Wednesday, 4 May 2011


Like you, I will vote NO - but maybe my reasons are different.

As an example of patronising, insular arrogance and presumed superiority of intelligent thought, I had a Tory canvasser at the door two weeks ago, who annoyed me very much. When I explained my exact reasons for choosing NO, he was happy to say that I AGREED WITH DAVID CAMERON. I said I did not agree with him; it was CAMERON who agreed with ME, because I worked all this out myself with my limited and inferior peasant brain, many weeks before Cameron spouted off his feeble opinions and support of the NO lobby. This he does purely for expedience and political reasons, not from genuine belief or convictions about the best voting system.

Meanwhile, his poodle Nicky says that AV would reduce MP expenses abuse, as any MP voted in would be wary of his actions - unlike the previous (and current) bunch of fraudsters and thieves who helped themselves freely. Cleggy reckons that because they were not monitored or controlled, it's "little wonder they dipped their hands into the till - there was nothing to stop them." I have news for this brainless puppet - any ONE of the following would have stopped them: decency, morality, honesty, responsibility, integrity, knowing right from wrong and being as honourable as the title "right honourable gentleman" once meant. I presume Claggy Cleggy accepts that these qualities are no longer demanded of today's MPs. I don't accept it - anyway, I don't want to see expenses abuse "reduced": nothing short of complete elimination will satisfy ME!

Whether by AV or anything else, no elected MP's (mis)behaviour with expenses will change.

I had many reservations about AV ages ago, but what finally pushed me was John Reid of all people (Cameron's unlikely ally in the NO camp) - he expressed so clearly and articulately the seriously anti-democratic problem of totally destroying the ancient basic principle of "One man - one vote" (which in the last century became "One person - one vote"). My democratic right is exactly equal to yours - to demand that MY vote is counted only ONCE in favour of my chosen candidate, not repeatedly used for the potential benefit of the candidates that I DON'T want!

This AV: "One person - a variable number out of several votes" is unfair, unbalanced and (have we all forgotten this?) NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VOTERS' WISHES.

Only three countries use it, one of which now wants to get rid of it.

As Dirty Harry said, "I hate the system and will always criticise it - but until someone comes along with a better one that makes more sense, I'll work within the current one." For all its stupidities and weaknesses, the creaky, current so-called "first past the post" method is far more preferable to the nonsense of AV.

However, my big question is this, given the whinings over the last half century by Lib Dems, SDLP (anyone remember them?) and Liberals before them - WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THEIR PRESSING DESIRES FOR PR? This works already in Northern Ireland, the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and half of the world's democracies, including most "member states" (formerly countries) of the EU. Why has nobody mentioned PR at all during this important debate? Are we being fooled by a conspiracy that only two systems exist - the current one and AV?

If any one of you doesn't know what PR is, then I will believe that the above conspiracy did exist - and has succeeded.

Puzzled Anonymous

No comments: