Vote NO to keep 'one person one worthless vote'. The vast majority of people now have a worthless vote that doesn't count towards the result.
The latest NO adverts filling the press and internet are making false claims about out present system.
The question is when are the YES campaign going to start spending some of their campaign money on full page press adverts telling people the truth?
29 March 2011
18 March 2011
Democracy Is Worth Paying For: One Off Cost Of AV: Less than £20m.
Inside that is a smaller yellow square to scale with the rectangle labelled "Annual government spending: £644,000 million"
Inside the yellow square, barely visible, is a tiny purple rectangle (again, to scale). An arrow points to it indicating that this is the £250 million alleged cost of AV.
Below the diagram, the text: "Real cost of AV: £20 million (too small to show)", and then in larger type "Good democracy is worth paying for. We can afford it: Vote YES to AV."
Over at REFUSING THE DEFAULT, an excellent POST explaining why AV is 'worth it' and why the YES campaign need to get their act together and slam down the mendacious claims of NO2AV that AV will cost £250m and is unaffordable.
As RFD puts it;
"...apparently lacking good arguments in favour of FPTP, the No2AV campaign were instead campaigning on cost - and had significantly exaggerated the cost through a mix of accounting fraud and the political technique commonly known as "making stuff up".
"It should be a major mistake - if you start complaining about the cost of democracy, what other "cost saving" measures are you willing to entertain? Less frequent elections? Increased restrictions on suffrage? Dictatorship? We don't have democracy because it's cheap but because it's worth it.
Rather than pointing this out - and indeed, pointing out that even the massively inflated £250 million price tag is insignificant - the Yes To Fairer Votes campaign have instead chosen to ... complain to the Advertising Standards Authority"
Good to see Mark Thompson back blogging at Mark Reckons, he also has a good poster parody of NO2AV's mendacious adverts.
AV Won't Save The Lib Dems
AV won't save the Lib Dems or Clegg. Most Lib Dem MPs get less than 50% of the vote, under AV you need to get over or near 50%. Lib Dems are so unpopular at the moment, they will find it harder to win seats under AV. Vote YES to AV because it is fairer, but also if you want to help give Clegg a kicking!
Remember that nearly all MPs in safe seats oppose AV. I wonder why that is? They are funding full page ads to get you to vote NO, they must be really scared of losing their gravy train. Make them work harder for your support. Vote YES to AV on May 5th.
*INTERESTING UPDATE* I notice the Tories have just lost a council seat to the Lib Dems in true blue Tunbridge Wells of all places! The voteshares were as follows; LD 43%, TORY 34%, UKIP 23%. It is very likely that AV would have meant the Lib Dems not gaining the seat from the Tories because nearly all UKIP voters would have preferred the eurosceptic Tories to the pro-europe Lib Dems and the Cleggers would have failed to get 50% support.
This is how preposterous our present system, first-past-the-post is, if a party of the left had stood say Labour or the Greens, then the Tory would have held on, but because UKIP a right-wing party stood, the right wing Tories lost.
Remember that nearly all MPs in safe seats oppose AV. I wonder why that is? They are funding full page ads to get you to vote NO, they must be really scared of losing their gravy train. Make them work harder for your support. Vote YES to AV on May 5th.
*INTERESTING UPDATE* I notice the Tories have just lost a council seat to the Lib Dems in true blue Tunbridge Wells of all places! The voteshares were as follows; LD 43%, TORY 34%, UKIP 23%. It is very likely that AV would have meant the Lib Dems not gaining the seat from the Tories because nearly all UKIP voters would have preferred the eurosceptic Tories to the pro-europe Lib Dems and the Cleggers would have failed to get 50% support.
This is how preposterous our present system, first-past-the-post is, if a party of the left had stood say Labour or the Greens, then the Tory would have held on, but because UKIP a right-wing party stood, the right wing Tories lost.
Yes to AV, Yes to PR
The Electoral Reform Society has campaigned relentlessly for many decades for a change to a more proportional voting system. Its membership voted overwhelmingly to campaign for a YES in the referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) on May 5th. It did this because there are many ways AV is fairer than the present system, but one of the main reasons was that AV generally produces more proportional results.
As the Guardian put it in May 2010; 'STV and AV are not technically PR they just happen to usually give a more proportional outcome than FPTP'.
The NO2AV campaign is outspending the YES campaign many times (by how much we will find out after the referendum).
Initially the YES campaign played to its strengths by focussing on its biggest asset - its many supporters, and it ran a successful grassroots campaign, but lately NO2AV partly by being underhand but also by being very clever are beating the YES campaign with NO2AV propaganda funded by right wing Tories and Taxpayer Alliance types and backed by the right wing media.
It is preposterous to claim that a NO vote to changing the present system will somehow help the PR cause. Once this referendum is over, and this has took decades even to get this chance for change in the face of MPs overwhelming hostility to changing a system that gives them jobs for life, it will be business as usual and a NO will be presented as a YES to first-past-the-post. Those funding this new cause with its brand new website are against ALL forms of change. They oppose PR more than they do AV, but they know they need to win over some PR enthusiasts if they are to win against AV, so they fund this ridiculous campaign.
What is even worse is that the BBC gives 2 links to the NO campaign because of this new website, but only one to the YES campaign. How is that fair or impartial?
To this end, I will be contacting the YES campaign to right this wrong. In the meantime here is my new website I have set up to campaign for AV AND PR. A campaign for change that makes far more sense than the spurious and dare I say cynical NO campaign.
As the Guardian put it in May 2010; 'STV and AV are not technically PR they just happen to usually give a more proportional outcome than FPTP'.
The NO2AV campaign is outspending the YES campaign many times (by how much we will find out after the referendum).
Initially the YES campaign played to its strengths by focussing on its biggest asset - its many supporters, and it ran a successful grassroots campaign, but lately NO2AV partly by being underhand but also by being very clever are beating the YES campaign with NO2AV propaganda funded by right wing Tories and Taxpayer Alliance types and backed by the right wing media.
It is preposterous to claim that a NO vote to changing the present system will somehow help the PR cause. Once this referendum is over, and this has took decades even to get this chance for change in the face of MPs overwhelming hostility to changing a system that gives them jobs for life, it will be business as usual and a NO will be presented as a YES to first-past-the-post. Those funding this new cause with its brand new website are against ALL forms of change. They oppose PR more than they do AV, but they know they need to win over some PR enthusiasts if they are to win against AV, so they fund this ridiculous campaign.
What is even worse is that the BBC gives 2 links to the NO campaign because of this new website, but only one to the YES campaign. How is that fair or impartial?
To this end, I will be contacting the YES campaign to right this wrong. In the meantime here is my new website I have set up to campaign for AV AND PR. A campaign for change that makes far more sense than the spurious and dare I say cynical NO campaign.
17 March 2011
How The Alternative Vote (AV) Will Reduce The Number Of Safe Seats
There are many advantages of changing to AV and one of them is a reduction in the number of safe seats where MPs effectively have 'jobs for life' because the seat is unlikely to ever be close between the top two candidates.
I was going to write a full rebuttal of the NO2AV most recent leaflet which makes many dubious claims about AV, but Will Straw at Left Foot Forward has already done this, so take a look.
There are a few points I would like to add, in particular how AV actually works to reduce safe seats.
One of the claims of NO2AV is that AV will make no difference to safe seats because MPs there already get over 50% of the vote.
Over two thirds of seats are safe under the present system and very unlikely to change hands, yet only a third of MPs get over 50% of the vote in their constituencies. An MP can be 'safe' with just 40% of the vote because of the split of votes between other rival parties.
So already we can see that safe seats won with this percentage will be affected by AV. But more importantly than that, AV will change people's attitudes to their first preferences. People could now vote for their 'real' first choice however unlikely that candidate will win. So seats safe now, may not be under AV. This might explain why virtually every Tory and Labour MP in a safe seat is against change. Don't listen to them, of course turkeys will oppose xmas. We need to show them what we want, not what they want.
AV will roughly double the number of marginals and make all seats more competitive. We will not get another chance to change the system, reject AV and all change will be off the agenda for at least a generation.
Alternative Vote (AV) Explained
On May 5th we have a referendum to choose between two methods of electing our MPs. Vote YES for the Alternative Vote (AV) or NO to stay with First-Past-The-Post (FPTP).
How to vote under AV
Rank the candidates in order of preference. Write '1' next to your first preference, '2' next to your second preference, and so on. You can rank as many or as few as you like. If you only want to vote for one candidate then you can mark an 'X' next to their name, just like you do under the present system.
Counting votes under AV
Count all the '1's and all the 'X's. If any candidate has over 50% of first preferences they are elected. If not, then the lowest placed candidate is eliminated. The ballots for this eliminated candidate are re-distributed according to preference. This process is repeated until one candidate has over 50% of those votes cast that express a preference for one of the remaining candidates in the race. If a ballot shows no preference for any of the remaining candidates in the race then it is referred to as 'exhausted' and plays no further part in deciding the result.
Why is AV better than the present system called First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)?
In a nutshell, under AV, more votes count towards the final result. AV means many more voters get to decide their constituency MP. In practise MPs will have to get an expressed preference from over 50% of voters (or close to 50%), whereas under FPTP they can be elected with as little as 30% (or less).
FPTP can effectively force people not to vote for their favourite candidate. They end up putting their 'X' next to a less favoured candidate in order to try to stop an even more disliked candidate from being elected. This gives a distorted view of what voters real first choices are. But worse than this, voters have to guess how others will vote to try and make their own vote count. This can be an impossible task. It also hinders the growth of new or smaller parties that might otherwise have widespread appeal. AV allows people to make the choices they really want without fear of 'wasting' their vote.
By allowing the voter to rank their preferences, AV allows the voter to impart far more information about what they want. No longer will we have to wonder which party Labour voters put as there second preference, or Tory voters put as theirs. We will know and this will help those respective parties know which policies to pursue to hold their vote and win other voters over to them.
16 March 2011
103 Labour MPs who know no shame!
Every Labour MP was selected by party members using the Alternative Vote (AV), yet 103 Labour MPs have now 'come out' against AV to elect them. Most kept quiet as long as they could, but now the truth is out. These MPs are saying AV is good enough for party members to select them, but not for the voters to elect them. As this Labour YES supporter puts it, lets tell these MPs who know no shame that 'if its good enough for selection, it's good enough for election'.
At least the AV referendum is 'smoking out' some of the Labour MPs who seemt to want to say NO to democracy itself to preserve their safe seats. Looking at the list of 103 Labour MPs who are campaigning for NO, I notice 1 or 2 notable absenses, people like Jim Murphy and Andy Burnham, definite opponents of the change to AV, but obviously keeping a low profile at the moment. So there are more than 103 of them.
So what has prompted Labour MPs in safe seats to fund a full page advert in the national press to say NO to AV? (Can anyone ever remember when they last did this on any issue?). It seems the change to AV that they claim will make little difference to them in safe seats has got them a little rattled.
The truth is that these MPs know when they are on a good thing, easy re-election under the present system or uncertainty under AV. If you want to scare some Labour MPs into doing a better job then vote for AV on May 5th.
At least the AV referendum is 'smoking out' some of the Labour MPs who seemt to want to say NO to democracy itself to preserve their safe seats. Looking at the list of 103 Labour MPs who are campaigning for NO, I notice 1 or 2 notable absenses, people like Jim Murphy and Andy Burnham, definite opponents of the change to AV, but obviously keeping a low profile at the moment. So there are more than 103 of them.
So what has prompted Labour MPs in safe seats to fund a full page advert in the national press to say NO to AV? (Can anyone ever remember when they last did this on any issue?). It seems the change to AV that they claim will make little difference to them in safe seats has got them a little rattled.
The truth is that these MPs know when they are on a good thing, easy re-election under the present system or uncertainty under AV. If you want to scare some Labour MPs into doing a better job then vote for AV on May 5th.
14 March 2011
Countering NO2AV propaganda
I said a while ago that if this AV referendum was about which electoral system was better - The Alternative Vote (AV) or our present system - First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), then the YES to AV campaign would win easily. I also hoped that millions would get to hear about the intricacies of electoral systems and therefore raise the profile of more proportional systems.
Instead we get nothing, no TV coverage of any substance, no info in libraries or anywhere else and the BBC frightened to use the words 'electoral reform'. What little anyone might have heard is lies from a rightwing press pumping out NO bilge and an extensive well funded NO2AV internet campaign.
The NO2AV campaign realised early on they couldn't win if the debate was about which system was better, so instead they concentrate on smearing prominent YES supporters, and claiming that £250m will be spent on hospitals and defence if AV is rejected. A figure they have just plucked out of the air. The treasury have already set the budget for the next general election and it will be unchanged whichever system is used.
The NO campaign use the tactics of lib dem localists, say different things to different constituencies - so in the Daily Mail AV is PR, but when NO2AV address PR enthusiasists it is not PR. John Prescott says AV is only wanted by fringe parties and extremists while NO2AV websites say AV won't help small parties. NO2AV say AV will exaggerate landslides, yet bring more coalitions. Please make your mind up? Hopefully all this distortion and dishonesty will backfire on the NO campaign. For the record here is answers to some of their most recent claims.
NO2AV say 'AV will not help small parties'.
The Truth
The Greens, UKIP, SNP, English Democrats and Plaid Cymru all support a YES vote.
The BNP and Communists support the NO campaign.
I think this speaks volumes - basically small parties with potential to win majority support are in favour and small parties with very extremist views are campaigning with No2AV.
NO2AV say 'AV will make no difference to safe seats'.
The Truth
Out of 400 MPs in the safest seats in the UK, about 380 are campaigning with the NO2AV campaign. I wonder why that is? eh?
NO2AV say 'AV is not a step towards PR'.
The Truth
The argument that a YES vote will scupper progress to PR and that a NO vote that preserves the present disproportional system will get us PR, is a bit like arguing for no Minimum Wage in preference to one set at £5 an hour just because you wanted it set at £8 an hour. It is rather preposterous.
Nobody knows when we might get another chance to change the electoral system, it seems reasonable to assume that any rejection of change now, will bolster those preferring to keep the status quo and delay change. A vote for AV however shows people want change, win this vote and the argument that we want a wider choice of systems makes more sense.
Instead we get nothing, no TV coverage of any substance, no info in libraries or anywhere else and the BBC frightened to use the words 'electoral reform'. What little anyone might have heard is lies from a rightwing press pumping out NO bilge and an extensive well funded NO2AV internet campaign.
The NO2AV campaign realised early on they couldn't win if the debate was about which system was better, so instead they concentrate on smearing prominent YES supporters, and claiming that £250m will be spent on hospitals and defence if AV is rejected. A figure they have just plucked out of the air. The treasury have already set the budget for the next general election and it will be unchanged whichever system is used.
The NO campaign use the tactics of lib dem localists, say different things to different constituencies - so in the Daily Mail AV is PR, but when NO2AV address PR enthusiasists it is not PR. John Prescott says AV is only wanted by fringe parties and extremists while NO2AV websites say AV won't help small parties. NO2AV say AV will exaggerate landslides, yet bring more coalitions. Please make your mind up? Hopefully all this distortion and dishonesty will backfire on the NO campaign. For the record here is answers to some of their most recent claims.
NO2AV say 'AV will not help small parties'.
The Truth
The Greens, UKIP, SNP, English Democrats and Plaid Cymru all support a YES vote.
The BNP and Communists support the NO campaign.
I think this speaks volumes - basically small parties with potential to win majority support are in favour and small parties with very extremist views are campaigning with No2AV.
NO2AV say 'AV will make no difference to safe seats'.
The Truth
Out of 400 MPs in the safest seats in the UK, about 380 are campaigning with the NO2AV campaign. I wonder why that is? eh?
NO2AV say 'AV is not a step towards PR'.
The Truth
The argument that a YES vote will scupper progress to PR and that a NO vote that preserves the present disproportional system will get us PR, is a bit like arguing for no Minimum Wage in preference to one set at £5 an hour just because you wanted it set at £8 an hour. It is rather preposterous.
Nobody knows when we might get another chance to change the electoral system, it seems reasonable to assume that any rejection of change now, will bolster those preferring to keep the status quo and delay change. A vote for AV however shows people want change, win this vote and the argument that we want a wider choice of systems makes more sense.
01 March 2011
Tory/Lib Dem 'Localism' In Action.
Just working my way through the Green Alternative Budget for Brighton and Hove (the pdf can be downloaded here on the Jason KitKat website). This paragraph in particular exemplifies just how little local democracy is left after the diktats from Tory Central Office, it would make Stalin proud!!
When you consider that around 60-70% of local funding (more for councils covering poorer areas) comes directly from central government anyway and that this grant is being cut by 27% over the next few years, you can see what 'hobsons choice' councils really have (and by the way 'back office' sharing and cuts would make little difference - less than 5% at most of the £83bn cuts needed nationally). It makes you wonder what is the point of having local government at all when so little power resides there. It is hardly surprising turnout struggles to make 35%. Still I shouldn't put ideas into Tory heads, abolish democracy and we can save millions they might just do it, they have done it to local government before.
As ever, Ken Livingstone talks sense (via liberal conspiracy) on how little power and choice local councils have.
"Freezing council tax releases a central government grant worth the same as a 2.5% tax increase for at least this year and the next. A tax increase of over 2.5% would be needed to make it worthwhile, yet the national government has said no council may raise tax beyond 3.5%."So there you have it, the localism of the Tory Lib Dem government that gives such 'freedom' and 'democracy' to local government. Not only is local taxation severely restricted in this way, but little or no revenue can be raised from any other source either (unless you want to charge the elderly and vulnerable - car owners are protected - good to see where Tory priorities lie).
When you consider that around 60-70% of local funding (more for councils covering poorer areas) comes directly from central government anyway and that this grant is being cut by 27% over the next few years, you can see what 'hobsons choice' councils really have (and by the way 'back office' sharing and cuts would make little difference - less than 5% at most of the £83bn cuts needed nationally). It makes you wonder what is the point of having local government at all when so little power resides there. It is hardly surprising turnout struggles to make 35%. Still I shouldn't put ideas into Tory heads, abolish democracy and we can save millions they might just do it, they have done it to local government before.
As ever, Ken Livingstone talks sense (via liberal conspiracy) on how little power and choice local councils have.
"Are Councillors who make these cuts – Labour Councillors – complicit? Thirty years ago, Councillors who made cuts, as Thatcher pushed them down, arguably were complicit because there was an alternative – to increase the rates…the rating system itself was fairly re-distributive, with the richest homes paying very much more than the poorest.
It was crude, but the best strategy was to increase the rates to preserve services. Labour Councils had great debates about that, but largely that’s what they did. The worst of the cuts were blunted and that is why the Tories abolished the rates and took away the business rate and created first the poll tax and then the Council Tax, which is not redistributive, leaving Councillors with the choice [of saying] “do we cut services or do we bang up the Council Tax, which would actually hurt poor people more?”
There they [Labour Councillors] don’t have the choice that we had a generation ago for fighting those cuts. What is important is that those Councils have to carry their communities with them.
They have to engage the communities and their trade unions in how they manage the devastating cut in the grant that they’ve got and to do it in a way that preserves the most of our services and protects the most vulnerable. It will not be easy, it will not be pleasant, but you don’t have the option of walking away".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)