government in the 1970s ushered in by an election in which Labour received fewer votes than the Conservatives?”
Again; tough. FPTP the is not perfect and I have never claimed it to be so, and yes it too can throw up odd results although arguably less than AV given that it is more predictable.
In short, the qualities I value:
1. radical policy mandated by electoral manifesto.
2. non-coalition government which implement, and be punished for, said radical policy.
3. suppression of ideologies that do not have broad acceptance
4. predictable results that do not hamper the function of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
Are not in any way enhanced by AV.
I like and admire the liberal tradition, and consider myself deeply sympathetic to the ideology of classical liberalism, therefore I want the Lib-Dem’s to do well, but it is for the Lib-Dem’s to craft a message that appeals to the country on both a broad and a deep basis.
To say that the system as is locks the Lib-Dem’s out of power is not good enough, it is whinging that fails to face the reality that the Lib-Dem’s advocate ideological positions which simply don’t appeal to a large section of the electorate.
The Lib-Dem Defence policy is a woolly shambles* that will prevent them ever acquiring my vote as long as it persists. I feel likewise about the party’s utterly ridiculous stance towards europe*, not least because it is antithetical to the desires of much of the country. You might well feel that these are rational positions to take, but you will be taking them in opposition for a long time to come unless you realise that of the two conjoined words; representative-democracy, it is the former which is the more important by far!
However, my feelings on these two matters are particularly vehement because Defence and europe are things I care particularly about, again, people with other priorities will weigh and judge the Lib-Dem’s on different criteria, but this is what matters to me.
Outside these narrow policy areas I believe that the Lib-Dem’s would do well to study the work of Isaiah Berlin on negative and positive liberty if they wish to broaden the appeal of their message to the country. There is room for both in this world, but where one draws the line between the influence is a matter of judgement as Berlin notes:
“It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’ the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.”
My personal feeling is that the Lib-Dem’s desire to be nice about all things and to all men has led to an over-emphasis on positive liberty with the concomitant impact on negative liberty; the freedom from obstruction to do that which is not expressly prohibited by the modest limits of a constrained legal code.
How many ways can the government legally force entry into your home? They reasons used to be numbered on one hand, now there are I am told hundreds. Some of these will be for perfectly ‘nice’ reasons like protecting vulnerable kids, a large proportion will be for similarly innocuous reasons, but taken together they represent a fantastic assault on the negative liberty that you as a citizen are supposed to possess. This is just one example!
Now again, you may feel that the Lib-Dem’s have the balance right, but I can tell you that a great many more consider this kind of rank interference totally unacceptable, and while you are perfectly justified in continuing with this you will be doing so in opposition.
What is the point of this rambling jaunt across my political consciousness…………..? It is to demonstrate that I believe that Liberalism as a creed has a lot of potential to appeal very broadly to the country, and that it could regain the status as the progressive-left alternative to Conservatism that Labour wrenched away a century ago. However, as it stands the purity of opposition has allowed some adjuncts to classical liberalism to get grafted on that are deeply unattractive to a significant proportion of the electorate, and that I do not believe the Lib-Dem’s deserve to win until their core message can appeal to those people.
I care nothing for proportionalism, i actively favour the current situation, but that does not mean I do not wish the Lib-Dem’s to succeed.
Classical Liberalism has much to offer and broad appeal, return to it.
Jedibeeftrix –
Without being able to step across into a parallel universe in which AV had been introduced some years or decades before the 1997 general election, there’s no way of telling what majority Blair would have got or how many Tory MPs would have survived.
People would change their voting behaviour, which would change the course of events, and while simulated re-runs of past elections are interesting they are also unreliable and can only be a very rough guide.
On some simulations if the 1992 general election had been held under AV then it would have resulted in Tory majority of only 5 instead of 21, and on others it would been a hung Parliament; either way the events leading up to the next election would have been significantly different from those we experienced, and the timing and outcome of that election would not have been those now being simulated for the 1997 election held under AV.
If you want to be sure of having an effective opposition then there’s a much better way than retaining FPTP for the Commons, but I doubt that you’d welcome my suggestion about that.
While Paddy is right about the No campaign and there is little doubt that most of their claims are absurd, unfortunately the yes campaign hasn’t exactly been entirely honest either.
Take for example, some of Nick Clegg claims on the one politics show, (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13109304)
“But he said it would be “fairer” and made “every vote count”: “In the last general election, only 1.6% of the total electorate had any bearing on the final outcome.”
Nick Clegg claimed a yes vote would “snuff out extremism” and make MPs work harder, “It’s 460,000 voters out of 45m voters, targeted in marginal seats, who made the difference. That cannot be fair. That cannot be democratic.”
He is right, it cannot be democrat. It is also not true. Can anyone please justify the 460k, or 1.6% figure?
(Perhaps one of his own constituents who voted for him but according to his own words had no bearing on the final outcome!)
“People would change their voting behaviour, there’s no way of telling what majority Blair would have got or how many Tory MPs would have survived.”
Accepted, but the likelyhood is that AV would lead to greater super-majorities in landslide conditions, given its penchant for reinforcing prevailing trends.
Even if this were ruled out entirely, there are too many other flaws for it to change my opinion.
“If you want to be sure of having an effective opposition then there’s a much better way than retaining FPTP for the Commons, but I doubt that you’d welcome my suggestion about that.”
On the assumption that you are going to suggest STV, no, as a PR system goes its not a bad one, but it is still antithetical to all that I hold important.
@Jedibeeftrix
Not agreeing with all your well put arguments but the line ‘the idea that only scoundrels and cads support the continuation of FPTP is ridiculous nonsense’ I absolutely endorse… the yes campaign has fallen into the trap of the almighty assumption that their arguments are automatically correct – and thus anyone who has well reasoned arguments against AV must be anti-democratic or anti-reform – hence the pathetic electoral broadcast they put out with loudspeakers hectoring MP’s.
cheers Peebee.
there is a case to be made for AV, it isn’t mine but it is there, and I agree that it is being undermined by the presumed-virtue of the “yes” crowd.
Jedibeeftrix –
I wouldn’t support STV or any other conventional PR system for either of the Houses of Parliament.
Instead I would prefer FPTP(AV) – SPTP, whereby:
1. The Commons are elected as now, or even better under AV, so that the norm is that one party has an overall majority and can form a single party government.
2. The Second Chamber comprises the candidates who came second in their constituencies at the same general election, so that the party with a Commons majority won’t also have a majority in the Second Chamber.
3. The power relationship between the two chambers remains that laid down in the present Parliament Acts, so that the Second Chamber may delay Bills for about 13 months, other than Money Bills, and only has an absolute veto on a Bill to extend the life of Parliament.
After more than a decade of pushing this suggestion I know that some people don’t like it, on various grounds.
They’ll like even less what it seems they’re now going to get, but that’s their mistake.
Interesting notion, but doesn’t run the risk of creating a convergent bicameralism?
After a year of harmony when we have sustained a right wing government more radical than Thatcher we appear to have rediscovered that our partner in government is the nasty party. Wonderful!!
So far as I can see, when the “No” campaign have exhausted themselves telling is how bad AV is because it will lead to “perpetual coalition” government, they turn to telling us how bad it is because it will lead to even more distortion than the current system. And when they have exhausted themselves telling us how bad AV is because it will lead to politicians becoming too moderate and not expressing any strong opinions in order to pick up transfers, they turn to telling us how bad AV is because it will lead to politicians becoming more extreme in order to pick up transfers.
It ought to be easy to dismiss the shambles and contradictory, innumerate and illogical arguments coming from the “No” campaign. Unfortunately, the Campaign Director of the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign is someone who last year showed a special skill in throwing away initial strong public support by the time of the actual vote.
you have trotted out this line before Matthew; that it is somehow contradictory that AV will increase the chance of coalitions and yet create even more distorted landlslides. you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
AV will drag seats from the two big parties, and in doing so make it less likely that one can get a majority of seats.
AV will tend to reinforce a prevailing trend and probably lead to mega-landslide situations.
AV in australia has been demonstrated to have resulted in more consensual policy making due to the need to appeal to potential coalition partners.
If you don’t like majoritarian government, fine.
If you are willing to accept the unpredictability of AV, fine.
If you like consensual politics with compromise policies, fine.
But do not merely write off the arguments with magisterial disdain as if they have no worth to anyone, especially not when you are flat-out wrong.
@jedibeeftrix
It certainly is “tough” that grossly disproportional voting systems deliver results that most people didn’t vote for.
That it’s tough on some politicians – and much too kind to others – doesn’t matter hugely. But it does matter that governments can be elected vitually by chance, as in which voters live where, and will then pretend for the next 4 or 5 years that they have a mandate from the people.
jedibeeftrix
AV will drag seats from the two big parties, and in doing so make it less likely that one can get a majority of seats.
Far from writing it off, I have accepted it as a genuine argument against AV, but I have asked “No” campaigners to be HONEST about it.
The reason AV may drag seats from the two big parties is that it removes the fear that if you don’t vote for one of teh big parties, you will “split the vote” and let the other big party win. Under AV, you can vote for the canidate you really like first, and transfer to the big party candidate you could best tolerate as a later preference, knowing that if your minor party candidate gets nowhere you have not damaged the prospects of your favoured major party candidate. It may even be that a lot of people think like you and a whole bunch only voted for the major party candidate out of fear of “splitting the vote”, and now there is no fear you all discover that actually there’s someone from outside the big two parties you all like, and taht person wins.
You, jedibeeftrix, say this is a BAD thing. You say it is better to keep this “don’t split the vote” penalty to make people feel FORCED to vote only for the two big parties even if they don’t really like them. You say it is better that poltics is like this, where there are just two parties and no other party can makea breakthrough. That’s fine, but if you and your like were honest, you would admit that’s what you want – to FORCE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR BIG PARTY CANDIDATES THEY DON’T REALLY LIKE.
When I find a “No to AV” campaigner who is willing to admit that’s what their argument really is, I will know there are honest people amongst the “No to AV” campaign. But so far, I have not met or heard of such a person in the “NO to AV” campaign.
Well anyway, in view of the current polling evidence – particularly tonight’s 16-point lead for “No” from LDV’s favourite pollster, ICM (up from 2 points in February) – the public is wholly unconvinced by the arguments being put forward in favour of AV, and the result will be a convincing victory for the status quo. I have to say that is only fair, given the abysmal quality of the “Yes” campaign.
The “No” campaign may have been abysmal too, but before making such an important change, surely it is reasonable to expect a strong, rational positive case to be made out for it, rather than the parade of infantile and often fallacious platitudes that we’ve been presented with.
@ OCC & MH
and i freely state that this is my preference based on my priorities, which may not be shared with others. why i feel the need to share them however is because i keep hearing echo-chamber statements from people who live and breath the assumption of AV’s implicit virtuousness, and therefore automatically assume that anyone who supports AV is unprincipled and pernicious.
@ MH
could i be any clearer than I have above?
“I further dislike electoral systems that encourage the splintering and narrow factionalism of political ideology, because all that matters to me is national politics within the nation state, therefore I demand that parties of government commit to a creed that is both broad and centrist. An electoral system that encourages coalitions provides legitimacy and influence to political ideologies utterly rejected by the mainstream of society.”
“To say that the system as is locks the Lib-Dem’s out of power is not good enough, it is whinging that fails to face the reality that the Lib-Dem’s advocate ideological positions which simply don’t appeal to a large section of the electorate. It is for the Lib-Dem’s to craft a message that appeals to the country on both a broad and a deep basis.”
Have I not been ‘honest’ enough about my true motives?
@jedibeeftrix, ‘If you don’t like majoritarian government, fine.’ trouble is its not majoritarian government its minoritarian government as FPTP gives large majorities in parliament to governments which get far less than half the votes (80 seat majority for Labour in 2005 despite getting only about 35% of the votes’ which I think is undemocratic.Now AV does not solve this problem but it will lessen the undemocraticness of the system as the winning MPs will have to at least gain a majority of votes after transfer votes in order to get elected.
“trouble is its not majoritarian government its minoritarian government as FPTP gives large majorities in parliament to governments which get far less than half the votes”
there are two different types of political majoritarianism; philosophical and electoral, it is merely a question of where you place the emphasis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
in the former your majority is within the constituency, and within the latter parliament.
given that I like the benefits of a parliamentary majority, and remain unconcerned about constituency majorities, it is understandable that I will support FPTP over AV.
Look, if anyone from the Yes Campaign is paying any attention at all, wake up!
You look like you’re on a students union freebie. Why have you decided to restrict your membership to those from the centre-left? The campaign has to be inclusive. This site mentioned that at least one Conservative MP (David Mowat) had come out in favour of AV. Why has he not been given a place on the platform alongside Ed Miliband? There is even a Conservative Yes campaign (http://www.conservativeyes.org.uk/), get those guys onboard. Also, why is UKIP not invited to share the stage, given that UKIP is in favour of the Yes campaign?
You don’t have to agree with the politics of these people, but you do need the broadest possible support amongst the populace.
Please stop shooting yourselves in the feet.
“Also, why is UKIP not invited to share the stage, given that UKIP is in favour of the Yes campaign?”
It is the problem of presumption of virtue once again.
By advocating politics unacceptable to the prevailing ideology of the Lib-Dem’s UKIP are automatically relegated as an unprincipled and pernicious force that must be resisted.
A greater ability to empathise beyond ones own narrow circle would lead one to appreciate that UKIP are onto ‘something’, and that something is called representation.
@jedi
Just to be clear: I think UKIP are utterly bonkers, but they do believe in democratic politics and their policy position is non-racial, so they should be welcomed in a cross-party campaign to reform the electoral system.
@jedi
Personally the whole Yes Campaign seems to have Milibandite dabs all over it. He supports AV solely from his trendy wendy view that there is a “progressive” majority that would unite to keep out the Tories forever under AV (despite academic research suggesting that second preferences would have swung to the Conservatives during the eighties and early nineties, for instance). Therefore only lefties should be invited to the party.
His outspoken demand that Nick Clegg should be kept from the campaign was childish but typical, fits in with his campaign to “destroy” the Lib Dems, even if they are the only opposition to the Conservatives in large parts of the country, and even if there are rather few Labour/Lib Dem marginals, but many Labour/Conservative marginals. He is leading a campaign that will pile up huge majorities in Labour strongholds in 2015, but also a large working Conservative majority. Anything to keep the troops happy in the meantime. Labour’s answer to Ian Duncan Smith.
“Just to be clear: I think UKIP are utterly bonkers”
For you as an individual to think that is fine.
For you as the ‘party’ to think that without consideration of the level of support UKIPs position attracts is a good way to stay in opposition for a veerrrryy long time.
Both Lab and Con have repositioned to accommodate the message that UKIP voters are responsive too, because they are national parties that seek to win majorities at national elections, when will the Lib-Dem’s join the party…………
@Paul McKeown
“His outspoken demand that Nick Clegg should be kept from the campaign was childish but typical”
A view shared by the campaign. Clearly they thought EM was more effective than NC or they would have told Ed to take a hike. Millibore also shared a platform with Cable who is not exactly on the Labour christmas card list at present. I think therefore you’re reading too much into this.
I don’t support AV but I would have thought that makes me in a tiny minority amongst those who voted Lib dem at the last election. Surely therefore it is safe to assume that Lib Dem voters will support the referendum and that Labour voters need more of a push. This, coupled with the polls that all show Clegg to be less popular than Cameron to Labour voters, would vindicate keeping his profile lower than Millibands.
“A view shared by the campaign. Clearly they thought EM was more effective than NC or they would have told Ed to take a hike. Millibore also shared a platform with Cable who is not exactly on the Labour christmas card list at present.”
I think this sums up much of the thinking of the Yes Campaign: get Labour voters onboard, and they will win, a stupid assumption, when Labour propagandists are trying to whip up a hysterical campaign against the Lib Dems: just read the Guardian Echo Chamber. “Yaa boo sucks, stick it up Clegg, vote ‘no'”. That Cameron is campaigning for “No” (fear of UKIP, fear of the mythical “progressive majority”, fear of his own backbenchers) is irrelevant, they hate the Lib Dems more.
The Yes Campaign should have sought a broad consensus from the beginning, from left to centre to right, regardless, and fought a positive campaign on the merits of the Yes vote, without any underlying assumptions about how it would affect the voting topography of the nation.
For me, in a safe seat, it simply gives me the chance to indicate who I would prefer to form a government, after I have indicated a (wasted) first preference for the Lib Dems. Would make me feel involved in the electoral process for a change, rather than wasting my time, as usual.
Basically, if David Cameron can share a platform with John Reid, it makes him look bigger than Ed Miliband who can’t share a platform with Nick Clegg (or Nigel Farage for that matter).