Love and Liberty

One of the many ways in which beloved husband is doing an amazing job right now as Liberal Democrat candidate for Macclesfield is answering approximately a gazillion emails a day. Some, by this stage, literally in his sleep.

I’m long past ever standing as a candidate again, not least with this year’s catastrophically unhelpful health getting in the way even of helping Richard anywhere near as practically as I’d like.

So imagine my surprise and delight on receiving my own email enquiring about an urgent issue of Liberal Democrat policy which must be worrying people up and down the land: with Lib Dems committed to a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal, if we form the new government on Thursday, who would negotiate a deal we were bound to oppose?

To B and How To B, That Is the Question

Here’s the question I was asked:

“…if you propose a second referendum for people to decide on the deal, assuming a Lib Dem government was in office, how would this happen in practice? Considering the party’s historic support for EU membership, who would conduct the negotiations for a Brexit deal for us to vote on? Would the responsibility for negotiations be devolved to the Civil Service or some other external body?”

And here’s the main part of my reply:

“In practice, of course, whatever party is in government, the vast majority of negotiations are conducted by civil servants: they are huge and vastly complicated and require a vast team of people and a lot of hard work. Even if David Davis isn’t doing any of it.

“The answer is to be found in the first chapter of the Lib Dem Manifesto, in effect – that doesn’t just set out the party’s policy around a third EU referendum, this time on the terms of the deal, but the party’s priorities in Parliament for setting the terms for the negotiators. The primary one is of course to remain in the Single Market, which virtually all the leading No figures led people to believe before last year’s referendum and then swerved into such a damaging far right isolationist position afterwards.

“Should there be a massive political earthquake and the Lib Dems form a majority government next week, I would be delighted and I have to admit a little surprised. However, there’s no doubt that would mean Britain’s centre of gravity on Brexit would have shifted markedly, so I would expect to see a choice between remaining as a full member or an exit deal based on a much closer relationship than Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn and Paul Nuttall’s – one, as the likes of Farage or Johnson said before the referendum rather than what they’ve said since, similar to the relationship the EU has with Norway or Switzerland. Ironically, that means that the Brexit deal would be much closer to the one voters were told about in advance.

“As I say, the party’s aims for mitigating the disaster of Brexit in negotiations are set out in detail as the first chapter in the Manifesto, which you can download for yourself here.”

With the election constantly framed as a ‘choice’ between two parties offering two identical destructive chaotic Brexits and neither offering to talk about any of the detail – because they’re dumb, but they’re not that dumb – and the Lib Dems mostly failing to get a word in edgeways, I wish the question of exactly how Foreign Secretary Nick Clegg would lead Brexit negotiations come the glorious Lib Dem landslide this week were one that was keeping me awake at night.

Still, in the happy daydream in which the Liberal Democrats sweep to power on Thursday, imagine the Lib Dem government, with painfully honest commitment to its manifesto pledge, negotiating a liberal Brexit. Come the day of the deal referendum, instead of being offered destructive chaos, loss of British power and influence, rights stripped away, food riots and catastrophic collapse in living standards by the Theresa May—Jeremy Corbyn—Paul Nuttall Brexit alliance, which the majority of Britons would be likely to look at go ‘No thanks,’ the Brexit choice is instead a middle way, keeping most of the goodies but being able to say we’re not quite in. And so only a Lib Dem Government’s positive negotiations could save Brexit by producing a deal which the majority could swallow and go on to win the deal referendum for (mostly) out!

What an irony, eh?

No, somehow I can see a few steps along the way that I don’t quite believe, either…

What Should Negotiations Try To Keep (but probably won’t)?

What certainly will happen after Thursday’s result, whatever it turns out to be, is that Liberal Democrats in Parliament will stand up for British voters to have the final say on the final Brexit deal. The Conservatives and Labour will both deny that. They’ve both already voted to stop people having a say. And as the negotiations proceed into the long and complicated reality and away from back of a fag packet insult your intelligence slogans, Liberal Democrats in Parliament will stand up for these priorities and more:

• Protection of rights for EU citizens and UK citizens

• Membership of the Single Market and customs union

• Freedom of movement

• Opportunities for young people

• Defending social rights and equalities

• Maintaining environmental standards

• Law enforcement and judicial co-operation

• British business and jobs

• Science and research funding

• Travel and tourism

• Respect for the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the people of Gibraltar

I really should’ve put these in my email, too. Sorry to the person who contacted me. Replying set my mind going, and it probably should have been the other way round.

The more Liberal Democrat MPs are elected this Thursday, the more votes there will be in Parliament to press for these priorities in the Brexit negotiations.

The more Conservative and Labour MPs are elected, with their Leaders’ identical commitment to a disastrous Brexit, the more certain it is that Parliament will throw all those priorities in the bin.

There probably won’t be any UKIP MPs elected on Thursday, but with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn following UKIP Brexit policy to the letter, that won’t make any difference.

Lib Dem voices in Parliament will probably only be able to make things a bit better unless we romp home. But a bit better is better than nothing. Why vote for parties that have promised to make everything worse?

I have a terrible feeling that all those priorities and so much that’s good about Britain will be thrown in the bin. And that the scale of what – to pick only the latest prediction I’ve seen – Will Hutton calls “an epic act of national self-harm” will only become clear not even when the details have been published but only once it’s all actually happened, everything’s wrecked and it’s too late to go back.

Which means that only after the economy has crashed utterly and Britain’s divided and unhappy will a Liberal Democrat government be voted in as the last resort to do the impossible job of fitting the broken pieces together. Tried a bit of that seven years ago. Can’t say we enjoyed it and were greatly thanked for it…

Labels: Brexit, British Politics, General Election, Liberal Democrats, Referendum

Hate. Racism. Now murder.

This cannot stand. Whether you’re In or Out, there are values the great, decent majority of British people agree on.

We’ve all got to take responsibility now. Because Britain is better than this, and we can’t just leave it to somebody else.


Last night I was so appalled, so upset and so angry that I just recorded what I felt.

• What the campaign’s turned into – and why they’re not “all the same.”
  
  

• Racism and very different experiences I remember from growing up.
  
  

• How I contrast Nigel Farage with my Mum.
  
  

• How very British is immigration.
  
  

• Why it’s incredible that people pretend that Britain of all countries can’t cope with coming together with other nations.
  
  

• How disgusted I am by the bullies and cowards who are dragging Britain back to bigotry.
  
  

• And most of all, out of all the hate and dividing people and screams of “Traitors”, knowing that for decent people on both sides of the vote that this is not the Britain we want.

Britain is better than this.

Please listen to my appeal and those of so many other people. And let your voice be heard too. Because it’s gone way too far to sit back, shake your head, and just hope someone else does something.

Labels: Bigotry, British Politics, European Politics, Personal, Referendum, The Golden Dozen

One:

So he can disenfranchise all the people on holiday in [shudder] Europe

Two:

So he can cut off any campaigning period in which people might ask questions and get themselves informed rather than just voting with years of newspaper prejudices

Three:

So he can promise to prop up a Tory Government of the far right… Then drop it after two months and run away laughing while Mr Cameron implodes

Four:

So he can exploit what he assumes’ll be the public mood at the highest high water-mark of his populist Party’s popularity before the inevitable consequences of failure to deliver or (worse) compromise with another party or (worse) with reality by having to make a single difficult decision prove he’s just the same as all the other politicians

Five:

…Er, that’s it.

Labels: Coalition, Conservatives, Referendum, The Golden Dozen, UKIP

The Liberal Democrat Conference opens today in Birmingham with perhaps the most depressing talking shop ever put on a Lib Dem Agenda. It’s the consultative session for the “May 2011 Election Review”: a big drop in the popular vote; a major setback on local councils; a disaster in Scotland; a total and utter thrashing in the AV referendum. And it’s the last that looks the most hopeless. Is electoral reform finished for good, or at least for a generation? Instead of endlessly debating what went wrong, there’s one major change we can make right now to improve things next time: never mention “STV” again. But I don’t mean running scared – I mean widening our appeal. Because if we’ve learned one thing, it’s that an electoral ‘reform’ campaign that only appeals to Liberal Democrats is stuffed, whether it’s this Spring’s or in a decade or two’s time.

I’m passionately committed to the system called the Single Transferable Vote. No system is perfect but, for me, it has two massive advantages. It’s broadly proportional – which means it’s fair to parties, and means that the House of Commons is broadly in line with people’s votes across the country. And it gives voters more power to choose the candidates who win – when every other system gives all the power to the parties. But I’m a political beast, and most people aren’t. Let’s not kid ourselves: a system where you choose different candidates in order of preference was obliterated this year, and it would be easy to attack STV as complicated and weird in just the same way (as Mark Thompson’s excellent if depressing article Outline of a No2STV Campaign illustrated). If there had been an STV referendum this year, it too would have been thrashed. And no proponents of STV have come up with anything like an answer save ‘campaign harder’. That’s necessary – but it’s not good enough.

Where AV Went Wrong (and more of AV’s greatest mistakes)

There’s still time, if you want to, to get your answers in to the Liberal Democrats’ Campaigns and Communications Committee’s consultation on the elections and the referendum. It’s already made up its mind on four key reasons for AV’s failure:

• Labour completely failed to deliver, being mostly part of the “No” campaign despite being the only party committed to AV in their manifesto;

• The Tories turned out to be complete bastards willing to say and do anything, and with an endless pot of money (who knew?);

• Holding the referendum on election day seemed like a good plan – maximising turnout, when polls showed broad but unenthusiastic support – but instead it meant both that Lib Dems were unable to give time to the referendum, and that the “No” campaign could give us an extra-big kicking, particularly through appealing to Labour voters;

• And, to contrast with the “No” campaign’s ruthless efficiency, the “Yes” campaign was basically rubbish.

But it’s really just looking mournfully at the stable door, and not wondering why the horse bolted. Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has just elected a mostly new “Reform Slate” in reaction to the terrible result, but without making decisions on how to improve the message. And the aftermath for the victorious other side is that opponents of any kind of electoral reform, shameless conservatives in Labour and Tories alike, are claiming this was a vote against proportional representation, despite AV being often less proportional than “First Past the Post” (making the self-styled ‘No to AV, Yes to PR’ useful idiots look stupider than ever; hard to believe, isn’t it, that David Owen could have a catastrophic failure of political judgement).

The one good thing that came out of this year’s débâcle (other than establishing a grassroots movement for electoral reform, which is now largely dispersed and demoralised) is that we can learn how not to do it next time.

You know the story. The “No” campaign was full of lies. But it was brutally effective. They identified issues that Labour voters in particular wouldn’t like about AV – “Costly, Complicated, Clegg” – and pushed them hard. The Conservatives, always assumed to be anti-reform, as they have been for every reform in history from votes for ordinary people to votes for women, outdid themselves by at the same time using their party slogan “Working together in the national interest” to say how good it was that they were in coalition, and pouring wads of cash into vicious attacks on the Liberal Democrats for being in coalition and attacking the very idea of coalition to make AV scary. A finer example of saying one thing in one place and another elsewhere has surely never been seen. And perhaps most importantly, they made the political weather. It didn’t matter if what they said was truth or lie – they got in first. Almost every issue was then debated on ground set by the “No” campaign. The “Yes” campaign’s wider base of grassroots campaigners was completely let down by a disastrously faltering “air war”, and was simply overwhelmed by messages that they didn’t have the people or cash to counter.

Attack “First Past the Post”

So there are two key lessons to learn for ‘next time’, whenever it may come.The first is the lesson of the electoral mechanics, and that’s one for the long term: it can be planned for, but only really put into operation when the time comes. For what it’s worth, though, here are a few markers we must learn for taking the fight to “First Past the Post”:

• Explain the new system, or the “No” campaign will. “Yes” decided not to explain AV; “No” sent a Freepost booklet to every single house summing up “First Past the Post” as simply and positively as possible, and AV as complicatedly and unfairly as possible. “Yes” didn’t even send any leaflet to the vast majority of houses. Idiots. Perhaps even have a Parliamentary Bill ready to show how it’ll work and counter the inevitable lies.

• Perhaps the biggest reason why the “No” campaign won this year is that they had an enemy. The “Yes” campaign didn’t. And in politics, attack is much easier and more effective than defence; once you’re defending yourself, you’re already publicising your opponent’s attack points.

• So find an enemy. The simplest, biggest change would be to attack “First Past the Post” ruthlessly, and get our attacks in first. This was where this Spring’s “Yes” campaign was not just timid, but hamstrung: AV is in fact such a small change from “First Past the Post” that almost all of the same problems apply, so it was very difficult to make a case for change. With a fight between “First Past the Post” and “Proportional Representation”, you can take the gloves off and batter the current system.

• Under “First Past the Post”, most people vote against the “winning” party – but the system gives them all the power anyway. Why should any party be able to do whatever the hell it likes when most people are against it? Say that “First Past the Post” means that the loser wins. Every party since the War has lost the vote – then, until we finally got a hung Parliament, been able to do what it likes.

• In Labour areas, stick up big pictures of Margaret Thatcher: you never voted for her, but “First Past the Post” let her give you the poll tax. Add that in 1951, Labour got the most votes – but “First Past the Post” is so crooked that the Tories won anyway.

• In Tory areas, stick up big pictures of Tony Blair: you never voted for him, but “First Past the Post” let him invade Iraq. Add that in 1974, the Tories got the most votes – but “First Past the Post” is so crooked that Labour won anyway. Then throw in the Winter of Discontent.

• And when this year’s “No” campaign’s most breathtaking bit of chutzpah was in saying that AV would increase influence for the BNP – when it’s a fact that, of all electoral systems ever invented, AV most hurts the BNP – attack “First Past the Post” for how time and time again it’s let the BNP in when most people have voted against them. There have been dozens of BNP councillors elected – only one has ever had the majority of the vote. In the USA, they call it “swiftboating”, making your enemy’s strength into a weakness: next time, the “Yes” campaign should do it first, and ruthlessly. Show how “First Past the Post” helps the BNP and leave “No” gasping for air.

Time For British Proportional Representation

But the biggest lesson can – and must – be implemented as soon as possible, and it’s not about campaign mechanics, but about principles. If you’re involved in policymaking with the Liberal Democrats or with the Electoral Reform Society, here’s what you can do today, rather than in ten years’ time: never mention “STV” again.

Who, other than a political junkie, is going to get enthused about a set of initials? And when you expand it into the Single Transferable Vote and explain about transfers, people’s eyes are no less likely to glaze over. Yes, we’ll have to find a clearer, simpler way to explain how it works – but the name we use for it just makes it seem all about the mechanics. And that’s always going to be a loser. We’ve feebly addressed that by talking about “Fair Votes” – but that doesn’t appear on the ballot paper (you might say it’s a loaded term; when calling the current system “First Past the Post” is such a lie that it literally has no winning post, loaded terms are hardly new!), and we all saw how trying to refer to AV as the even feebler “Fairer Votes” failed.

The next campaign must be between “First Past the Post” and “British Proportional Representation”.

• The system now called STV was invented in Britain and used to be called “British Proportional Representation”. It’s used today throughout the British Isles – in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (do the “No” campaign want to say the English and Welsh are stupider?), and was even used for some of the House of Commons until 1950. When the “No” campaign smeared AV as weird and un-British, with British Proportional Representation we can fight back. Or we can keep an academic-sounding name, and leave it just an academic talking-point.

• To win the next fight, electoral reformers must win the battle of values, and that can’t be done overnight. With full-blooded proportional representation to fight for, attack “First Past the Post” as rigged and unfair, and make our system the one for “Fairness” – and do it first. But that’s not the only value we should appeal to. If fairness is a good one to reach out to Labour voters, Tory voters might respond better to patriotism and tradition. And if you can bed a change into British tradition, it’s much more likely to succeed. So change the name in the Lib Dem Manifesto; change the articles of the Electoral Reform Society; and change the name of the system from one that will only ever appeal to policy wonks to one that appeals across the board. And after a few years, no-one will ever use the term “STV” ever again.

• British Proportional Representation is about fairness, and it’s about British traditions. Look at how “First Past the Post” slices up traditional communities. Is it right to have MPs crossing county boundaries, or chopping neighbourhoods in half? Throw out this unnatural gerrymandering! Bring in British Proportional Representation to strengthen the link from MPs to Britain’s historic towns and counties, with boundaries everyone can understand. Make “First Past the Post” the complicated and weird one – make “No” explain why they want such bizarre and unnatural constituency boundaries. Bring in British Proportional Representation to get common sense, based on British values of fairness and Britishness.

Say no to the emulsified high-fat offal tube – call a sausage a sausage, and call our favourite system British Proportional Representation.


This is the ‘director’s cut’ of an article published earlier on Liberal Democrat Voice, written to follow this morning’s depressing consultation session and Simon McGrath’s article earlier today on election results within the Electoral Reform Society.

Labels: British Politics, Conservatives, Ideas, Liberal Democrats, Nationalism, Proportional Representation, Referendum

I’m voting YES! to the Alternative Vote today. I’ve given my top seven reasons already. There’s just one left: a wholly negative reason, like your least favourite candidate on the ballot (who you can leave blank, or have the satisfaction of putting “last”; it works the same). What’s at the bottom? Appropriately, the BNP. Choosing an electoral system just because of how it affects one party is a crappy reason. But face facts: of every voting system ever invented, AV is the best to stop the BNP ever winning; with “first past the post,” they’ve “won” dozens of council seats.

I believe in democracy. I believe AV gives fairer votes – it makes MPs more accountable by giving voters more power. And choosing a system just to stop (or benefit) one party is despicable. It’s undemocratic. It’s basically wanting to rig the election.

But against the BNP, it works.

The Facts: Which Systems Are ‘Best’ For the BNP?

If the British National Party was your sole concern, electoral systems fall into three main categories of how ‘helpful’ they are to the BNP – though, as far as I’m concerned, fighting against them in the ballot box and persuading people it’s wrong to vote for them is always better than trying to rig the system. If they get enough votes, no voting system can stop them winning; if they get too few votes, no voting system will give them a place.

In theory, the most favourable ground for the BNP would be a pure proportional system, like a party list. Give seats exactly in proportion to votes – which in many ways is the most purely democratic system – and even very small parties should get very small representation. In practice, even elections using party lists have hardly ever resulted in BNP seats: they’ve almost always been defeated even in European Parliament elections, and the one time they managed to get a couple of seats it was only by a whisker. Why? Because even in the most ‘favourable’ territory, very, very few people vote for them over an area of any size (and pure PR is only used in big, big areas). And if they don’t get the votes, they can’t get elected. So persuading people not to vote for them works best!

The electoral systems that are sort of middling for the BNP are – ironically – my favourite and my least favourite. STV, the best system, is a little bit more helpful to the BNP because it’s quite proportional… But it’s also a little bit less helpful to the BNP because it’s preferential, so people can gang up and vote for ‘anyone except the BNP’. That means the BNP get hardly any preferences except for first (from the people who actually want them) and then last / none at all (which, as I’ve said, works the same. Using your ‘last’ preference in STV and AV merely means you can be satisfyingly vindictive).

The worst system, “first past the post” or more accurately ‘biggest loser wins’, is the one we have now. And because it doesn’t need a “winner” to get a majority – because, like two thirds of the MPs we have now, most people can vote against the “winner” – the BNP can get in on a split vote as the ‘biggest loser’. And, as I show below, they do.

The very worst system of all for the BNP is the Alternative Vote. It’s simple. That’s because it’s no more proportional than “first past the post,” but it is preferential. That means it’s as hard as the current system for small parties to break through on the one hand, and much harder on the other because it lets votes gang up on the BNP. It could almost be designed to gang up on the least popular party, as I’ve pointed out before, or the least popular candidate, as I’ve shown with AV’s power to throw out crooks.

The BNP is the most hated party by almost everyone who doesn’t actually support them. That means they’re almost certain to be ganged up on and clobbered when preferences are counted under AV. With the Alternative Vote, ‘anyone but the BNP’ is almost built into the system.

The Facts: The BNP Say “No”

That’s why the BNP has been working hard for the No campaign.

I have never quoted the BNP before on this blog. I feel soiled for doing so. But if you want the facts…

Here’s BNP Deputy Chairman Simon Darby:

“We are never going to get our feet under the table under the AV system.”

And here is the latest message about today’s referendum to his supporters from BNP Leader Nick Griffin:

“AV is designed to ensure permanent left-liberal government and is aimed at stopping the BNP.”

The BNP know AV is the biggest institutional threat they will ever face. They are desperate for a “No” vote.

The Facts: “First Past The Post” Has Given the BNP Dozens of Councillors When Most People Voted Against Them

“First past the post” has given the BNP more than thirty times as many elected representatives as every other system used in the UK put together. It is “first past the post” that allows people to be elected with just a fraction of the vote. It is the current system that means that – not just some of the time, but most of the time – the ‘biggest loser wins’.

The first elected representative the BNP ever had was one local councillor, on the Isle of Dogs, in 1993. He was elected by “first past the post” – even though two thirds of people voted against him.

Sadly, they didn’t stop there.

Throughout the 2000s, the BNP made gain after gain with “first past the post”. They won dozens of council seats. Their highest number of councillors at any one time, a couple of years ago, was 58 – but they’ve won more seats than that altogether (thankfully, people often wake up at the following election and they lose them again).

Thanks to “first past the post,” the BNP were elected in 2006 as the main opposition party on Barking and Dagenham Council. Thanks to “first past the post,” the BNP have had councillors in Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn, Calderdale, Stoke-on-Trent, Epping Forest, Solihull, Redditch, Redbridge, Pendle, Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees, Thurrock and more!

Do you still think “first past the post” is bad for the BNP?

Of course, if people didn’t vote for them, no system would give them a seat.

But the reason the BNP love “first past the post” is that in almost every election they’ve ever “won,” most voters didn’t vote BNP. Most people voted against them. But they still “won”.

The first time BNP councillors were elected in Burnley, their average share of the vote was just 28.1%. Yes – that’s right. Nearly 72% of people voted against them – but thanks to “first past the post,” the BNP won. And that’s how they’ve got in, again and again, “winning” dozens of councillors as the biggest loser. Take a look at this chart of one election they “won”.

So how many councillors would the BNP have had – ever – under the Alternative Vote?

Just one. Ever.

AV lets ‘anyone but the BNP’ become not just a slogan, but a reality. It lets every other voter gang up against them perfectly. Under AV, the BNP need to win an absolute majority; and in a democracy, if more than half the votes are for one party, they have the right to win (again – to stop the BNP winning, you should persuade people not to vote for them).

In the Goresbrook ward of Barking in the 2004 local elections, the BNP candidate won 52% of the vote. That’s the only time they have ever won a true majority of voters. So that is the only time they would ever have won with AV.

Experts and campaigners agree – AV would lock the BNP out. And academic research shows they would get no more influence. If you want to rig the system against the BNP, vote YES! to AV.

No To All Those Lies (Part VII) – Who Is It Who Appeals For BNP Votes, Exactly?

The No Campaign have told nothing lies, more lies and a lot more lies on top of that, because they can’t come up with a case in favour of the current “first past the post” system (where usually the biggest loser “wins” when they’re nowhere near the “post” – even, dozens of times, the BNP). Here’s a useful post knocking down a lot of those different lies, including on the BNP. But there’s one lie – and one liar – it’s appropriate to deal with today.

The No-mongers’ liar-in-chief, Conservative Party “Chairman” Sayeeda Warsi, isn’t much of an expert on elections. In fact, she’s lost so many that the only way she’s managed to get into Parliament is by being made a member of the unelected House of Lords. But you may have heard the unelected Baroness Warsi claim that AV could lead to politicians “pandering to extremism” – even though it actually means parties have to appeal to a majority, not a tiny, hateful minority.

As the BNP’s history of council success shows, it’s “first past the post” that lets small, hateful minority parties “win”. Because “first past the post” doesn’t need a majority – it just needs the ‘biggest loser’.

That means that under “first past the post”, if a big party candidate needs only a bit more support to be ahead of the next biggest party – not a majority, just the ‘biggest loser’ – it pays to tell extremist voters, ‘Your nasty little party can’t win, but vote for me and I’ll be almost nasty enough to make you happy’.

Here’s the proof. Before she was unelected Baroness Warsi, she was unsuccessful candidate Sayeeda Warsi, standing for Parliament in Dewsbury in 2005. And here’s what one of her leaflets said, desperately trying to convince enough BNP voters to vote for her to get ahead:

“Are you thinking of voting BNP? Think again.”
“If you vote BNP you are allowing Labour to creep in with more political correctness and uncontrolled immigration and asylum.”
She told BNP voters the Conservatives are
“the only party that can deliver and put you first.”

Which system has let the BNP in with dozens of seats? “First past the post”. Which system encourages big parties to appeal to just a little bit more votes by pandering to vile, evil, homophobic racists like the BNP? “First past the post”. And who proved the case for AV over “First past the post” by not fighting against the BNP, but promising them more of what they wanted? Leading No-monger unelected Baroness Warsi.

Unelected Baroness Warsi was also caught lying on camera here.

Or, in the interests of political balance, Labour dinosaur David Blunkett – who also appealed to BNP voters with his strident anti-immigrant attacks and generally being an illiberal bully when he was Home Secretary – is, of course, also backing “No”. And in a flash of honesty (carefully timed to be too late to make a difference) he’s admitted today that the No-mongers’ figures are all made up. Well, I told you that already!


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7…!

Labels: Bigotry, British Politics, Proportional Representation, Referendum

My 7th reason to vote YES! to the Alternative Vote tomorrow is quite negative again; that’s what often happens with lower preferences. But as negative campaigning sometimes works… For goodness’ sake, just look at the No campaign! The BNP. Rupert Murdoch. Labour’s authoritarian dinosaurs, with all the Labour reformers voting YES! And most Conservatives – with all the No campaign’s vast cash outspending change coming from the usual Tory millionaires. Why on Earth should the people who have always screamed to stop any change in the history of ever be lying to make you scared of change? It’s a toughie. And why is 0.036% suddenly the biggest number in the world? Read on…

If you made a list of Britain’s most conservative, nasty, authoritarian, reactionary, greedy, tribal, power-hungry, illiberal, unpleasant, wealthy, self-interested, fearmongering, warmongering political rip-off merchants… But look! There’s no need to – the No campaign have saved you the trouble. It’s them.

And from their side, what’s the biggest threat they can muster? ‘We’re afraid of the Liberal Democrats!’ Well, I’m tempted to say, it’s about bloody time! But if you want big scary beasties – why not look to the ones who’ve always had all the power and all the money, not the little fighters who are trying to change it?

Rich Tories

The No campaign have got so many sleazy Tory millions rolling in to back them and so many lying newspapers on their side that David Cameron’s been ashamed every time he’s been asked to take responsibility for it all – even though it’s his party and his donors who’ve created the whole mud-slinging pile of bollocks. No wonder he’s been so desperate to keep under wraps who paid for posters like the infamous ‘be very scared, or the baby gets it’.

So congratulations to those Tory reformers who stick to their principles and support a YES! to the system that the Conservative Party uses in its own elections, even when most of them pretend it’s too good for the rest of us! I wish I could say the same about the honesty of their Leader, but here’s Andrew Rilstone on why David Cameron is a liar.

Poor Ed Miliband

It’s a shame that the Labour Party is split down the middle, as it is so often – or we’d long since have had the referendum they promised, had absolute power to deliver, but never did – between progressives and nasty old conservatives. I feel sorry for poor Ed Miliband, a prisoner of the dinosaurs stomping around him. The Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, supports the Alternative Vote – but most of his MPs want to keep their noses in the trough and ignore him. The last Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, put AV in their General Election Manifesto last year – but most of the MPs elected on that manifesto are ignoring it, too. And the former Labour Leader Neil Kinnock is doing what poor Ed can’t and laying into the Labour dinosaurs who are helping the Tory campaign for a crooked, broken old system that’s helped the Tories more than every other party.

If you’re a Labour voter, why not vote YES! to help poor Ed Miliband?

Paddy Says – Make the Dinosaurs Extinct!

The greatest former Leader for me is still Paddy Ashdown. Unlike the sleazy No-mongers who pretended to speak for our armed forces in claiming our soldiers hate democracy, he’s been a soldier under fire. So forgive me for quoting what he said a couple of weeks ago – it packs a punch:

“I’ve been in politics for a long time. There’s nothing wrong with people of any age getting involved, from a teenager to a centenarian. We can all make a difference.

“But when almost every politician at the top of the ‘No’ campaign was already a dinosaur by the time I was first elected to Parliament in 1983, you have to wonder about the freshness of their arguments.

“Think of the changes Britain has seen during my lifetime – and theirs:

“We’ve joined the European Union. We’ve established a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly for Wales. We’ve voted in proportional representation elections for both – a far bigger change than AV – and the sky hasn’t fallen in.

“And government, always the last to change under Tory and Labour alike, has often been the last to wake up to the incredible social changes that have changed Britain for the better.

“So when those old Labour and Tory hacks gang up to tell you to be afraid of a long-overdue but frankly much smaller change, it tells you far more about their fears than those of the British public. Of course they’re against change. They want to hang on to the present system because it makes life easier for politicians. Well I am more interested in a system that makes life better for the voters!

“I have always tried to appeal to the politics of hope. But too many votes have been decided by fear – and that’s all that the ‘No’ campaign dinosaurs can offer.

“Not one of them can stand up to say ‘Vote positively for First Past the Post – we know it’s a wonderful system!’ They know it’s broken – but they also know it gave them unbroken power – and that’s why they want to hang on to it.

“What could they say? ‘First Past the Post gives you strong government.’ Like that of John Major or Gordon Brown, then? ‘First Past the Post protects you from coalition governments.’ Well I happen to think that coalition Governments are not bad for the country – they’re good for it. But if you disagree then think of this: Australia has had this system for 70 years and has had fewer hung parliaments than Britain has?

“The ‘Yes’ campaign has a powerful message of hope – yes, the current system is broken. But you don’t have to be afraid that nothing can change, and you don’t have to be afraid of that change – take courage! We’re offering a change for the better.

“Here are some facts: in the last twenty years, the governments elected in British General Elections under First Past the Post have had the smallest shares of the vote in our nation’s history, down as far as absolute power on just 35% of the vote. That’s not a popular mandate, when two-thirds of the people voting vote against you.

“The Alternative Vote would make sure that every MP has the support of a majority of their voters. It wouldn’t make every government perfect. But it would give every MP at least the firm democratic basis that so many of them lack today.

“No wonder people are so turned off by politics, when most of them get MPs they voted against.

“At last, the Liberal Democrats in government are delivering a referendum to let the people – no that politicians – decide on making a positive change to a system we’ve said is broken for decades.

“The power for change is in your hands. Will you have the courage to take it?

“Don’t let old fears decide your vote. With the Alternative Vote, there’s hope that things can be better.

“Take courage. Make that change.”

Listen to Paddy. Send an AV asteroid crashing down on that bunch of frightened old dinosaurs lying to you because they’re terrified that the rotten system that put them into power for so long is about to crumble.

No To All Those Lies (Part VI) – A Big Lie, But They’re So Crap the Biggest Number They Can Make Up Is 0.036%

All those Conservative millions have made it much easier for the No Campaign to send out so many lies, lies and more lies, while the poor little YES! campaign’s been strapped for cash. And who but the reactionary millionaires wanting to hang onto a system that gives them more power than their votes deserve who make up and keep repeating lies about the cost of a “Yes” – to distract attention from how much “No” can afford?

With the usual breathtaking chutzpah of a wholly negative campaign, the “No” millionaires made up a number, doubled it, then told everyone it was true. They make up numbers that everyone from the Electoral Commission to the Australian Government, which has been elected by AV for a century, tell you are absolute fiction (electronic vote counting machines? No-one needs them. Totally made up. They do use them in the USA, of course… To count the “first past the post” system we have now. It’s a good job the YES! campaign aren’t as big liars as the No-mongers, or they’d claim ‘keeping the current system means you’ll have to pay for vote-counting machines, even though we don’t use them and never have and no-one wants them!’). And then they tell us Britain can’t afford the numbers they’ve just made up.

They say that a “Yes” would cost £250 million (actually, they can’t add up even their own lies, but I’ll come to that in a minute), and that “We can’t afford it”. Well, even apart from their figure being almost completely made up… Is that the best they can do?

Not only is it a big lie – it’s a really crap lie.

The British Government is to spend £701 billion this year. The huge, immense, bankrupting, unaffordable figure that the No sleazy millions are scaring you with… Is just 0.036% of that spend.

Seriously, that’s not just a stupid and obvious lie, but a rubbish one. ‘An extra 0.036% of Government spending will bankrupt you all!’ Do they think nobody can count? And do they think we’ll all be swayed by the idea that dictatorship is cheaper than democracy?

And, as a third of their figure – the only bit that’s just about true (but still exaggerated) – is the cost of holding the referendum itself… OK – so, if “No” wins, that must mean the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for the referendum. Are the sleazy No-monger millionaires offering to pay the cost if they win, then? Or is that just another lie?


The biggest and best of all articles about the two systems up for grabs in tomorrow’s referendum is by Tim Gowers. It’s detailed, fair – it gives the downsides to the system he favours, too – and it’s brilliantly argued.

You should put aside some time to read it for yourself, but here’s a scathing excerpt knocking down the lies about the cost:

“Here is how the NO2AV campaign breaks down the cost of AV.

“The referendum itself: £91 million.
“Electronic vote counting machines: £130 million.
“Explaining AV to voters: £26 million.

“This adds up to £250 million (or rather, they say it does — actually it adds up to £247 million). We can take that straight down to £156 million with the help of the following simple observation:

“THE REFERENDUM IS HAPPENING ANYWAY! DUH.

“Just to make that point clear, imagine that a group of friends want to go to the cinema. Some people want to see Avatar, which is the film showing in a single-screen cinema just round the corner. But others are not so sure, so they suggest catching a bus to a large multiplex cinema where there are three films that look promising, one of which is Avatar. This plan is agreed upon, and when they are at the multiplex a discussion ensues about which film to watch. The Avatar supporters argue that the cost of the bus fare is an argument against choosing another film, since it would have been possible to watch Avatar without a bus journey. The rest of the group laugh in their faces.

“£156 million is still a lot of money. Luckily we can take it down further: it is a straightforward lie that AV requires electronic vote-counting machines. That gets us down to £26 million.

“Does it take that much money to explain AV to voters? If so, could I please please be the one who is paid £26 million to say ‘Put the candidates in order of preference until you don’t care any more’?”

Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Conservatives, Corruption, Labour, Paddy Ashdown, Referendum

Down to my 6th reason to vote YES! to the Alternative Vote tomorrow, and all of my preferences are still looking pretty good! This one sounds nerdier, but it’s important: one of the key reasons AV means fairer votes is that it stops tactical voting. And that makes it much fairer to the voter – instead of having to decide whether to vote for the candidate you most agree with, or just try and guess who’s best-placed to stop the one you most disagree with, you vote honestly, positively, and if your favourite doesn’t make it, your next choice might.

It’s all part of how AV gives voters more power (my 3rd reason to vote YES!), and the flipside of how you get to put your most-hated candidate right at the bottom (my 5th). It’s common sense – wouldn’t you rather be able to vote for who you really want, without fear that it would ‘let them in’? Don’t be prisoners of fear.

The “No” campaign claim the current system is simple to understand… Well, only if you’re in a ‘safe’ seat and know the same party will get in no matter who you vote for! What actually happens now is that an awful lot of voters have to take a stab in the dark and hope their vote won’t be wasted. Listen to World War II Naval Veteran Ralph’s story on how he fought for democracy, but democracy’s never happened for him.

You know all those leaflets party send out saying ‘Don’t vote for them – they can’t win here’? You can put all those in the bin (even faster than you already do) if you vote YES! to AV. Roy Jenkins’ way of explaining AV’s big boost to voter choice was that: “…it would enable voters to express their second and sometimes third or fourth preferences, and thus free them from a bifurcating choice between realistic and ideological commitment or, as it sometimes is called, voting tactically.”

Or you might have it explained by cats.

Here’s how the current system works. Or doesn’t (from Anthony Smith).



If that doesn’t convince you, here’s a ballot paper worked out by hand, too. “First past the post”? It’s just too complicated for voters to understand!

No To All Those Lies (Part V) – Taking the Piss

All anyone’s had from the No Campaign is lies, lies, more lies, and an extra helping of lies. Obvious, because they can’t come up with a positive case for the current broken system – as you’ve seen above, it’s complicated and wasteful, and a fix to make voters vote against the person they really want. And as it’s the current, broken system that’s really the confusing, unfair system the No-sayers pretend AV is – what better way to answer them than by taking the piss?

So here’s Charlie Brooker on the No campaign’s whirlpool of stupidity (OK, so he doesn’t think much of the Yes campaign, either…).

And look what would happen if the FA cup was decided by “first past the post”? Or if the Premiership was decided by “first past the post”? Madness (I’m reliably informed by friends who give a fuck about football)!


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Referendum

I’ve offered four largely positive reasons to vote YES! to the Alternative Vote on Thursday… But sometimes I’m a grumpy sod, so now I’ve got down to number 5 I’ll admit there are also some very negative reasons to vote YES! Is there a party you hate the most? Or has one politician in your area really pissed you off? Then imagine the satisfaction in putting them all the way at the bottom of your ballot. If the “No” campaign is right that Lib Dems are unpopular, then AV is the system that lets you give us the biggest kicking.

Can I confess that in internal Lib Dem elections I often take some pleasure in putting the people I like most at the top of the ballot, then filling in people I particularly dislike (surely not!) at the bottom…? Which is much more fun. And only then thinking about the order of those I don’t mind in the middle. You don’t have to use more than your top preference, of course – in fact, you can abstain altogether – but knowing you’ve made it more difficult for the person you like least to get elected can be very satisfying.

The Alternative Vote magnifies people’s views, and lets voters gang up on unpopular parties. That means it’s far easier to kick out an unpopular government – if people think a party’s good, or at least ‘OK, I suppose,’ they get a bonus; if they’ve totally fucked up, AV hammers them, because they don’t get many preferences.

Remember the 2005 General Election? Remember the fury at Tony Blair and the Labour Party for their illegal invasion of Iraq and lies about weapons of mass destruction? The Labour Government got just 35.2% of the vote. Nearly two thirds of the country voted against them, giving Labour the smallest share of the vote that a “winning” government has ever had – but they still “won” 355 seat. A comfortable majority.

Vote “YES!” to make unpopular governments a whole lot less comfortable.

Fairer votes might have let all those of us who thought Labour’s warmongering authoritarian smugness needed taking down a peg gang up on them. Instead, as the ‘biggest loser’ under our current system, they were rewarded with absolute power even when two thirds of the country voted them down. They had absolutely no mandate, but still – again – absolute power.

And if you hate the Liberal Democrats as much as I hated Labour, AV lets you give us a thrashing, too. The “No” campaign tell a lot of lies, but one of the stupidest is that the Lib Dems are incredibly unpopular – and that AV would give us more power (it never has to a third party in Australia, where it’s actually used). It is simply not possible for both of these to be true. If the Lib Dems are now widely hated, AV would hammer us.

I believe in fairer votes for the sake of democracy, not just one party, so I’m willing to take that risk. That the “No” campaign tells such lies to scare you just shows their narrow partisan agenda has nothing to do with democracy.

No To All Those Lies (Part IV)

All the No Campaign can do is keep heaping on more lies because they can’t come up with a positive case for the current broken system. But as in this post I’ve almost matched “No” for being negative, why not read some of the reasons why their lies about AV don’t stand up by my friend Andrew Hickey, who’s a big, positive fan of the strengths of the Alternative Vote?


Update: with tonight’s two polls bizarrely showing either “No” just 1% ahead and all to play for – “YES!” voters take note: it’s close as can be, and your vote counts! – or with the biggest lead yet – “No” voters take note: you’re safe, you can sit at home and not bother ;-) – Andrew is very forceful: get out the YES! vote!


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Iraq, Liberal Democrats, Referendum

After my 1st, 2nd and 3rd reasons to vote YES! to the Alternative Vote on Thursday, here’s number 4. You know that, thanks to the current system, in over two thirds of all seats the current MP “won” last year despite over half of their voters voting against them. Well, it’s worse than that in a lot of seats: though most people rejected them, some of these ‘biggest losers’ remain so safe they get jobs for life. But AV means those two thirds of MPs have to work harder, and the ‘safe’ ones suddenly get shocked out of their smugness.

Because AV is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one, it’s not quite powerful to eliminate every ‘safe seat’. But it’s worth voting YES! to our one chance for change to shake up most of them! Some MPs will always work hard, and listen to you no matter who voted for them. And some will be forced to do so because the result in their seat was quite close. But there are a lot in the middle who can sit back and be sure that they’re never going to lose their seat, because even quite sizeable majorities against them are so disorganised between different parties. AV kicks away that unfair prop by letting your preferences get organised enough to kick them out. If you’re the MP in the two thirds of seats where most people voted for someone else and you want to keep your seat, “first past the post” means you can sit back, vote the party line and not listen to anyone but your Leader. If you want to keep your seat under AV, you have to work harder at listening to your voters.

Which would you rather? MPs only listening to each other, or being forced to listen to you? Vote YES! to fairer votes to make MPs work harder.

The safer the MP and the less they have to listen to you, the fact is that the more they ripped you off in that big expenses scandal a couple of years ago. The safer they are and the more they can get away with just trousering their ‘safe’ cash from the taxpayer without working for it, the more likely they are even to take extra jobs when they’re supposed to be working for you, to coin even more cash! It’s common sense – if they think they’ve got a job for life, they don’t care what you think about them. Well, AV makes a lot of those ‘safe’ MPs suddenly scared for their jobs.

Say YES! to fairer votes make your MP scared for their job and keep their fingers out of the till!

I’ve just turned on the telly and seen historian Dan Snow explain simply how AV makes the majority heard. It’s common sense – if you want to get elected, you should need to reach out to the majority in your seat, and AV’s fairer votes make you. Remember that simple illustration of how it works:




Vote YES! to stop MPs being complacent, to cut back their jobs for life, and force them to start listening to you!

No To Lies, More Lies and More Lies Still (Part III)

With the No Campaign telling nothing but lies, more lies and more lies still because they can’t come up with a case in favour of the current broken system, there are too many lies for me to deal with all in one post. But, unlike me, Paddy Ashdown is brilliant, so he can manage it – read how Paddy takes on the lies and negative campaigning and gives them a damned good thrashing.


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Corruption, Paddy Ashdown, Referendum

Time for my third-best reason to vote YES! to the Alternative Vote on Thursday: 1st to get MPs supported instead of opposed by the majority; 2nd to boost your power to throw out crooks; and 3rd, to give everyone more choice with a small but powerful change. So if you want a big change eventually, this is a significant step in that direction; if you’re not entirely sure about change, it’s evolutionary, not revolutionary. AV’s the system used by countless organisations across the UK, including Labour and the Conservative Party (David Cameron wouldn’t be Leader under “first past the post”).

Vote For Change – Powerful Enough To Be Worth Having, Cautious Enough Not To Be Scary

The Alternative Vote isn’t a perfect voting system. There isn’t one! But it’s an awful lot better than “first past the post”, and it’s the best for electing just one person at a time (which is why the Liberal Democrats use it for internal elections for just one person, like party Leader). I’ve always been quite open that the system that gets the balance best is the Single Transferable Vote. That’s the system the Lib Dems think is best (and use in for internal elections for more than one person). Unfortunately, the Lib Dems couldn’t get either the Tories or Labour to support giving the people a choice on STV, but at least we persuaded the Tories to offer you a choice on the Alternative Vote, which is a close relative of STV and gets halfway there. You see, STV has two big points in its favour: it gives voters far more power, by letting them choose candidates in order instead of just having to pick one and cross their fingers; and it’s fairer between parties, because it’s more proportional.

The Alternative Vote’s big value as a change is that it’s a preferential system – it does indeed give voters far more power by letting them choose candidates in order instead of just having to pick one and cross their fingers. It’s not as powerful as STV, because you can only rank candidates of different parties in order of preference, not choose your favourites inside parties as well. And it’s not any more proportional than “first past the post” (no system that only elects one person at a time can be) – but then, some proportional systems give all the power to party machines to choose who’s elected, when I (and the Lib Dems) reckon voters should get the power to put candidates in order. And that’s the advantage of AV – it gives half of the improvement over “first past the post” I’d like, and that’s worth having.

So I want a bigger change, but I’d be happy with a small one to get along with. What if you’re unhappy with the current system, but a bit worried that changing things might make it worse? Then AV is for you. It’s not much more complicated. It doesn’t cost any more money. It doesn’t need to change when or where votes take place, or who counts them. It keeps one MP per seat, and one ballot paper, and – whatever “No” may claim – one person, one vote. It’s just that your vote becomes more powerful, because it contains more choice. And it’s not some new, alien system – thousands of different British organisations use it to choose their officers and committees. Including, despite what some of them are saying in this referendum, the Lib Dems, Labour, and even the Tories.

The Lib Dems Want More Than AV; Labour Promised AV; the Tories Think AV’s So Good They Use It Themselves

One of the No campaign’s biggest lies is that “No-one wants AV”. The Labour Party like it so much that they put it in their General Election manifesto last year (though, colour me stunned, many individual MPs who were elected under the current system have ignored their manifesto to support the old system that gives them their salaries, perks and power). In fact, all three of the main parties (and most of the little ones) think AV’s such a fair system that they use versions of it in their own internal elections. It’s just that some politicians say ‘If it’s good enough for us, it’s good enough for you’, while others say ‘We use it, but you plebs are too stupid to (Help! Help! It would give you plebs too much power!)’.

Prime Minister David Cameron pretends he doesn’t understand it, and tells you it isn’t fair… But if the Tories used the “first past the post” he pretends is so good, he wouldn’t be Prime Minister. He wouldn’t be their Leader. David Cameron was elected because the candidate with the largest number of votes, David Davis, didn’t get majority support – so the voters for the also-ran candidates transferred their votes to Mr Cameron, who they were happier with, and together that put him in the lead. In Labour, too, Ed Miliband won an AV election where his brother would be Leader under “first past the post”. Unlike Mr Cameron’s hypocrisy, both Miliband brothers are honest enough to say they support AV because it’s right, whether it’s good or bad for them personally. In fact, the only party Leader who’d have won with both AV and “first past the post” is Nick Clegg.

AV is such a well-used, traditional British system that you can find people in favour of it from all political views (except the BNP, who are scared to death of it). You can watch TV historian Dan Snow explain our voting history and how AV would affect it. And what about historical figures? Winston Churchill wanted a more proportional system; the “No” lot like to tell you he didn’t think much of AV – but, as they don’t have any positive argument for “first past the post,” it’s no surprise that they never tell you Churchill hated that, too:

“The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.”

I’ve explained why, though AV isn’t perfect, it’s a step forward from that – and it improves on Churchill’s complaint, because it does “secure majority representation” in each seat. Quite a few Conservatives are honest enough to back the system they use for their own elections, too, such as this post from the leading Tory on Swansea Council. Or, if you like, you can read the reasons for change from an excellent Liberal Democrat councillor I know. And I’ve already given the fact that AV has always been the most popular choice for Labour reformers, was backed by the whole Labour Party in their election manifesto just last year and, as I’ve already said, the Labour Leader is campaigning for it (just like his brother).

This is our one chance to vote for change – in the first UK-wide referendum since 1975. Don’t waste it because the change on offer ‘isn’t perfect’.

The important thing about AV is that it gives you more power over all the parties, because it gives you more choice about all their candidates. All the parties know that. That’s why some of them are in favour of it – and some are afraid of it. But remember, all the parties support AV. Some of them in secret, and some of them honestly for the rest of us, too! It’s simple. It’s an easy change to make. And it makes sense – you just put the candidates the parties offer you in order of who you think can best do the job. Who can disagree with that? And why do so many of the people who pretend to disagree with that use it themselves, when nobody’s looking?

No To Lies and More Lies (Part II) – What the People Who’ve Used AV For A Century Say To the Liars

You’ll probably have spotted by now that the No Campaign have been telling lies, more lies and a lot more lies on top of that, because they can’t come up with a case in favour of the current “first past the post” system (where usually the biggest loser “wins” when they’re nowhere near the “post”). Because there are too many lies to deal with all in one post, here’s a second batch…

Although the Alternative Vote is used by thousands of organisations in the UK already (including, of course, the Conservative Party), the biggest set of AV elections on Earth at the moment are to the Australian Parliament, where they’ve used it for a century and have had one person, one vote – by AV – for longer than we have in Britain. So Australian commentators are in quite a good position to point out some of the most ludicrous inventions from the No campaign: why everyone’s votes count the same under AV, when No pretends some people’s count extra; that no-one in Australia is calling for “first past the post,” despite the No campaign pretending people are; and a bumper post dealing with a load of the No campaign’s bizarre delusions at once!


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Conservatives, History, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Referendum

Want to know my second-best reason to say YES! to the Alternative Vote on Thursday? My first’s to stop two thirds of MPs being elected – as they were last year – even though they were losers for most of their voters, with most people voting against them. My second choice reason’s pretty strong, too. Remember all those MPs caught milking our money a couple of years ago? Voting YES! makes it much easier to gang up on a crook and throw them out! And by an amazing coincidence, those MPs most against change were on average the biggest crooks. Gee, wonder why they want to keep the current system?

AV isn’t a magic bullet – if people vote for crooks, they’ll still get in. And some voters love being ripped off, and re-elect fat cats. No electoral system can overcome voter stupidity – though the No campaign reckon every single one of us is too thick to count, and only capable of marking a crude X as we wipe drool from our sagging jaws.

Can you count “1, 2, 3…”? Then you’re capable of voting in an AV election.

And that’s the beauty of it. If you have a crooked MP who you’re longing to get rid of, with AV you don’t have to try and guess who’s best-placed to beat them, and risk splitting the vote so they still get in even though most people vote against them – like a whole two thirds of current MPs. With AV, you don’t have to choose whether to pick someone you don’t like all that much in order to beat someone you hate, and make it look like the candidate you like most isn’t very popular. Just put your choices in order, and the system does the adding up for you to have the best chance of beating the crook!

Voting YES! to AV gives you the power to choose who you want most, and still gang up against your local crook.

Here’s how AV works – Giving Your Vote More Power

In the most detail, top thoughtful blogger Andrew Rilstone explains.

If you prefer someone to explain in person, here’s a video of TV historian Dan Snow explaining the system.

And, most simply of all, a graphic (from here) that sums it up:

No To Lies (Part I) – Those Leaflets and That Video

Meanwhile, the No Campaign have been telling lies. And more lies. And a lot more lies on top of that. They don’t think anyone could possibly support the current “first past the post” system (where usually the biggest loser “wins” when they’re nowhere near the “post”) on its merits. Well, except for the two thirds of the MPs who owe all their salaries, all their perks and all their power to the current system letting them “win” when more than half their voters vote against them. But ‘Let me keep my salaries, all their perks and all their power even though most of you hate me’ isn’t a winning argument, is it? So all they’ve got left is telling lies to make you too afraid to vote YES!

In fact, there are too many lies to deal with all in one post. So here’s a start.

You know the “No” leaflet you’ve had through your door? Here’s a simple guide to why it’s all a lie.

And here’s a leaflet that “No” haven’t actually produced, but give them time (note: this isn’t a lie. It’s satire).

And did you watch the “No” video? No, better things to do with your time, probably. But it turns out that’s all big fat lies too!


Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try 1 of my other YES! reasons. Or 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Corruption, Referendum

Not made up your mind yet about Thursday’s referendum? I’m voting YES! to the Alternative Vote. It’s the best choice on the ballot paper for many reasons – but, as it’s all about letting voters have more power by picking candidates in order of preference, here’s my first choice in favour of AV. Not the only one, but, for me, the best.

Two thirds of all MPs today were “winners” last year with more people voting against them that voted for them.

Two thirds of all MPs today are opposed to reforming the system on Thursday.

What an amazing coincidence!

In the system we have now and in AV, if any candidate gets more than half of the vote, they’ve won. Simple as that. But the “No” campaign says that if you lose the vote of more than half the people, you should still “win”. “Yes” means something better: a system that means MPs need at least half of their voters in favour. So that’s the purpose of giving us all the chance to put potential MPs in order.


You know, when I make a speech, one of the oldest rhetorical flourish is the ‘rule of three’ – make three points, and you give the third more oomph. So it would have been satisfying to finish off my two “two thirds” with a third. I’d like to be able to give you the shocking figure that as many as two thirds of people have voted against an MP who still “won” – but that would have been an understatement. The current ‘biggest loser wins’ system means that some MPs have “won” with almost three quarters of their voters against them.

And this isn’t something that only ever benefits Labour and the Tories – though they do get the biggest bonus from the current system. In last year’s General Election, Liberal Democrat Simon Wright “won” Norwich South with just 29.4% of the vote, and 70.6% against. But he’s honest – even though that dodgy electoral system put him in Parliament, he’s committed to changing it, even at personal peril. And the first General Election I was involved in was 1992, when Liberal Democrat Russell Johnson “won” Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber with only 26% of the vote, and a gigantic 74% against! But he, too, was committed to changing the electoral system even when it did him good.

So that’s why I call the current system ‘biggest loser wins’ instead of the “No” campaign’s propaganda that it’s “First Past the Post”. Where is that post, exactly? The only one that matters is just past half the votes – any less, and you can still lose. Or still win. Entirely at random. And two thirds of those MPs who “won” last year by “First Past the Post” did so well short of the post. It’s hardly a winning post when you flop down barely halfway along the course and they have to carry the “winning post” back to you, is it?

Put simply:


Vote “YES!” on Thursday and you get a winning post that everyone can see – cross 50% of the votes, and you win. Pull up short, and you don’t deserve to!


M’aidez! M’aidez! Someone sent me the above graphic illustration of why even the term “first past the post” is a big fat lie, but I don’t know who created it. If anyone has a link, please let me know so I can give appropriate credit.


Whichever way you decide, this is the first UK-wide referendum since most of us were old enough to be able to vote. So don’t waste your vote – use it on Thursday.





Not completely convinced yet to vote #Yes2AV? Try one of my other YES! reasons. Or 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8…!

Labels: British Politics, Referendum, The Golden Dozen