The Tories spent £600,000 installing a cycle lane on the Drive in 2008, now they are to spend £1.1m ripping it out again. This has got national media coverage, but come on, why do the Tories hate cycle lanes so much?
This administration is a disgrace. The Tories started off thinking this was going to be a vote winner for them with the car drivers of the city, as they are planning clogging the centre of town with even more cars by widening the road. The cycle lane has its faults that can be easily remedied according to local cycle group BRICYCLES. Whats the betting that accidents rise as more cars cruise down this road?
The Tories now claim it is all Labour's fault for wanting the cycle lanes in the first place and that the Tories never wanted them. This is very believable as they have form in spending millions ripping out cycle lanes elsewhere, lets hope these Tory gits are gone by May. Lets hope the voters tell them where to stick their annual £10 council tax rebate and £10 off car permits. These election giveaways don't fool the voters. The Tories are even more sure to cut services like crazy and put up all the charges once they have got through the election.
Sign the petition here
Save Hove Cycle Lane
28 February 2011
25 February 2011
YES to AV move 12 points ahead.
According to Political Betting website, the latest MORI/IPSOS poll of those saying they are certain to vote suggests 49% will vote YES to AV and 37% will vote NO.
I'm not sure if this is before or after the disgracful NO2AV 'baby' ads. Lets hope these sick ads have backfired on the NO team.
I'm not sure if this is before or after the disgracful NO2AV 'baby' ads. Lets hope these sick ads have backfired on the NO team.
24 February 2011
The Disgraceful NO2AV Ad Campaign.
"Babies need cardiac units not AV. Soldiers need bullet proof jackets not AV. Sheffield forgemasters need their loan not AV". Who could disagree with that eh?
Personally, I have to hand it to Matthew Elliot and other ex Tax Payer Alliance (TPA) bods who really know how to drive a campaign into the heart of the public. It reminds me of the advantages of having no scruples, it doesn't matter if what you say is a tissue of lies.
AV doesn't need counting machines as Australia demonstrates and any money spent on the referendum has already been spent so voting No won't save anything. Maybe YES to Fairer Votes should respond by pointing out that under our present system the only savings made and lots more beside will be spent on MPs corrupt expenses and bankrolling bankers bonuses. Can we afford to keep the status quo is the real question?
Will Straw at Left Foot Forward has a good summary of what NO2AV are really up to with their past TPA opinions showing just what they think of spending money on the NHS or any other public services..cut..cut..cut is their previous mantra.
PeeZedTee thinks this ad campaign demonstrates just how desperate NO2AV and the establishment are becoming when staring possible defeat in the face. This has only bolstered his opinion that AV really is a change worth making. I have to agree. NO2AV can keep telling themselves with dodgy polling that they are seven points ahead but it doesn't make it true. It may fool a few voters into voting NO, but in reality they have got to ramp up the scare tactics. Expect them to go even dirtier if their real private polling still shows AV ahead.
It all reminds me of what I think George Orwell was really on about with 1984. Remember that Orwell worked in advertising and also at propaganda at the BBC during the war. People forget Orwell was a lefty, writing for old Labour magazine Tribune. Who knows where he would be today politically but at the time he was writing about propaganda in 1948 (which is how he came up with 1984 - just turned the 4 and 8 around).
Most see the totalitarian aspect of the book and think it is a warning about Soviet Communism. But in fact I think it is more about modern propaganda especially if you have read the Clergyman's Daughter which puts 1984 into more perspective. Orwell saw how Hollywood films incited hate - there is a insightful scene in 1984 describing the masses hate filled faces and callous laughter while watching a violent film devoid of any humanity. Think of the Expendables! And he also despaired at how the masses were fooled with doublespeak. This was all happening in 1948 and today with our 24 hour media it is like propaganda on acid. NO2AV are playing this game. If this is the future of our democracy then it is very sad indeed. For that reason alone I would recommend a YES vote in the referendum.
Personally, I have to hand it to Matthew Elliot and other ex Tax Payer Alliance (TPA) bods who really know how to drive a campaign into the heart of the public. It reminds me of the advantages of having no scruples, it doesn't matter if what you say is a tissue of lies.
AV doesn't need counting machines as Australia demonstrates and any money spent on the referendum has already been spent so voting No won't save anything. Maybe YES to Fairer Votes should respond by pointing out that under our present system the only savings made and lots more beside will be spent on MPs corrupt expenses and bankrolling bankers bonuses. Can we afford to keep the status quo is the real question?
Will Straw at Left Foot Forward has a good summary of what NO2AV are really up to with their past TPA opinions showing just what they think of spending money on the NHS or any other public services..cut..cut..cut is their previous mantra.
PeeZedTee thinks this ad campaign demonstrates just how desperate NO2AV and the establishment are becoming when staring possible defeat in the face. This has only bolstered his opinion that AV really is a change worth making. I have to agree. NO2AV can keep telling themselves with dodgy polling that they are seven points ahead but it doesn't make it true. It may fool a few voters into voting NO, but in reality they have got to ramp up the scare tactics. Expect them to go even dirtier if their real private polling still shows AV ahead.
It all reminds me of what I think George Orwell was really on about with 1984. Remember that Orwell worked in advertising and also at propaganda at the BBC during the war. People forget Orwell was a lefty, writing for old Labour magazine Tribune. Who knows where he would be today politically but at the time he was writing about propaganda in 1948 (which is how he came up with 1984 - just turned the 4 and 8 around).
Most see the totalitarian aspect of the book and think it is a warning about Soviet Communism. But in fact I think it is more about modern propaganda especially if you have read the Clergyman's Daughter which puts 1984 into more perspective. Orwell saw how Hollywood films incited hate - there is a insightful scene in 1984 describing the masses hate filled faces and callous laughter while watching a violent film devoid of any humanity. Think of the Expendables! And he also despaired at how the masses were fooled with doublespeak. This was all happening in 1948 and today with our 24 hour media it is like propaganda on acid. NO2AV are playing this game. If this is the future of our democracy then it is very sad indeed. For that reason alone I would recommend a YES vote in the referendum.
23 February 2011
10 Facts About The Alternative Vote (AV)
1. If you have ever said to someone going to the shops - "get me a coke or if they haven't got that I'll have a lemonade', then you understand the principle behind AV voting. It only sounds complicated if you explain it badly, which the No campaigners are doing on purpose (finding the most wordy academic text they can).
2. Simply rank the candidates in order 1,2,3 etc. You can put as few or as many preferences as you want. If you only want to choose one candidate, like you HAVE to under our present system first-past-the-post (FPTP), you can. The difference is that FPTP ONLY lets you choose one candidate which leads to more wasted votes and immense pressure to vote tactically which gives a distorted view of what people really want.
Imagine being a Tory living in Margaret Hodge's constituency of Barking and hating the Labour party but wanting to stop the BNP, to make your vote count you are forced to vote Labour otherwise your vote would be wasted and risk the BNP winning with a small share of the vote. This adds another vote to the Labour pile and gives the impression that this is total support for their policies, whereas almost the opposite is in fact the case from this voter and probably many others effectively forced to vote the same if they want their vote to count and stop the BNP.
But FPTP is even worse than this, because it may be that loads of people have changed their mind in the constituency since the last election (which is the only source of information tactical voters really have) and although extremely unlikely maybe your Labour vote might be wasted and another candidate might have been better placed to beat the BNP if you had voted for them instead, so it is possible the BNP candidate wins with a dismal 20 something percent of the vote on a low turnout just because the majority who dislike them had voted for a range of parties.
Think this can't happen? The BNP have won county councillor seats with just 29% of the vote under our present system. With AV you can vote with your heart and show your true first preference and so on. The Tory can stop the BNP with any one of his preferences, including showing that Labour were only his final preference but this still beats the BNP who he did not rank. AV does away with the electoral roulette that voters currently have to play under the present system of first-past-the-post (FPTP).
3. If you order a chicken curry at a restaurant, but are told that has sold out then decide to have a lasagne instead, you have only had one meal. The same is true for AV, only ONE of your preferences will count towards the end result. Don't be fooled by propaganda saying otherwise.
4. In every UK general election bar 1997 and 1983, it is predicted that AV would have distributed seats more in line with vote share, i.e. a more proportional or fairer result.
5. Australia has used AV for over 90 years with just one hung parliament from 38 elections. Our present system first-past-the-post has delivered five hung parliaments and three non-working majorities over a similar time-span. So to claim that AV will deliver more coalition government is not necessarily true. Both India and Canada use the Westminster system of first-past-the-post. Canada has now had five hung parliaments out of the last 8 elections and India has a 18 party ruling coalition.
6. NO2AV are claiming millions will have to be spent on counting machines. Australia has used AV for over 90 years and still doesn't use counting machines. NO2AV are just making things up. Australia is a massive country with much larger constituencies yet they manage to get the result mostly announced on the night of the election.
"Where most UK constituencies would deal with 30-40,000 votes, the average Australian House of Representatives' count involves 90-100,000 votes. While equipment similar to note counters is used in post-election check-counting, the distribution of preferences is done entirely by hand and without difficulty. The tales of expensive counting equipment are not true.
If the United Kingdom wishes to continue declaring results on the night, it seems to me this should be achievable without too much effort or expenditure. After all, examining preferences need only be undertaken if no candidate achieves 50%, and the distribution of preferences need only be done to the point where one candidate has a majority of the vote remaining in the count." Antony Green ABC News Australia
Mark Wadsworth explains how easy it is to count AV preferences:-
"if you have ever attended a count, you'll know that the extra work involved with AV would be fairly minimal. Under FPTP, tellers make a pile of ballot slips for each candidate (in bundles of twenty or something) and then the biggest pile wins (they count them again, under the eyes of the candidates, if it looks fairly close).
The same basic system would apply under AV, only if no candidate gets more than half the first choice votes (which will happen in most constituencies), they'll just grab the smallest pile and redistribute it; and then the next smallest pile and so on. Mathematically, it's unlikely that more than the thirty or forty per cent of the ballot papers would have to be picked up more than once or twice, and as there will only be a few dozen or a couple of hundred in the smallest piles, that's no big deal."
7. If you support primaries then support AV because it enables you to choose which candidate a party selects. As Dan Sutton suggests on the LSE website:-
"For me one of the most attractive features of AV is the ability to have implied primaries.
At the moment the debate is focused on the situation that might arise if each party only put up one candidate.
However, there is no reason why a party should not field two or more candidates in the same seat.
That would allow me as a voter to pick which party I preferred and then pick which of their candidates or wings I preferred. I could also choose between supporting a candidate who was a good constituency MP, or one who contributed to national debate or one who firmly voted with the whips as my notion of a good MP struck me.
I could also influence which of the candidates from parties that I don’t get want to hold the seat did well. A left wing Tory might be more likely to get my vote than someone to the far, far left of the Labour Party. The Conservative and Labour Parties could see from the rankings which of their candidates attracted votes.
It would mitigate the situation where local branches are heavily influenced by Central Office or by radicalised factions. There would be nothing to stop a Europhile Conservative standing if she felt that her constituency party had been taken over by a cabal of Euroskeptics, for example. MP’s who did a good job for their constituents could defy the whips knowing that even if they were deselected as an official candidate they could stand on a quasi-party basis and still hope to be returned. Corrupt MP’s could be punished by voters without necessarily hurting the party that they support.
The choice of MP shifts more towards the electorate and away from Party HQ or Local Constituency Offices.
AV with multiple candidates from various parties would allow me as a voter to vote for the person, policies and principles of my choice."
8. "Many Britons already use AV when electing representatives for charities, churches, companies, trade unions, societies and voluntary organisations...
Whether or not they know it, many millions of Britons already have extensive experience of using preferential selection because they have been regular voters in Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor. They not only understand this form of voting; they enjoy it. The no campaign assumes nevertheless that they are incapable of writing 1, 2, 3 on a ballot".
9. Politicians use AV to elect their own because they know it is more representative, yet want to deny us the chance to use the same system to elect them.
"Labour and the Lib Dems both elect their leaders by AV. Funnily enough, ever since the 1960s, when the Tories started to elect their leaders, they have used either AV or a close cousin. Had they used first past the post in their last contest, the leader of the Tory party would not be David Cameron. It would be David Davis." Points 8 & 9 succinctly put by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer.
10. AV will reduce the number of safe seats.
The graph above shows how AV has made seats more competitive and reduced the number of safe seats.
Safe seats lead to the sort of complacency and corruption we saw during the expenses scandal because most of our MPs currently have 'seats for life'.
Politicians don't want the Alternative Vote because it will make them work harder to win their seats. They will have to win more support right across their constituencies and no longer can they pretend that only their party has all the answers. Parties will have to be more positive about each other and be honest about where they agree so as not to alienate potential preferences of their rival party's voters. In short, AV will change politics and the effect will strengthen over many elections. AV will pull away the shroud of FPTP that obscures what people's real preferences are.
We have this once in a lifetime chance to tell the politicians they are wrong. We need to take it. We are going to be up against the might of the establishment and all the media but people power can prevail. Vote YES on May 5th. See YES to Fairer Votes for more.
2. Simply rank the candidates in order 1,2,3 etc. You can put as few or as many preferences as you want. If you only want to choose one candidate, like you HAVE to under our present system first-past-the-post (FPTP), you can. The difference is that FPTP ONLY lets you choose one candidate which leads to more wasted votes and immense pressure to vote tactically which gives a distorted view of what people really want.
Imagine being a Tory living in Margaret Hodge's constituency of Barking and hating the Labour party but wanting to stop the BNP, to make your vote count you are forced to vote Labour otherwise your vote would be wasted and risk the BNP winning with a small share of the vote. This adds another vote to the Labour pile and gives the impression that this is total support for their policies, whereas almost the opposite is in fact the case from this voter and probably many others effectively forced to vote the same if they want their vote to count and stop the BNP.
But FPTP is even worse than this, because it may be that loads of people have changed their mind in the constituency since the last election (which is the only source of information tactical voters really have) and although extremely unlikely maybe your Labour vote might be wasted and another candidate might have been better placed to beat the BNP if you had voted for them instead, so it is possible the BNP candidate wins with a dismal 20 something percent of the vote on a low turnout just because the majority who dislike them had voted for a range of parties.
Think this can't happen? The BNP have won county councillor seats with just 29% of the vote under our present system. With AV you can vote with your heart and show your true first preference and so on. The Tory can stop the BNP with any one of his preferences, including showing that Labour were only his final preference but this still beats the BNP who he did not rank. AV does away with the electoral roulette that voters currently have to play under the present system of first-past-the-post (FPTP).
3. If you order a chicken curry at a restaurant, but are told that has sold out then decide to have a lasagne instead, you have only had one meal. The same is true for AV, only ONE of your preferences will count towards the end result. Don't be fooled by propaganda saying otherwise.
4. In every UK general election bar 1997 and 1983, it is predicted that AV would have distributed seats more in line with vote share, i.e. a more proportional or fairer result.
5. Australia has used AV for over 90 years with just one hung parliament from 38 elections. Our present system first-past-the-post has delivered five hung parliaments and three non-working majorities over a similar time-span. So to claim that AV will deliver more coalition government is not necessarily true. Both India and Canada use the Westminster system of first-past-the-post. Canada has now had five hung parliaments out of the last 8 elections and India has a 18 party ruling coalition.
6. NO2AV are claiming millions will have to be spent on counting machines. Australia has used AV for over 90 years and still doesn't use counting machines. NO2AV are just making things up. Australia is a massive country with much larger constituencies yet they manage to get the result mostly announced on the night of the election.
"Where most UK constituencies would deal with 30-40,000 votes, the average Australian House of Representatives' count involves 90-100,000 votes. While equipment similar to note counters is used in post-election check-counting, the distribution of preferences is done entirely by hand and without difficulty. The tales of expensive counting equipment are not true.
If the United Kingdom wishes to continue declaring results on the night, it seems to me this should be achievable without too much effort or expenditure. After all, examining preferences need only be undertaken if no candidate achieves 50%, and the distribution of preferences need only be done to the point where one candidate has a majority of the vote remaining in the count." Antony Green ABC News Australia
Mark Wadsworth explains how easy it is to count AV preferences:-
"if you have ever attended a count, you'll know that the extra work involved with AV would be fairly minimal. Under FPTP, tellers make a pile of ballot slips for each candidate (in bundles of twenty or something) and then the biggest pile wins (they count them again, under the eyes of the candidates, if it looks fairly close).
The same basic system would apply under AV, only if no candidate gets more than half the first choice votes (which will happen in most constituencies), they'll just grab the smallest pile and redistribute it; and then the next smallest pile and so on. Mathematically, it's unlikely that more than the thirty or forty per cent of the ballot papers would have to be picked up more than once or twice, and as there will only be a few dozen or a couple of hundred in the smallest piles, that's no big deal."
7. If you support primaries then support AV because it enables you to choose which candidate a party selects. As Dan Sutton suggests on the LSE website:-
"For me one of the most attractive features of AV is the ability to have implied primaries.
At the moment the debate is focused on the situation that might arise if each party only put up one candidate.
However, there is no reason why a party should not field two or more candidates in the same seat.
That would allow me as a voter to pick which party I preferred and then pick which of their candidates or wings I preferred. I could also choose between supporting a candidate who was a good constituency MP, or one who contributed to national debate or one who firmly voted with the whips as my notion of a good MP struck me.
I could also influence which of the candidates from parties that I don’t get want to hold the seat did well. A left wing Tory might be more likely to get my vote than someone to the far, far left of the Labour Party. The Conservative and Labour Parties could see from the rankings which of their candidates attracted votes.
It would mitigate the situation where local branches are heavily influenced by Central Office or by radicalised factions. There would be nothing to stop a Europhile Conservative standing if she felt that her constituency party had been taken over by a cabal of Euroskeptics, for example. MP’s who did a good job for their constituents could defy the whips knowing that even if they were deselected as an official candidate they could stand on a quasi-party basis and still hope to be returned. Corrupt MP’s could be punished by voters without necessarily hurting the party that they support.
The choice of MP shifts more towards the electorate and away from Party HQ or Local Constituency Offices.
AV with multiple candidates from various parties would allow me as a voter to vote for the person, policies and principles of my choice."
8. "Many Britons already use AV when electing representatives for charities, churches, companies, trade unions, societies and voluntary organisations...
Whether or not they know it, many millions of Britons already have extensive experience of using preferential selection because they have been regular voters in Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor. They not only understand this form of voting; they enjoy it. The no campaign assumes nevertheless that they are incapable of writing 1, 2, 3 on a ballot".
9. Politicians use AV to elect their own because they know it is more representative, yet want to deny us the chance to use the same system to elect them.
"Labour and the Lib Dems both elect their leaders by AV. Funnily enough, ever since the 1960s, when the Tories started to elect their leaders, they have used either AV or a close cousin. Had they used first past the post in their last contest, the leader of the Tory party would not be David Cameron. It would be David Davis." Points 8 & 9 succinctly put by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer.
10. AV will reduce the number of safe seats.
Safe seats lead to the sort of complacency and corruption we saw during the expenses scandal because most of our MPs currently have 'seats for life'.
Politicians don't want the Alternative Vote because it will make them work harder to win their seats. They will have to win more support right across their constituencies and no longer can they pretend that only their party has all the answers. Parties will have to be more positive about each other and be honest about where they agree so as not to alienate potential preferences of their rival party's voters. In short, AV will change politics and the effect will strengthen over many elections. AV will pull away the shroud of FPTP that obscures what people's real preferences are.
We have this once in a lifetime chance to tell the politicians they are wrong. We need to take it. We are going to be up against the might of the establishment and all the media but people power can prevail. Vote YES on May 5th. See YES to Fairer Votes for more.
22 February 2011
The No2AV Campaign Has Been So Negative
I think the Yes Campaign for AV has been very positive. It has argued for AV whereas the No Campaign has tried to avoid talking about electoral systems at all.
If you just compare and contrast AV and FPTP I think it becomes quite clear which is better. Forget all this made up guff about hijacking royal weddings, unconstitutional to have a referendum at same time as local elections, the cost or AV being too complicated - so we are thicker than Australians? Or the people of Chicago? Or countless other US cities?
The Labour party has used AV for decades, so too trade unions and countless other bodies. The Tories have used AV or a close cousin also for decades, David Cameron would have lost if FPTP had been used to elect their leader. Politicians use it to elect their own because they know it is more representative, yet they want to deny us the same voting system they use.
The No campaign claim it will cost millions for new machines, but neglect to mention the millions that will be saved in less counting clerks. If Ireland can afford a 1,2,3 system I think anywhere can.
Also because the system of AV being proposed doesn't require you to rank all the candidates, you can just vote for one candidate as at present. So this is all about denying people the 'choice' or 'opportunity' to use AV, they don't have to. They can just carry on voting as at present and having it count the same way as at present even when AV is introduced.
At the end of the day, the majority of people now want a choice of more than just 2 old parties, and AV gives them the chance to at least show who their real first preferences are, if nothing else.
No more negative campaigning and leaflets saying 'don't vote for your first choice because it might let in your most hated choice'. This adds nothing to our political debate. David Cameron used examples of BNP or Monster Raving Loony voters being able to influence the result with their further preferences, but imagine being a Tory in Margaret Hodge's constituency and having to give your first and ONLY preference to Labour because you want to stop the BNP. AV gets rid of this nonsense. Basically everybody gets a chance for their vote to be counted and for their ONE vote to have an influence on the result rather than just being wasted and ignored under FPTP.
David Cameron mentions 1997 and possibly 1983 as examples where big majorities might have been bigger under AV, but doesn't mention that EVERY other election probably would have given a more proportional result!
In short, every negative argument the No Campaign have come up with can be countered easily.
With the polls neck and neck if you ask the question actually on the ballot paper or the Noes 10% or 20% ahead if you believe their polls published regularly in the rightwing press which start with a leading question that slags AV off (see they can't even be honest about their polling), then not enough people are hearing the real debate about which system is more democratic.
If people do get to hear the arguments I have no doubt the YES campaign would win easily. It is time to get out there and argue our case, otherwise this chance at change I have waited all my life for will be lost until the next generation.
Win AV and the next logical step is to change local elections, with each ward electing 2-3 councillors, AV is impossible it would have to be the more proportional STV.
Win STV for local government and....Now you can see how AV will bring us step by step closer to a much more proportional and representative parliament, and all the extra benefits that brings to long term planning and equality (See Scandanavia, Germany etc.)
If you would like to make calls from home for the YES campaign then log in here.
If you just compare and contrast AV and FPTP I think it becomes quite clear which is better. Forget all this made up guff about hijacking royal weddings, unconstitutional to have a referendum at same time as local elections, the cost or AV being too complicated - so we are thicker than Australians? Or the people of Chicago? Or countless other US cities?
The Labour party has used AV for decades, so too trade unions and countless other bodies. The Tories have used AV or a close cousin also for decades, David Cameron would have lost if FPTP had been used to elect their leader. Politicians use it to elect their own because they know it is more representative, yet they want to deny us the same voting system they use.
The No campaign claim it will cost millions for new machines, but neglect to mention the millions that will be saved in less counting clerks. If Ireland can afford a 1,2,3 system I think anywhere can.
Also because the system of AV being proposed doesn't require you to rank all the candidates, you can just vote for one candidate as at present. So this is all about denying people the 'choice' or 'opportunity' to use AV, they don't have to. They can just carry on voting as at present and having it count the same way as at present even when AV is introduced.
At the end of the day, the majority of people now want a choice of more than just 2 old parties, and AV gives them the chance to at least show who their real first preferences are, if nothing else.
No more negative campaigning and leaflets saying 'don't vote for your first choice because it might let in your most hated choice'. This adds nothing to our political debate. David Cameron used examples of BNP or Monster Raving Loony voters being able to influence the result with their further preferences, but imagine being a Tory in Margaret Hodge's constituency and having to give your first and ONLY preference to Labour because you want to stop the BNP. AV gets rid of this nonsense. Basically everybody gets a chance for their vote to be counted and for their ONE vote to have an influence on the result rather than just being wasted and ignored under FPTP.
David Cameron mentions 1997 and possibly 1983 as examples where big majorities might have been bigger under AV, but doesn't mention that EVERY other election probably would have given a more proportional result!
In short, every negative argument the No Campaign have come up with can be countered easily.
With the polls neck and neck if you ask the question actually on the ballot paper or the Noes 10% or 20% ahead if you believe their polls published regularly in the rightwing press which start with a leading question that slags AV off (see they can't even be honest about their polling), then not enough people are hearing the real debate about which system is more democratic.
If people do get to hear the arguments I have no doubt the YES campaign would win easily. It is time to get out there and argue our case, otherwise this chance at change I have waited all my life for will be lost until the next generation.
Win AV and the next logical step is to change local elections, with each ward electing 2-3 councillors, AV is impossible it would have to be the more proportional STV.
Win STV for local government and....Now you can see how AV will bring us step by step closer to a much more proportional and representative parliament, and all the extra benefits that brings to long term planning and equality (See Scandanavia, Germany etc.)
If you would like to make calls from home for the YES campaign then log in here.
21 February 2011
In Memory Of My Mom.
I generally try to stick to pure politics on this site, but I wanted to write about this somewhere.
My mom died a few weeks ago. She suffered a stroke in September that left her paralysed and unable to speak and she was not to recover from this.
My mom was one of thirteen children, six of whom died in infancy. I was told my maternal grandmother even buried two children on the same day. My mom nearly succumbed to meningitis herself at the age of eleven. My mom lost both her parents in her youth, her mother died when my mom was twelve and her father when she was seventeen (I was not to know any of my grandparents).
I only learned the other day that my mom and her twin sister were the youngest in the country at the time to be granted tenancy of a council house at age seventeen. While some of the children were looked after by older sisters, my mom and her twin took care of a younger sister and brother. I can't imagine any of this would be allowed today.
My mom was to meet my dad in 1951, get married and have three children, me and my two brothers. They were to stay together all this time, never spending more than a day apart.
When writing the eulogy for the funeral, the celebrant asked what we would miss most about my mom, we all cried, countless thoughts passed through my head all jumbled together. We shared some happy memories of my mom, her warmth and humour and sheer idiosyncracies. But the overriding thought I get now is that in my mom I have lost one of the few people who I knew would always be there for me, stick up for me no matter what, as I stumbled through life making mistakes. For that and more I will always love her and be grateful to her. As my dad said on her death - 'words cannot describe how I feel'. Mom, we will miss you. Love always, Neil.
18 February 2011
Sky Don't Link To Fairer Votes Website In Their AV debate
Sky News are very good at hiding bias in their 'news' coverage. Just as Fox news is seen as 'fair and balanced' in the US by its viewers, I doubt most Sky News viewers realise Murdoch's support for right-wing policies and hence their opposition voiced openly in their press - the Times, The Sun and News of the World to the Alternative Vote.
Cleverly, in talking about AV, Sky link to the plush up to date No campaign website but not the polar opposite YES to Fairer Votes website. Instead they give a static wordy page from the ERS website - very uninviting and uninspiring. Coincidence? Accident? You kidding?
In response to the success of the grassroots campaign being run by YES to Fairer Votes which seems to be bearing fruit as YES has moved ahead in the polls, No2AV are 'push polling' in Town Hall 'debates' across the country. Yes campaigners have been excluded from these 'debates' which will be little more than dressed up No propaganda and an attempt 'tea party' style to drum up 'astro-turf' groups into opposing change. Expect these groups to be made 'angry' about the alleged cost of AV counting machines.
Really, this is scraping the barrel. Is this all they have got? As people hear about the merits or not of the different voting systems, the YES vote increases. NO2AV can only talk around the subject because the subject itself is a total loser for them. It is quite clear that it is better that MPs have to get 50% of the vote rather than as little as 30% (or less) at present to get elected.
As it happens, machines might actually reduce the cost of the count - as it will mean less polling clerks which cost around £70 a time and are needed in their tens of thousands on election night.
Cleverly, in talking about AV, Sky link to the plush up to date No campaign website but not the polar opposite YES to Fairer Votes website. Instead they give a static wordy page from the ERS website - very uninviting and uninspiring. Coincidence? Accident? You kidding?
In response to the success of the grassroots campaign being run by YES to Fairer Votes which seems to be bearing fruit as YES has moved ahead in the polls, No2AV are 'push polling' in Town Hall 'debates' across the country. Yes campaigners have been excluded from these 'debates' which will be little more than dressed up No propaganda and an attempt 'tea party' style to drum up 'astro-turf' groups into opposing change. Expect these groups to be made 'angry' about the alleged cost of AV counting machines.
Really, this is scraping the barrel. Is this all they have got? As people hear about the merits or not of the different voting systems, the YES vote increases. NO2AV can only talk around the subject because the subject itself is a total loser for them. It is quite clear that it is better that MPs have to get 50% of the vote rather than as little as 30% (or less) at present to get elected.
As it happens, machines might actually reduce the cost of the count - as it will mean less polling clerks which cost around £70 a time and are needed in their tens of thousands on election night.
17 February 2011
We Have The Referendum, Now All We Have To Do Is Win It!
In just 11 weeks time people get the chance to change the electoral system to the Alternative Vote. People get the chance to defy the vast majority of MPs wishes, to stick two fingers up to the establishment, tell the Labour and Tory old guard where to go. In short to end the extremely rotten corrupt status quo in at least one aspect. Is this claiming too much for such a small change? I think not and I will explain why.
Unlike Ed Miliband I think the AV referendum is much more important than the local elections. The local elections changes who decides a few local amenities for the next 4 years, the AV referendum changes the power relationship between the voter and politician maybe for ever!!
There are still some electoral reformers out there who still say 'what difference will AV actually make' - well apart from ending most tactical voting, ensuring MPs aim to get more than 50% of the votes rather than the 30%-45% of votes that most MPs do actually get elected with at present. Apart from making it harder for the BNP to be elected, yet easier for widely supported minority parties like the Greens to get more seats. Apart from in most cases being more proportional. Apart from all that and more, AV will set the ball rolling on all sorts of other reforms that will improve our democracy.
A yes to AV will leave our local democracy looking very strange - a change to STV would be the logical step with most wards already electing 3 councillors. It makes no sense for one party to win all the seats in a ward on just 30-40% of the vote or less. Then there will be PR elections for the second chamber to follow. AV will also make our political discourse less adversarial and make parties admit their similarities. All this would be lost if AV is lost. The politicians have tried their best to deny us this chance at change - we have waited 100s of years for fairer votes. Now it is over to you. Whatever you decide, make your decision on which is the better electoral system, the No campaign will at all costs avoid talking about the two systems on offer. I am confident that if this referendum is about which system is more democratic, fairer and better then we will win. The polls are moving in our direction and the lead is for Yes, we need to work hard to keep up the momentum, but we can get change. People are tired of the same old politics, change is the winner.
Unlike Ed Miliband I think the AV referendum is much more important than the local elections. The local elections changes who decides a few local amenities for the next 4 years, the AV referendum changes the power relationship between the voter and politician maybe for ever!!
There are still some electoral reformers out there who still say 'what difference will AV actually make' - well apart from ending most tactical voting, ensuring MPs aim to get more than 50% of the votes rather than the 30%-45% of votes that most MPs do actually get elected with at present. Apart from making it harder for the BNP to be elected, yet easier for widely supported minority parties like the Greens to get more seats. Apart from in most cases being more proportional. Apart from all that and more, AV will set the ball rolling on all sorts of other reforms that will improve our democracy.
A yes to AV will leave our local democracy looking very strange - a change to STV would be the logical step with most wards already electing 3 councillors. It makes no sense for one party to win all the seats in a ward on just 30-40% of the vote or less. Then there will be PR elections for the second chamber to follow. AV will also make our political discourse less adversarial and make parties admit their similarities. All this would be lost if AV is lost. The politicians have tried their best to deny us this chance at change - we have waited 100s of years for fairer votes. Now it is over to you. Whatever you decide, make your decision on which is the better electoral system, the No campaign will at all costs avoid talking about the two systems on offer. I am confident that if this referendum is about which system is more democratic, fairer and better then we will win. The polls are moving in our direction and the lead is for Yes, we need to work hard to keep up the momentum, but we can get change. People are tired of the same old politics, change is the winner.
16 February 2011
Predicting Brighton & Hove From Past Results
Here are the results in Brighton and Hove for the 2005 General Election and the following local election in 2007 (I have used the top candidate from each party as a rough guide to their number of voters in the local elections). 
If we extrapolate these results onto the 2010 general election results we can make a prediction for this May as follows. I have added in a further adjustment for the current polling in the third bar chart. This suggests that the Tory vote may well hold up, the Labour vote will recover a little and the Greens will do very well indeed. The Greens being the only party to attract more voters in the locals than they do in general elections (mainly because their vote is squeezed in Hove and Kemptown due to Green voters switching to Labour in an attempt to stop the Tories...alas in 2010 this was invain.
Surprisingly these vote changes may make little difference to my predictions in terms of seats (once again welcome to our distorting first-past-the-post system where the biggest minority party can take all the seats with a 30 something vote share) - I still see the Greens gaining no more than 6 seats, the Tories losing 1-3 seats and Labour losing 1-3 with the Lib Dems wiped out. We shall see. CON-25(26), GRN-19(13), LAB-10(13), LD-0(2). Vote Green in Preston Park, Goldsmid and Brunswick+Adelaide. Vote Labour in N.Portslade, S.Portslade and Moulsecoomb+Bevendean to stop the Tories and I expect all the other 15 wards to be safish, with the Greens consolidating their lead in Queens Park and Labour holding on in Hollingdean+Stanmer from the Green challenge, being the only other two wards worth a look.
13 February 2011
Local Tories Offer 20 Pence Per Voter And Promise Of Job For One More Year Only.
Whoever wins the local elections in May will face four years of difficult and politically costly budget cuts and/or increases in service charges and council tax.
The Tories have cynically (and cleverly) avoided saying what they will do in the next four years, only what they will do for this election year - offering bribes of 30p per week if you own a car and 20p per week to other c. tax payers. They have also limited job cuts now by borrowing £11.5m from reserves - so jam today and go to hell tomorrow.
The Tories are offering voters a job for another year with the cost being even more job cuts next year after the election. Cynical yes, but clever because it might just help the Tories hold on to power. But even better for the Tories, it places the Green and Labour opposition in a dilemma. Do they oppose a tax cut, parking permit cut and a budget that saves people's jobs for one year?
If I was the Greens I would propose a council tax freeze next year and promise to cut even less jobs by using the reserves as the Tories are and this extra revenue. I would argue that cutting council tax and parking permit charges is irresponsible in the present climate.
If I was Labour I would argue along similar lines but keep the car permit cut (as they are more pro-car) and extend the free swimming scheme to more than just under 11s. Notice that the battleground ward of Moulsecoomb+Bevendean contains a leisure centre - this maintaining of free swimming for under 11s is a direct play for votes in that ward from the Tories, very clever. I hope people see through the cynical Tories who will just bludgeon services if they get re-elected. Only a Green/Labour administration will avoid targeting the cuts at the poorest, the Tories just look after their wealthy car driving vote in the suburbs.
The Tories have cynically (and cleverly) avoided saying what they will do in the next four years, only what they will do for this election year - offering bribes of 30p per week if you own a car and 20p per week to other c. tax payers. They have also limited job cuts now by borrowing £11.5m from reserves - so jam today and go to hell tomorrow.
The Tories are offering voters a job for another year with the cost being even more job cuts next year after the election. Cynical yes, but clever because it might just help the Tories hold on to power. But even better for the Tories, it places the Green and Labour opposition in a dilemma. Do they oppose a tax cut, parking permit cut and a budget that saves people's jobs for one year?
If I was the Greens I would propose a council tax freeze next year and promise to cut even less jobs by using the reserves as the Tories are and this extra revenue. I would argue that cutting council tax and parking permit charges is irresponsible in the present climate.
If I was Labour I would argue along similar lines but keep the car permit cut (as they are more pro-car) and extend the free swimming scheme to more than just under 11s. Notice that the battleground ward of Moulsecoomb+Bevendean contains a leisure centre - this maintaining of free swimming for under 11s is a direct play for votes in that ward from the Tories, very clever. I hope people see through the cynical Tories who will just bludgeon services if they get re-elected. Only a Green/Labour administration will avoid targeting the cuts at the poorest, the Tories just look after their wealthy car driving vote in the suburbs.
12 February 2011
Wards To Watch This May In Brighton & Hove
The most important 6 wards (where seats will probably change hands) are MOULSECOOMB+BEVENDEAN, BRUNSWICK+ADELAIDE, GOLDSMID, PRESTON PARK, NORTH PORTSLADE and SOUTH PORTSLADE. There are 21 wards in total but the other 15 are unlikely to see changes (see below). So much for competitive elections under our present electoral system!!
If Labour have got any sense they will concentrate their attacking efforts on 3 wards - North Portslade, South Portslade and Moulsecoomb & Bevendean. These are wards where they can regain 3 seats from the Tories (that they shouldn't have lost in the first place!!). With their current 10% boost in the opinion polls (from 30% to 40%) this should be a shoe-in as all these wards have only around 100 votes in it.
The Greens need to put their limited numbers and resources into attacking 3 wards - Brunswick+Adelaide, Preston Park and Goldsmid. They can gain 6 seats in these wards, 2 from the Lib Dems, 3 from Labour and 1 from the Tories. The Greens also claim they can win seats in Hollingdean+Stanmer, though I find that hard to believe considering Labour's lead there, though there has been boundary changes.
The Tories need to throw most of their efforts into just 1 ward - Moulsecoomb+Bevendean. This is where they can gain 2 seats from Labour in what might become a 3 way marginal as the Greens gain ground on Labour thereby heavily splitting the left vote. I don't expect the Tory vote to increase (it might even fall) but they could still win seats here because of our wonderful electoral system. A lot depends on how active Labour are here and any residual Labour support left over from Nancy Platts excellent campaign in the general election. Labour should not waste limited resources and effort against the Greens in other wards they have little chance of defending.
The Lib Dems will obviously throw everything into Brunswick+Adelaide to defend their only 2 seats. With the national polls showing their vote has halved they will have one hell of a task to stop the Greens from wiping them out and of course no chance of winning seats anywhere else.
There are 15 safe-ish 'clean sweep' wards (one party control) where seat changes are very unlikely*:-
Greens: St Peters+North Laine, Hanover+Elm Grove, Regency, Queens Park (11 seats)
Labour: East Brighton, Hollingdean+Stanmer (6)
Tory: Central Hove, Hangleton+Knoll, Patcham, Rottingdean Coastal, Stanford, Westbourne, Withdean, Wish, Woodingdean (22 incl. 1 Independent)
The Tories locally have laughably and rather cynically played their 'deficit denier' card by deferring service cuts until after the election and even proposed a populist 1% cut in council tax and cut in parking permit charges - an obvious election bribe. I wonder if voters will fall for it? It will mean of course that the 19% cuts required by 2014 will now have to be even more severe starting in 2012. The Tories know without this radical gamble they would have had no chance just following their party's national cuts imperative.
Likely Result Range: TORIES+IND 22-28 seats, GREENS 13-19, LABOUR 8-16, LDEMS 0-2
Prediction (Change): TORY+IND 25(-1), GREENS 19(+6), LABOUR 10(-3) LDEM 0(-2)
*Note - I think the Greens will increase their majorities in these wards because their vote has increased massively since the last local elections, so even the slim majorities in Queens Park are likely to become substantial.
14 of these 15 wards are either safe Tory, Labour or Green with big majorities.
If Labour have got any sense they will concentrate their attacking efforts on 3 wards - North Portslade, South Portslade and Moulsecoomb & Bevendean. These are wards where they can regain 3 seats from the Tories (that they shouldn't have lost in the first place!!). With their current 10% boost in the opinion polls (from 30% to 40%) this should be a shoe-in as all these wards have only around 100 votes in it.
The Greens need to put their limited numbers and resources into attacking 3 wards - Brunswick+Adelaide, Preston Park and Goldsmid. They can gain 6 seats in these wards, 2 from the Lib Dems, 3 from Labour and 1 from the Tories. The Greens also claim they can win seats in Hollingdean+Stanmer, though I find that hard to believe considering Labour's lead there, though there has been boundary changes.
The Tories need to throw most of their efforts into just 1 ward - Moulsecoomb+Bevendean. This is where they can gain 2 seats from Labour in what might become a 3 way marginal as the Greens gain ground on Labour thereby heavily splitting the left vote. I don't expect the Tory vote to increase (it might even fall) but they could still win seats here because of our wonderful electoral system. A lot depends on how active Labour are here and any residual Labour support left over from Nancy Platts excellent campaign in the general election. Labour should not waste limited resources and effort against the Greens in other wards they have little chance of defending.
The Lib Dems will obviously throw everything into Brunswick+Adelaide to defend their only 2 seats. With the national polls showing their vote has halved they will have one hell of a task to stop the Greens from wiping them out and of course no chance of winning seats anywhere else.
There are 15 safe-ish 'clean sweep' wards (one party control) where seat changes are very unlikely*:-
Greens: St Peters+North Laine, Hanover+Elm Grove, Regency, Queens Park (11 seats)
Labour: East Brighton, Hollingdean+Stanmer (6)
Tory: Central Hove, Hangleton+Knoll, Patcham, Rottingdean Coastal, Stanford, Westbourne, Withdean, Wish, Woodingdean (22 incl. 1 Independent)
The Tories locally have laughably and rather cynically played their 'deficit denier' card by deferring service cuts until after the election and even proposed a populist 1% cut in council tax and cut in parking permit charges - an obvious election bribe. I wonder if voters will fall for it? It will mean of course that the 19% cuts required by 2014 will now have to be even more severe starting in 2012. The Tories know without this radical gamble they would have had no chance just following their party's national cuts imperative.
Likely Result Range: TORIES+IND 22-28 seats, GREENS 13-19, LABOUR 8-16, LDEMS 0-2
Prediction (Change): TORY+IND 25(-1), GREENS 19(+6), LABOUR 10(-3) LDEM 0(-2)
*Note - I think the Greens will increase their majorities in these wards because their vote has increased massively since the last local elections, so even the slim majorities in Queens Park are likely to become substantial.
14 of these 15 wards are either safe Tory, Labour or Green with big majorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)