Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes...

The pre-referendum pro- and anti- Alternative Vote campaigns are rapidly approaching full swing.

'Yes' is supported by Eddie Izzard and Stephen Fry, 'no' by Peter Stringfellow and Tony Hadley. Who gives a ****?

Stringfellow says that he understands the current system, and he believes it is "the right way", Izzard says AV will give "power to the people".

You have to wonder whether they even understand the proposals about which they are spewing out slogans. Their quotes suggest not.

If you are politically aware, this might not be the blog for you. But if, like many, you know little about this referendum, other than what Izzard and co think, read on. Compare their views to the facts and, I implore you, vote on the facts, not on the say-so of the celebrity backers:

1) Our existing 'First Past the Post' system and AV are BOTH majoritarion voting systems. In other words, they put power in the hands of the winners; the losers (and those who voted for them) take a backseat with no say in policy-making. This means more than 50% of the voters might not be represented at all by the elected member (under FPTP), or at all by their first choice (under AV).

2) Under either system each separate electorate (constituency) only has one member elected - anyone who didn't want that electee is unrepresented in government.

3) The Liberal Democrats, who now champion AV, did NOT want it before last year's election. They wanted the Single Transferable Vote.

4) STV is a version of Proportional Representation which elects multi-member constituencies via a quota system - in other words if you get a set portion of the vote you get a seat. The majority of voters actually get some representation in the resultant membership.

5) There are other versions of Proportional Representation, for example: The Regional Party List system, whereby you actually just vote for your preferred party, not candidate, and they get the proportion of seats for your area accordingly, given to party members in the order of the published order of preference.

6) The Proportional systems are not outlandish, far-fetched or extremist-friendly (the latter being a common prejudice held over, inaccurately, from inter-war German politics).

7) In fact, in European Parliament elections FPTP and AV are BOTH banned. Neither is deemed fair enough.

8) The UK use the Regional Party List system for European elections. Under this system, for example, the East of England has 7 MEPs (3 Tory, 2 UKIP, 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem) as per the votes cast. These 7 members all represent the whole area, ie. No-one is specifically aligned to and area such as Norwich North - they all represent Norwich North, and all its local neighbours.

9) David Cameron and the Tories are shit-scared of AV, because it might slightly erode their political strength. A fully PR system could actually prevent them from ever getting majority rule again (bearing in mind it took Gordon Brown's limping Labour for them to even get a minority victory...)

10) Because the Tories infiltrated Lib Dem ideology, and warped it to their own ends, we now have a referendum on AV. No-one wanted this in the first place, but it's all we can have for now.

So, that's the facts. There are only two options, because abstaining suggests we don't care either way, rather than caring too much. So what's it to be people? You tell me: Yes or No?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Clegg's unwitting self-parodies could ruin the Lib Dems for good

The moment Nick Clegg entered in to a coalition with the Conservative Party, he must have known he was undermining his own party, mustn't he?

Maybe not. The most concerning element of Cleggy's activities is that he seems almost blissfully unaware of the self-parody he and his party are becoming.

Clegg has most recently been exposed by the fast-track job controversy: he was so busy championing a clamp-down on such elitism that he apparently forgot that he had not only benefited personally as a young up-and-comer but also exploited the same system in the course of his own political career.

So, Nick Clegg will fight for a political cause he does not believe in to enhance his own repute? This is not news.

He has long-since assumed the role of principle mascot for AV, despite having dismissed the proposed-system as "a miserable little compromise" before the election.

The Lib Dem party stance, then, was that truly Proportional Representation was the aim. So what has changed, other than the offer of a little power in exchange for their principles?

I can't help but feel cheated by the 'bright new hope' that Clegg had promised to be. At least I didn't vote for him. Of course, under our current system, I couldn't have done. Nor could I have done so under AV. My vote would have been disregarded in either, and Chloe Smith would still be my Tory MP.

Clegg is playing the politics game with big boys now, and he seems to be enjoying the attention, and the opportunity to dabble with quirky little nuances such as spin and flat-out dishonesty, rather like a child with a new set of toys. Similarly child-like is his apparent lack of concern for those around him, including his party and their loyal followers.

He may be enjoying playing Deputy Prime Minister, a title he has not earned, but he is wrong to neglect the effect of his u-turns and faux pas.

To perform on request is to be little more than a clown, and he is in danger of turning the Liberal Democrat party in to a circus, with David Cameron as guest ring-master. The more principled Liberals will not stand for this, and nor will their voters.

Mr Clegg, I feel, needs to take a long hard look at himself, and make some decisions. If he leaves it too long, those decisions will no longer be his to make.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5