No to No to AV...

I don't know if you are for or against the Alternative Vote - that's between you and the ballot box - but what I do know is that I really don't like the way the 'No' campaign is being run.

In the post yesterday was a flier from the 'No' campaign informing me that that if I vote 'Yes' then I will be committing the governement to spending £130 million on electronic vote counting machines. I've looked into this. It's absolute piffle! There are no such plans.

In Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' there was an article saying that the Conservatives calculate that it will cost three times as much to run a general election under AV. OK, maybe it would cost a bit more because of the extra counting when the leading candidate doesn't get 50% straight off, but three tomes as much? How do you work that out?...

Well, apparently the Conservatives took the costs per head of running an election in Australia and then extrapolated it. Unfortunately, they neglected to mention that Australia is the size of Western Europe and in places very sparsely populated. Oh, yeah, and they elect both houses not just the one.

Then there's 'minority parties are evil' scare tactic. AV will allow the BNP to get seats in parliament. Maybe, but only if 50% of the electorate vote for it.

And, of course, our troops will die from lack of equipment if we spend the money on AV. More crap - even if we don't spend the money on AV you can bet your life the troops won't get any of it.

And let's not forget this classic : "Changing the way we vote will give the politicians more power to ignore the verdict of the voters"! How the hell do you work that one out? They already ignore us!

I'm all in favour of a vigorous debate, but it strikes me the 'No' campaign is aptly named - it's 100% negative.

There are pros and cons on both sides of this debate. At the end of the day it's up to the voters. Personally, I would couple this to compulsory voting, because if you don't vote then you have no right to complain about what you get.

The one thing I would say about AV is that I find it hard to understand how political parties can elect their own leaders under this system, but want to deny us the right to do the same. But that's politicians for you - one rule for them and another for us.

Personally, I'm in Greece on polling day, so I've already posted my vote. How about you?

No to No to AV...

I don't know if you are for or against the Alternative Vote - that's between you and the ballot box - but what I do know is that I really don't like the way the 'No' campaign is being run.

In the post yesterday was a flier from the 'No' campaign informing me that that if I vote 'Yes' then I will be committing the governement to spending £130 million on electronic vote counting machines. I've looked into this. It's absolute piffle! There are no such plans.

In Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' there was an article saying that the Conservatives calculate that it will cost three times as much to run a general election under AV. OK, maybe it would cost a bit more because of the extra counting when the leading candidate doesn't get 50% straight off, but three tomes as much? How do you work that out?...

Well, apparently the Conservatives took the costs per head of running an election in Australia and then extrapolated it. Unfortunately, they neglected to mention that Australia is the size of Western Europe and in places very sparsely populated. Oh, yeah, and they elect both houses not just the one.

Then there's 'minority parties are evil' scare tactic. AV will allow the BNP to get seats in parliament. Maybe, but only if 50% of the electorate vote for it.

And, of course, our troops will die from lack of equipment if we spend the money on AV. More crap - even if we don't spend the money on AV you can bet your life the troops won't get any of it.

And let's not forget this classic : "Changing the way we vote will give the politicians more power to ignore the verdict of the voters"! How the hell do you work that one out? They already ignore us!

I'm all in favour of a vigorous debate, but it strikes me the 'No' campaign is aptly named - it's 100% negative.

There are pros and cons on both sides of this debate. At the end of the day it's up to the voters. Personally, I would couple this to compulsory voting, because if you don't vote then you have no right to complain about what you get.

The one thing I would say about AV is that I find it hard to understand how political parties can elect their own leaders under this system, but want to deny us the right to do the same. But that's politicians for you - one rule for them and another for us.

Personally, I'm in Greece on polling day, so I've already posted my vote. How about you?

HELP! I agree with Miliband

I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Ed Miliband - a man whom I despise and would never vote for if my life depended on it!

In an article in the Guardian which you can read here, the Mighty Milipede argues that a vote for AV is a change in the right direction. He says :

AV offers an opportunity for political reform, ensuring the voice of the public is heard louder than it has been in the past. And given the standing of politics that is an opportunity we should take. It is a system that combines the direct representation of first-past-the-post with one that will make the votes of more people count.

The fact is that the present system is flawed. True, AV is also flawed but it is a better system and maintains the link between the MP and the constituency which full PR would destroy.

I believe that if we combined it with compulsory voting with a positive abstention as is the way in Australia, then we would have a considerably better system of electing our MPs.

That's a fight for another day, but at least a 'Yes' vote for AV would be a good first step.

HELP! I agree with Miliband

I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Ed Miliband - a man whom I despise and would never vote for if my life depended on it!

In an article in the Guardian which you can read here, the Mighty Milipede argues that a vote for AV is a change in the right direction. He says :

AV offers an opportunity for political reform, ensuring the voice of the public is heard louder than it has been in the past. And given the standing of politics that is an opportunity we should take. It is a system that combines the direct representation of first-past-the-post with one that will make the votes of more people count.

The fact is that the present system is flawed. True, AV is also flawed but it is a better system and maintains the link between the MP and the constituency which full PR would destroy.

I believe that if we combined it with compulsory voting with a positive abstention as is the way in Australia, then we would have a considerably better system of electing our MPs.

That's a fight for another day, but at least a 'Yes' vote for AV would be a good first step.

AV - Blurring the issue

In my view, this poster is not worthy of the 'No to AV' campaign :

By all means let's have an argument about this issue. I have declared my 'Yes' view by the banner on this blog, but regardless of this I think that this poster should be withdrawn

The issue of whether our troops should be being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to support American foreign policy is nothing to do with funding or how we vote.

If we can afford billions in aid to countries better off than most, then we can afford both. And, let's face it, anyone who believes that scrapping AV will lead to increased funding anywhere else is seriously deluding themselves.

I think this debate needs to concentrate on the issues around the fairness of the voting system and not be clouding the issue by how much it is estimated (big word) it might cost to change it.

Emotive and meaningless comparisons like the one above do nothing to strengthen the 'No' vote case - and bear in mind I say this as an opponent their views...

AV - Blurring the issue

In my view, this poster is not worthy of the 'No to AV' campaign :

By all means let's have an argument about this issue. I have declared my 'Yes' view by the banner on this blog, but regardless of this I think that this poster should be withdrawn

The issue of whether our troops should be being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to support American foreign policy is nothing to do with funding or how we vote.

If we can afford billions in aid to countries better off than most, then we can afford both. And, let's face it, anyone who believes that scrapping AV will lead to increased funding anywhere else is seriously deluding themselves.

I think this debate needs to concentrate on the issues around the fairness of the voting system and not be clouding the issue by how much it is estimated (big word) it might cost to change it.

Emotive and meaningless comparisons like the one above do nothing to strengthen the 'No' vote case - and bear in mind I say this as an opponent their views...