Sigh...
UPDATE: Here's a screenshot in case they change it:
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Friday, 29 May 2009
Why do people think a referendum on AV+ is a prize worth having?
James Graham has done an excellent post on the flaws of AV+ so I won't repeat the same points (writing down exactly what I wanted to say yet again, I must unplug that LibDem hive mind connection...) but merely to pick up on one aspect.
Why is it that anyone thought a referendum on AV+ was a good thing and something that is somehow a prize that should be compromised and fought for? Regardless of the flaws of the system,
WE WOULD LOSE the referendum!
James says "At the height of Blairite hysteria and the depth of the Tory nadir, we MIGHT have been able to pull it off. But can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that it could be won now?"
Here I disagree with him slightly. I don't think it ever could have been won.
The "PR will lead to a politicians' stitch-up behind close doors" argument, whilst we all know why it's wrong, is a very powerful argument in the public mind. Anything that even smells slightly of a politicians' arrangement away from the voters will get short shrift and I'm afraid the top-up element of AV+ does smell wrong and always will to the public at large.
Many years ago when I was at university, we, the LibDems there (and I suspect this is a very familiar story) proposed replacing the current system of inquorate Union General Meetings (UGMs) with a student council. At the time what happened was that every month the UGM would be inquorate and so the small Exec (dominated by career Labourites who thought they were socialists but who magically forgot any principles when they got a whiff of power in the party later - I said it was a familiar story!) would just make the decisions themselves. We thought this through a lot and with the idealism that only a student can have came up with a very thorough proposal. A council of 60 members elected by STV, elected by thirds, UGMs still sovereign etc. We somehow manged to get a referendum called on the same day as the annual union elections (otherwise no-one would vote). We were up-beat, we happily plastered the place with our "Pro-chance" stickers and went round persuading people. Everything was going well until the existing cabal of politicians who held the power started using the simple argument:
"It will just mean more politicians"
That really killed it stone dead. However right we were we just could get over this objection, however much we explained it to people that it wouldn't be politicians it would be them. That was it.
Now, I know that's just a unremarkable story of youthful idealism, but people really don't see politicians as one of them and anything that seems like a system for politicians rather than something coming from the people will lose. I think that's what did it for the North East elected assembly referendum. I bet several of us were surprised by the size of the no vote there.
I was always amazed that we fought so hard for something, to my mind, could never be achieved (winning an AV+ referendum). In retrospect I think we also made a grave tactical error in allowing through the current rubbish system we have for Europe (which really is a politician's system) and not holding out for something better. The PR system for Europe really has set back the argument for electoral reform I think.
But I am straying into a post that's been buzzing round my head for days "How to sell electoral reform", I shall probably commit it to the electronic page once I've dithered and everyone has written what I wanted to say better as usual!
Why is it that anyone thought a referendum on AV+ was a good thing and something that is somehow a prize that should be compromised and fought for? Regardless of the flaws of the system,
WE WOULD LOSE the referendum!
James says "At the height of Blairite hysteria and the depth of the Tory nadir, we MIGHT have been able to pull it off. But can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that it could be won now?"
Here I disagree with him slightly. I don't think it ever could have been won.
The "PR will lead to a politicians' stitch-up behind close doors" argument, whilst we all know why it's wrong, is a very powerful argument in the public mind. Anything that even smells slightly of a politicians' arrangement away from the voters will get short shrift and I'm afraid the top-up element of AV+ does smell wrong and always will to the public at large.
Many years ago when I was at university, we, the LibDems there (and I suspect this is a very familiar story) proposed replacing the current system of inquorate Union General Meetings (UGMs) with a student council. At the time what happened was that every month the UGM would be inquorate and so the small Exec (dominated by career Labourites who thought they were socialists but who magically forgot any principles when they got a whiff of power in the party later - I said it was a familiar story!) would just make the decisions themselves. We thought this through a lot and with the idealism that only a student can have came up with a very thorough proposal. A council of 60 members elected by STV, elected by thirds, UGMs still sovereign etc. We somehow manged to get a referendum called on the same day as the annual union elections (otherwise no-one would vote). We were up-beat, we happily plastered the place with our "Pro-chance" stickers and went round persuading people. Everything was going well until the existing cabal of politicians who held the power started using the simple argument:
"It will just mean more politicians"
That really killed it stone dead. However right we were we just could get over this objection, however much we explained it to people that it wouldn't be politicians it would be them. That was it.
Now, I know that's just a unremarkable story of youthful idealism, but people really don't see politicians as one of them and anything that seems like a system for politicians rather than something coming from the people will lose. I think that's what did it for the North East elected assembly referendum. I bet several of us were surprised by the size of the no vote there.
I was always amazed that we fought so hard for something, to my mind, could never be achieved (winning an AV+ referendum). In retrospect I think we also made a grave tactical error in allowing through the current rubbish system we have for Europe (which really is a politician's system) and not holding out for something better. The PR system for Europe really has set back the argument for electoral reform I think.
But I am straying into a post that's been buzzing round my head for days "How to sell electoral reform", I shall probably commit it to the electronic page once I've dithered and everyone has written what I wanted to say better as usual!
Thursday, 28 May 2009
"They want to go now into bed with a bunch of serious, serial nutters for a start"
There is a great new interview with Nick Clegg in the New Statesman in which he doesn't hold back on his thoughts on the establishment system and parties. I thoroughly recommend it!
Go Nick! Finally I see a LibDem narrative coming over the hill
Nick's proposals to strike when the iron is hot, "bar the gates" and lock MPs in until they agree on reforms is exactly the kind of thing we should be saying. It's almost a direct response to my blogpost yesterday. (Yes, I know, I'm not that naive!)
Exposing Cameron's proposals for the window-dressing they are and drawing a clear dividing line between us and the establishment is exactly what is required.
My heart leapt when I heard the headline on the Today programme this morning. Let's just see how long it takes for this story to permeate the BBC news website.
I know I carp a lot (why are all the minor parties' party political broadcast all better than ours, no matter how loony, for instance!) but sometimes we do hit it spot on (AV+ equivication notwithstanding).
Exposing Cameron's proposals for the window-dressing they are and drawing a clear dividing line between us and the establishment is exactly what is required.
My heart leapt when I heard the headline on the Today programme this morning. Let's just see how long it takes for this story to permeate the BBC news website.
I know I carp a lot (why are all the minor parties' party political broadcast all better than ours, no matter how loony, for instance!) but sometimes we do hit it spot on (AV+ equivication notwithstanding).
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
LibDems score well in MEP league of working for a more open, democratic EU
This Press Release from Open Europe contains the heartening news that Liberal Democrat MEPs beat both Labour and the Conservatives in their league table of UK MEPs' "openness" voting record.
We are beaten into 3rd place by both the Greens and the SNP who only have 2 MEPs apiece.
The other important point to take from this (bearing in mind Nigel Farage is on tomorrow's Question Time) is that UKIP are way down this league.
We should be shouting this from the rooftops!
Their league table looks like this:
We are beaten into 3rd place by both the Greens and the SNP who only have 2 MEPs apiece.
The other important point to take from this (bearing in mind Nigel Farage is on tomorrow's Question Time) is that UKIP are way down this league.
We should be shouting this from the rooftops!
Their league table looks like this:
Party Number of MEPs Average score per MEP
1. Green Party 2 39.5
2. Scottish National Party 2 38.5
3. Liberal Democrats 11 35
4. Conservative Party 28 29.5
5. Labour 19 29.3
6. Independents 4 26.75
7. UKIP 9 24.89
UPDATE: Looks like LibDemVoice beat me to it!
BBC can't do maths. Alex Salmond can (for some value of can)
The Guardian's Media Monkey has the story.
Apparently in a BBC webcast, Alex Salmond was asked by a member of the public what 24 divided by zero (24/0) is. He, not unreasonably, said "infinity" (the proper answer is "undefined" but I'd give him that). The BBC presenter said this was wrong and the right answer was zero (sigh, this is the total opposite of being right!).
Funnily enough a newspaper then picked up this story and repeated the unfounded allegations (now where has this happened before?) about Mr Salmond's maths ability.
After a complaint to the PPC, the Scotsman had to apologise for it's article "Salmond stumped by a mother's maths question"!
Apparently in a BBC webcast, Alex Salmond was asked by a member of the public what 24 divided by zero (24/0) is. He, not unreasonably, said "infinity" (the proper answer is "undefined" but I'd give him that). The BBC presenter said this was wrong and the right answer was zero (sigh, this is the total opposite of being right!).
Funnily enough a newspaper then picked up this story and repeated the unfounded allegations (now where has this happened before?) about Mr Salmond's maths ability.
After a complaint to the PPC, the Scotsman had to apologise for it's article "Salmond stumped by a mother's maths question"!
A Broadcast from the English Democrats was just emailed to me
The above email was just sent to me due to some "green" scheme or other I signed up to (must review that!).
Firstly, I wonder how this will be reflected in their election expenses and secondly, should we be doing something like this? :)
Should be using existing non-political networks like this? Also why not say things like "Clean up MPs, Vote LibDem"? I know we've been shying away from it but we can justify it and think we should welcome the questioning on such a provocative and non-establishment stance (the answer being our extensive reforms that the others wouldn't dare do).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
