Sentences with phrase «av have»

At NO to AV we have always tried to explain why First Past the Post is the right voting system for Britain, while the Yes campaign have avoided talking abour AV, choosing instead to peddle untruths about expenses and safe seats to confuse and obscure the issue.

Since our launch, NO to AV have embarked on a nationwide poster campaign - and have had several stories in the media - all pointing towards the huge cost of the voting system that no - one wants.

Some passionate advocates of AV have told me that's silly, but I'm not convinced.

And why does AV have to act so suicidal, changing 8 players from a winning combination?

As is required for Uber's autonomous test vehicles operating on public roads, the AV had a safety driver at the wheel.

It is, as the AV has it, our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

AV has over $ 25 + million in gross sales, experiencing a 45 % growth rate in winegrapes since 1995 and a 55 % growth rate in bulk wine since 1998.

I still don't know y players dat av d passion to play for Arsenal as a club are finding it difficult to be established in our starting XI of been sold ie Szcesny.

Dating to the beginning of last season, the Avs have won three straight home games in this series, limiting the Jets to exactly two goals in each victory.

Last season AV had an average of 8 chances created per match — we had 9.25 so hardly day and night on that measure.

The Avs have been a completely different squad this season and find themselves in the thick of the playoff chase.

The Avs have won nine straight games at Pepsi Center — their longest home winning streak since moving from Quebec to Denver in 1995 - 96.

Dating to 2000 - 01, the Avs have won nine straight road tilts vs. the B's by a combined score of 25 - 12.

The Avs have taken the first two matchups with the Sharks, winning on January 18 and February 6, both in Colorado.

My claim was not that AV would «keep the Greens out» but that they would do less well under AV than PR.

Second, I disagree that AV would put the Greens as a disadvantage.

AV has the advantage of being a Labour manifesto commitment as well so should get through the Commons, even if lots of Tories rebelled.

Sunder, I think you are being overly optimistic about the extent to which AV would increase plurality in British politics.

A single chamber parliament elected under AV would be even more tyrannical than the current model.

IF THIS AV v FPTP BOGUS REFERENDUM IS ATTEMPTED IT WILL NOT BE.

Yes AV has many of the positive aspects of FPTP: Maintaining the constituency link.

The proposed AV v FPTP UK Referendum consists of a contrived, fabricated and simplistic bipolar choice of only two inadequate options set against unfit UK Electoral Law, unfit UK Electoral Registers and unfit UK Election Returning Officer negligible powers of cross-constituency scrutiny.

OR SPOIL YOUR BALLOT PAPER WITH A SUITABLY CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE BOGUS AV v FPTP UK REFERENDUM - A LIBDEMCON COALITION CON.

AV has given us Ed Miliband and the promise of a lot more Liberal Democrats in power.

Meanwhile she bases her critique of FPTP on the safe seats issue — a real problem, but one that AV would do very little to address (the Electoral Reform Society's own report on AV admits that «There will be relatively few constituencies which are currently uncompetitive under FPTP but would be put into play by AV.»)

This sort of locally strong independent (or minor party candidate) taking advantage of unusual circumstances is, I think, the one case for which AV would have made a big difference.

Leaving aside some MPs who support it out of self - interest (because they think it would benefit their party, or because AV would enable them to claim majority support from their constituents — Peter Hain is an obvious example) hardly anyone would actually pick AV as the best system if they had a free choice in the matter.

I'm pro-AV, and I took it as read that AV would have that effect before the No2AV campaign was founded.

I never worked out the logic behind claiming that AV would get rid of safe seats.

Under what is called «AV plus» every constituency on the electoral map would need to be redrawn, making it difficult to hold a referendum and implement reform in one parliament (while straight AV would use the current constituencies).

Australias long experience with AV has shown it is no more susceptible.

While two thirds of British MPs rest on feeble mandates, AV has delivered decisive results in each and every Australian seat.

Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.

No to AV has made full use of Nick Clegg's unpopularity in its campaign, releasing posters with «president Clegg» emblazoned across them and arguing that AV would make him permanent kingmaker during elections.

Meanwhile, No to AV were under fire after claiming AV would benefit the BNP and other marginal parties - despite the fact the BNP is campaigning for a «no» vote.

But observers were slightly taken aback by comments from David Cameron yesterday, when he insisted that AV would allow politicians to not stand by their manifesto commitments - a comment many took as criticism of the deputy prime minister.

Liberal Democrat energy secretary Chris Huhne and Tory chairman Baroness Warsi had a public spat recently after Baroness Warsi said AV would benefit fascists, while Mr Huhne accused her of «Goebbels - like» propaganda.

There was even talk in some quarters that AV would deliver semi-permanent blue - yellow realignment - so best for Tories to drop their dream of a majority Government.

«AV would be bad for Britain - but not necessarily for the Conservatives Main The AV referendum should not be held on May 5th next year»

The row could not come at a worse time for the «yes» campaigners, with last week being dominated by suggestions that AV would help the BNP and other extremists.

Katie Ghose, chair of Yes to Fairer Votes, said in response to Baroness Warsi's claims that AV would benefit fringe parties:

AV would deliver a few more seats, but nowhere near as many.

Also with AV we've seen the rise of the Greens challenging Labor in some inner - city seats (helped by preferences from the conservative Liberal Party).

As you note, if the bill is split both parts will be passed since the Labour support for AV would counteract the crusty - Tory opposition to AV; and the cuts in MPs part will be carried by the 80 strong majority.

I think AV would be a moderately progressive change to the system, whilst consensus for a more radical alternative is lacking (which it is).

AV has the potential to exacerbate swings against an unpopular incumbent government or for a broadly popular alternative.

AV would ensure that if a majority of constituents oppose a candidate — e.g. any Tory due to cuts — they can't win.

AV would quite often produce Lib Dem victories in constituencies that are either primarily Labour or primarily Tory.

Her critics accused her of giving the BNP credibility and publicity — the very things she argued that AV would provide for the far - right party.

Coalitions can occasionally occur under First - Past - The - Post but under AV they'd become the norm in Britain rather than the exception.