The EU, Fluffy Handcuffs and the Alternative Vote #yes2av #argh2av #no2av

What's the best thing to do when you're being pelted with lies, inaccuracies and emotionally charged nonsense?

Disarming with humour is usually quite an effective tactic and a genius has come up with the perfect antidote to the No2AV Campaign's latest advertising campaign. The No2AV ad features a series of heart rending images of babies or soldiers, for example, with a caption saying "he needs a maternity unit/bulletproof vest/ etc not an alternative voting system.  The thing is that No2AV are talking complete bollocks about the cost of introducing AV which they put at £250 million because they say that costly counting machines will have to be bought. No so. They aren't needed and the vested interests within No2AV, who want to preserve power in the hands of a small elite rather than give it to voters, are cynically using vulnerable groups to promote their nonsense rather than argue the merits of the system, or indeed defend first past the post. You can see an example of the ad on the brand spanking new Total Politics website. It seems a little less overwhelming seeing it today on my laptop than it did yesterday when I saw it on my iPhone

If you've been on another planet for the last 24 hours, or aren't on Twitter or Facebook, you may not have noticed a serious of messages saying such things as "Margaret Beckett needs a pony not an alternative voting system" or my favourite "The EU needs fluffy handcuffs not an alternative voting system."  There are all manner of variations on those themes so you can find hours of amusement on the Argh to AV site. It runs on the same principle as the brilliant Daily Mail -o-matic headline generator.  I suspect some sort of award for digital campaigning will come the way of Argh to AV in the future.

With just over two months to go before polling day, I can't imagine that the bottom of the No2AV barrel has yet been scraped. Heaven knows what they'll come up with next.

Clegg and Cameron: People love a good argument

I'm not sure whether to be amused or bemused at the coverage of Nick Clegg and David Cameron's speeches on the AV Referendum today. I mean, all the headlines seem to have the word "clash" or some variation of it. Is this because people would much rather read about people having a row than a well mannered debate?

There was never any obligation for Clegg and Cameron to take the same side on this issue, nor any expectation from anyone in either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats that they would. 

Today, just 36 hours after the Act allowing the Referendum to definitely go ahead on 5th May, Clegg and Cameron set out their opposing views in separate speeches. If nothing else, the attention that this attracts will hopefully stimulate interest in the referendum and the portrayal of it as a bit of a stooshie might help with that, however inaccurate it might be.

Nick Clegg's speech is reproduced in full below from his website, where you can also see his interview with the BBC on the subject. I will write in more detail about the content of both Clegg and Cameron's speeches soon, but after two days of late nights at my sister's, tonight is going to be an early one for me.

Enjoy Nick's speech:

It is nearly two years since the expenses scandal broke but the damage it did to our politics remains.

The reputations of MPs and Parliament are still tarnished.

That’s because the problems at the heart of our politics go deeper than expenses.

Cash for honours. Cash for questions.

Former cabinet ministers for hire.

Family members paid £40,000 a year to do nothing.

For years now, huge numbers of people have chosen not to vote because they think it doesn’t matter. They think their voice will be ignored.

Who can blame them?

For years, politicians and parties have courted the votes of a few thousand people in marginal seats and ignored the rest.

For years, MPs with jobs for life have put their feet up and taken you for granted.

For years, single parties formed governments when barely a quarter of the people voted for them.

No wonder people have given up caring.

No wonder confidence in politics is so low.

No wonder people are so ready to believe the worst about their politicians.

Westminster is often referred to as the mother of all parliaments.

Our democracy should be a shining beacon to people across the world.

It should be something we can be proud of. Yet, so often, it is not.

There is no single way to solve our problems. They can’t all be fixed over night. But there are changes we can make.

We can give people the right to sack corrupt MPs.

We can stop MPs speculating on the property market with your money.

We can bring democracy to the House of Lords.

We can make sure every vote is worth the same.

And we can change the way we vote so that no one’s vote is wasted and MPs are forced to work harder to win and keep your support.

We have a chance to do that this May when the Fairer Votes referendum takes place.

What’s wrong with First Past the Post?

The choice in May is between two ways of voting, the First Past the Post system we use now and a new way, the Alternative Vote or AV.

It is no secret that the Prime Minister and I come at this from different directions.

What we do agree on is that the people know best. We both want as many people as possible to get involved and make their feelings known at the ballot box.

And what we are clear about is that this referendum is not about the Coalition Government.

Whatever the result we will continue to work together in the national interest.

Before I talk about why I believe the Alternative Vote is a fairer system I want to talk briefly about the one we have now.

First Past the Post was perfect for a time when the choice was only ever between two parties.

But that hasn’t been the case for a long time, not only because of the Liberal Democrats but other parties too - the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales, the Green Party and UKIP.

Politics has changed and it has changed for the better.

It is more reflective of the broad range of opinions in British society.

In 1951 the two old parties shared 97% of the vote.

In 2010 they couldn’t muster two thirds.

Research has found that the result of the last election was decided by fewer than 500,000 votes.

That’s out of nearly 40 million eligible voters.

And last year more than two-thirds of MPs were elected with fewer than half the voters in their constituencies choosing them.

That means most of us are represented by an MP that most of us did not vote for.

Where is the democracy in that?

Where is the legitimacy in that?

What was fit for the 1950s is not fit for the 21st century.

First Past the Post leads to a whole host of problems.

It makes politicians more concerned with getting their own supporters out than to appealing to anyone else.

It means that MPs can go about their business without ever having to appeal to the majority of their constituents.

Surely we can all agree that MPs should work hard for your vote.
Yet increasingly First Past the Post makes it easy for MPs to ignore you altogether.

Under First Past the Post, there are huge numbers of MPs with jobs for life in places where one party wins election after election and no one else stands a chance.

If you live in one of these places and you don’t support that party, what are you supposed to do?

You either vote, knowing deep down your vote is wasted, or you just don’t even bother.

It is because there are so many MPs with jobs for life that there are so many who can take their constituents for granted.

And it is because there were so many MPs taking their constituents for granted that so many abused their expenses.

There was a clear link between how safe an MP’s seat was and how likely they were to abuse the system.
When a person is corrupt they should be punished.
When a system makes corruption more likely it should be changed.

So no, First Past the Post is not working.

It is out of date and it is at the heart of so many of the reasons that people don’t engage in or care about politics.

It means most MPs are elected without the support of most of the people they are supposed to represent.

It means millions of votes make no difference whatsoever.

It means millions of voices going unheard.

First Past the Post is not working and it’s time to do something better.

Why AV is better

Under the Alternative Vote, politicians will need to aim to get half of their constituents to choose them.

That means they will have to work harder to appeal to more people than before.

It means they will have to reach out to people who were ignored under First Past the Post.

It means they will no longer be able to rely on just their core supporters and ignore everyone else.

They will be more legitimate and will carry a stronger mandate from a broader range of people.

That can only be good for our democracy.

Under the Alternative Vote, there will be fewer MPs with jobs for life in safe seats.

That means people whose voices have been ignored will be listened to again.

It means that parties will have to compete for votes in every corner of the country and not just those few marginal seats.

It means more people get listened to and more respect for the different opinions and feelings we share as a nation.

That can only be good for our democracy.

Under the Alternative Vote, there need never be another wasted vote.

That means you can use your vote positively.

It means you can feel confident voting for the person or party you want to win and not have to think tactically about who can win.

That can only be good for our democracy.

The Alternative Vote puts you back in charge.
You get a bigger say in who your MP is. A bigger foothold in our democracy. A bigger stake in our country.

And that will mean more people getting interested and involved in politics, knowing that their voices will be heard and that their actions can have a real impact.

And that can only be good for our democracy.

The Alternative Vote is a simple change that will make a huge difference. It means MPs working harder, more voices being heard and power put back where it belongs - with you.

Taking on critics

Opponents of AV say it is too complicated.

In fact it’s really simple.

It’s as easy as 1-2-3.

All you do is put a number one next to the person or party you want to win.

You put a number two next to your second favourite and a three next to your third favourite.

And if you only want to vote for one person then you can.

They use a form of AV in Australia and we use it to elect the Mayor of London.

It’s not too complicated for Australians or Londoners.

This is not some strange, complex system. It’s simple and it’s fairer.

Opponents of AV say it is somehow against British tradition.

Nonsense.

The beauty of the Alternative Vote is that it is evolution not revolution.

It’s a small change which will make a big difference.

It not only keeps the link between MPs and their constituents, it strengthens it.

Opponents of AV say that it will produce unstable governments.

This could not be further from the truth.

The Alternative Vote can and will produce strong, stable governments.

Research looking at every election since 1983 shows that if AV had been used the same party would have won and formed a Government, if with a different majority. But all MPs will have had to work harder for your vote.

The only election that would have resulted in a hung parliament was last year’s, just as it did under First Past the Post.

Australia has had AV for 80 years and they’ve had fewer hung parliaments than we have with First Past the Post.

Summary

Do you remember how it felt when you heard about MPs spending your money on duck houses and having their moat cleaned?

Do you live somewhere where the same party wins every time and you feel powerless?

Do you ever look at politicians and parties and think these people don’t care about me?

That's what this is about.

We deserve something different.

We deserve something better.

We deserve a new way of doing things.

First Past the Post doesn’t work any more.

It leaves too many voices unheard.

It leaves too many people powerless.

It is at the heart of why so many people don’t vote.

The Alternative vote is better, fairer.

It puts you back in charge and makes MPs work harder for your vote.

When we have the chance to clean up politics and make our democracy better we should take it.

We have the opportunity to do that in May by voting Yes to Fairer Votes.

A trio of good news on forests, housing benefit and defeated dinosaurs

Honestly, I turn my back for five minutes, and loads of good things happen.

First of all, the ridiculous plans to sell off forests in England are being shelved, according to the BBC after attracting vocal opposition from rural campaigner and MPs like the Liberal Democrat President Tim Farron. This reminds me of how similar plans were scrapped in Scotland after opposition from Scottish Liberal Democrats including leader Tavish Scott.

Secondly, it seems that Housing Benefit will not be cut for people who have been unemployed for a year. I know that Liberal Democrat Ministers have been fighting hard within the Government to make that happen, first delaying the change and now getting rid of it completely. There is much to welcome in the Government's Welfare Reform Bill, published today. I wrote about the proposals in November, highlighting the good things, and the stings in the tail I didn't like.

Both of these show a Government that is more willing to listen than any I've known in my life. It's also the first Government to have Liberal Democrats in it in my life.This is not all about serendipity.  I think that the nature of Coalition Government has meant that the tone is softer. When was the last time that a Tory Government reconsidered a planned change to the benefits system, for example?

Finally, the Labour and Tory dinosaurs in the House of Lords who were trying to derail the AV referendum have failed. The Bill received Royal Assent at pretty much the eleventh hour last night. The referendum will now take place on 5th May as planned. I liked this recent post from Mark Pack which drew some surprising conclusions about the nature of political reform.

Anyway, I can now go back to being led astray by my little sister. Seriously, there was no wine drunk in the house last night until she came back from work at midnight. It must be her fault. See you tomorrow.

Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Stephen Fry back fairer votes #yes2av

I fully subscribe to the notion that it is not possible to have too much Stephen Fry or Colin Firth in your life. I have been successful in passing this philosophy onto my daughter who has long adored the former and is now getting quite into the latter.

I'm pleased to see that Stephen and Colin head up a list of celebs who are backing the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaign. Martin Bell, Joanna Lumley, Firth's King's Speech co-star Helena Bonham-Carter, Art Malik, Eddie Izzard, Billy Bragg, John Cleese and Tony Robinson.

Colin Firth said:

"The referendum is a once in a generation opportunity to change our clapped out politics for good. I’ll be voting Yes."

I liked Stephen Fry's comment, too:

"The last couple of years have been faintly depressing for anyone who cares about the health of our political system.  Yes, Westminster has made a start putting its house in order, but we still have a voting system in place that is not up to the job."

But it's not really about celebs, is it? Ordinary people up and down the country explain why they will be voting yes in the referendum in a new campaign video. Their reasons include wanting to make their MP sweat, being fed up of having to vote tactically and negatively to keep someone out rather than put someone in and wanting to ensure that people's votes are heard and that they count.


One contributor is 16 year old Niamh Francis from Edinburgh. She isn't old enough to vote in May, but knows what she wants for the future:

"I’ll be too young to cast my vote in this referendum, but it’s my voice at stake just the same.  I’m joining this campaign because when I vote for the first time I want it to mean something. I don’t want to have to vote tactically. I want to vote for something not against something."

Here's the video in full.




Oh, and if you hear the No lot talking about having to spend a fortune on counting machines, it's nonsense. They count the votes by hand in Australia and in fact in the US, their electronic voting system was considered a barrier to implementing AV. It's interesting to note that the No Campaign, made up primarily of those with power protecting their vested interests, spends its time scaremongering, while the yes campaign has ordinary people telling a positive story.

The BBC, Fairer Votes and Reform

Reform.

What's that all about?

Well, a quick google gives this as a dictionary definition.

re·form  (r-fôrm)v. re·formed, re·form·ing, re·formsv.tr.
1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
2.a. To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.b. To put an end to (a wrong). See Synonyms at correct.
3. To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life.
v.intr.
To change for the better.
n.
1. A change for the better; an improvement.
2. Correction of evils, abuses, or errors.
3. Action to improve social or economic conditions without radical or revolutionary change.

By any standards, changing the voting system so that MPs have to work harder to win the trust of half of their voters* is a change for the better, and deserves to be called a reform.

The BBC high heed yins have apparently issued guidance barring its presenters from using the word "reform" in this context. Even if you don't agree with it, that organisation calls any sort of Government proposal for change "reform" so not to do so is inconsistent.

To me, it's the BBC being timid.  This is an example of the BBC risking their impartiality by being too cautious, pandering to the No to AV campaign, which is made up of powerful people trying to protect their vested interests.

The Yes to Fairer Votes people are writing to the BBC Director General to complain. When I signed up on Monday afternoon, only around 2,800 people had signed. Now it's nearly 13,000.

If you haven't already, why don't you sign up and let's see if we can get to 15,000 by the end of the day.

*Post updated to make clear that the person elected under AV secures a majority of the votes cast. Under the current system, for example such as in Oldham East and Saddleworth in May 2010, the MP was elected on a mere 31% of the votes cast.

News from the Fairer Votes people - they need YOU!

Here is the latest campaign video from those nice people who are running the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign.

They are working hard to make sure that the referendum is won next May 5th. There are a lot of powerful vested interests who don't want to see change. They don't want MPs to have to work harder, and they don't see why an MP should have the support of even half their electorate.That's why the Yes to AV people need lots of volunteers to add to the 150,000 people who've already signed up.

I know that you may well have an inbox full of help requests, or maybe have had a phone call. In the run up to Christmas, it's so busy and hard to find time to commit to things, but over the holidays, think about offering them some time, support and money.