"A miserable little compromise"

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, it is not over yet, but the way it is going , it looks as if the UK has rejected AV by something like 2 to 1.

I think both campaigns were badly done.

The No vote made claims like 'it will need vote counting machines', and 'it will favour extremists'.
Well the BNP rejected AV, while the Greens backed it.
And David Blunkett himself has said that the claims about the alleged costs of AV were ' made up', and no, machines would not be needed either.

On the No side, a lot of celebs were wheeled out - now Colin Firth is a great actor, but what has this got to do with politics?

AV was rejected at first as a 'miserable little compromise' - but it was all that cameron would allow. The rejection of AV, though, is no mark against Proportional Representation, for AV makes no claims for being Poportional - just a bit of an improvement on FPTP. Oh, it will kick the argument into the long grass for decades, I know - but the government did not allow a referendum on PR , it just posited FPTP against AV, and AV lost. This does not prove that FPTP is wonderful by default, though.

Consider this -
Tony Blair, when last elected, led the Labour Party to victory on a mere 35% of the vote.
That is hardly ' A Mandate From the People', is it?

If you get a mere 35% of the vote, you should have got 35% of the seats in the House of Commons.
Maybe you disagree - if so, please tell us why.

It is argued that we will have coalition governments no end if we switch to PR. Well, let me remind you that we have a coalition right now in the UK. So, at least give us a coalition that reflects our choices , not yours, Dave.
"A coalition " some argue " leads to horse trading , to dodgy deals and compromises behind locked doors."

Highly perjorative language, I think. I venture to suggest that it will cause politicians to sit down and talk seriously like grown ups in order to thrash out a workable agreement that most people are happy with.

Oh - I have a bad memory I know - but wasn't it when Tony Blair had an incredibly strong Majority, and nobody was really acting as an effective Opposition that he took Britain into a war over the missing WMDs that never got found? I don't actually want a governmen that can do that - i much prefer a government that has to ask around and get agreements - it stops them from doing anything that's really silly, y'know .

And a government that is secure behind a 35% result that gives a massive majority is more likely to sneer and go in for grandstanding - the making of cheap and personal insults at the opposition instead of trying to reach some eort of agreement with them.

David Cameron was reminded of a remark he once made - he claimed that his favourite political joke was Nick Clegg. So, what did he say now that he had been forced to accept him as his Deputy Prime Minister? A certain amount of humble pie was eaten , let me tell you. If this serious and humble attitude is the result of coalitions, let's have more of them, I reckon.
I much prefer to see politicians take the job seriously that carrying on like abadly behaved class of schoolkids.

But, people argue, Coalitions lead to weak government and to weak economies - like Germany's you mean ? No, I didn't think so.

So, let's forget AV - it was offered as an alternative, but is not the real deal. The Greens, including me, have always maintained that we were using AV as a stepping stone to STV anyway.

So - STV or not to be, that is the question
whether tis nobler in the mind to allow someone to take us into a war on a mere 35% of the votes, or to suffer the endless rounds of negotiations that will ensue?

First Past the Post - is it really the electoral system most widely used, or is that just Cameron's hype again?

Where people have several political parties competing , as in the UK, what would suit us best?