Friday, 18 February 2011

Some thoughts on AV and the reasons for (and of) it.......

Following my earlier post today, is not a referendum on AV one that has been arrived at by possible 'consultation' - and, dare I say, 'collusion' - amongst the Lib/Lab/Con?

Consider the question of UKIP and Green votes during the counting and 'knock-out' stages. It can be argued that, more than likely, UKIP second preference votes will, in general, be for the Conservative candidate and that Green second preference votes will, in general, be for Labour or Liberal Democrat Candidates. In other words, what is being 'foisted' upon the electorate is a choice whereby the Lib/Lab/Con retain their hold on British politics and one which enables one, or two of them, to retain their hands on the 'reigns of power'.

It is about time the British electorate asked themselves a question that I always ask myself when a politician proposes a course of action - namely, whats 'in it' for them!

A further oddity is the position adopted by UKIP, who are now backing a 'Yes' vote on AV, yet it is not the system proposed in their manifesto, which is AV+. It does seem rather contradictory that a party who consistently argues against undemocratic rule from Brussels is accepting that self-same undemocratic rule at home, bearing in mind the point made in my previous post and repeated below - a position which I would suggest presents a rather mixed message to the voting public.

As I have stated previously, surely there is a principle involved here in that if the system by which MPs are elected is to be changed, should it not be the people that decide that and make that decision based on all the alternative methods - FPTP, AV, AV+, STV, AM, PR etc? Would it not be more logical that, rather than support the Yes2AV campaign, UKIP suggested to their members that they campaigned for the No2AV side, because of the matter of principle I outline - and then abstained?

Does not the fact that the longer it can be seen the Lib/Lab/Con are 'in this' for themselves, that they are content with rule from Brussels, not strengthen UKIP's case for independence, small government, local government, flat taxes etc etc? Of course, that assumes UKIP have the 'nous' to recognise that and act accordingly - but, unfortunately I have my doubts.

Just a thought, or two, for discussion.........

15 comments:

The Talking Clock said...

As you may (or may not) have noticed, WfW, as a UKIP supporting blog, I've declared in favour of the No2AV campaign.

I can't see how anyone but the LibLabCon - with an emphasis on the LibDums - will benefit from AV.

TTC

john in cheshire said...

i've come to the conclusion that there is no benefit from changing the method of voting; so, I shall be voting NO.
I've also concluded that it's not the method that is at fault, it is the kind of people who are standing for election. How to change that, is maybe the issue. No?

William said...

Deckchair shuffling by the lib/lab/con is a much more accurate assessment, IMHO of course!!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TTC: Oh I had noticed, have no fear - have not had time so far to comment anywhere.....

jic: the statute of candidates? Ah, now that is another problem - easily solved as I intend hanging all the present ones pour encourager les autres!

w: Yup, the damn Titanic scenario all over again!

Snowolf said...

I think the only thing I can say in favour of it is that it gets the genie out of the bottle. Once it has been changed once, it can be changed again.

I don't think AV will change anything, beyond the electorate's readiness to shout 'no, not working, let's try something else.'

Woodsy42 said...

You will get another party politician whatever the system so who really cares? It's just a part of the smokescreen.
However with con and lib 'as one' and lab as the other AV might actually help Ukip. Because it prevents the 'wasted vote on smaller parties' situation I expect that significantly more people may vote for them.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

S: All the more reason for a resounding 'N' then!

W42: Agree with first part, however not so sure on second - anyway, if passed we shall see. I can only say beware the hidden consequences!

The Boiling Frog said...

A further oddity is the position adopted by UKIP, who are now backing a 'Yes' vote on AV, yet it is not the system proposed in their manifesto, which is AV+. It does seem rather contradictory that a party who consistently argues against undemocratic rule from Brussels is accepting that self-same undemocratic rule at home,

Well said, as you know I can't make too much noise about it, but I think that a better strategy would have been to reject the referendum and campaign on 'a politics is broken we need a full discussion on all options' as well as the Lisbon Treaty angle'

UKIP look part of the establishment by taking part in this charade sadly.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TBF: Mums the word - by the way, whats the number for Nigel? Just thought I might tip him off about.....

TomTom said...

Look at how Mitterand changed the system in France back and forth to get the results he wanted. The only system to break open the networks is Open Primaries. The US went through this in the 1970s to open up candidate selection.

Michels' Iron Law of Democracy is that political parties become run by cliques at the apex the broader the base and thereby erode democratic participation and membership

The nexus is a Financial-Politocal Elite running hollow democracies as tax shelters loading taxation ont the ordinary citizen. Look how they are now trying to offload the cost of flood defences onto water bills in each region

Paul said...

I do worry that certain elements in UKIP only have ambition enough to join the establishment - missing the buzz of being the local Tory grandee, they look to return but in a slightly different colour.

The only good that I can see from AV is that if it does mean perpetual coalition, then government might be difficult, and when seen as the incidental organ of rule that it is - having everything in place to run us from Brussels as there is - some more scales might fall from eyes.

Having said that, I am going to spoil my ballot paper with a message about Cast-Iron Dave being a desperate criminal.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Mr Camerons thoughts would be if Mr Farage informed him that the UKIP voters would only be putting one choice on their ballots in the event of an AV election.

I too will probably spoil my ballot paper, possibly by re-wording the question to one about Europe.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: All good points and agreed with.

paul: I know,I know! Your point about the result of AV is well made, unfortunately one hell of a lot of damage will happen in the meantime.

A: Good point - might just have an effect of concentrating Cameron's mind - but unlikely!

hreward2 said...

UKIP are supporting AV because that is all we are being offered .Obvious innit. we do not want it ,but we want FPTP even less. I agree that we should be given a choice on what voting system we prefer but the anti democratic LiblabCon will not offer us that as they know that if we selected PR their days would be numbered .
What a travesty of a debate we are getting from the media on this AV/FPTP non choice. UKIP and a lot of citizens are hoping that AV will be the first crack in a political edifice that is no longer fit for purpose . Please remember that it is the EU puppet parties that have wrecked our blighted land .

WitteringsfromWitney said...

h2: Trouble is h2, that if AV comes in, we won't be given another choice! AV has only one objective and that is to cement the hold that the Lib/Lab/Con have on our political system! Think about it! Cameron may be publicly against but secretely he hopes it will win cause that gives him his LibCon Party!