The AV Referendum was Good for the Tory Vote
A political commentator has just said on Radio 5, that the referendum on AV was good for the Tories as it got their supporters out to vote in the council elections. They did win more seats and councils despite cutting spending, which was not to be expected. Ross Hawkins also said the following on his blog.
The prime minister and Conservative leader has managed to win seats while cutting public spending, something few pundits expected.
David Cameron said the coalition was “as good today as it was a year ago”
The Conservatives emerged from these elections with more English councillors and councils, and two extra Welsh Assembly members.
There were downsides – losing the party leader in Wales, and a relatively poor performance in Scotland.
But these elections was a resounding success for the Conservatives, especially in England.
If the Conservatives can do this well in the face of the biggest spending cuts it either shows that people will vote Tory whatever, or voters understand the mess the country is in better than most politicians think. In my view, judging by the way AV literature was being read on the Dalston Omnibus and the positive vote for AV in this area of London, I would not discount the latter.
Don’t Blame Me I Voted Yes!
Usually, I’m the one who gets blamed for everything. After all, I’ve had so much bad luck and sorrow lately, that people feel that to heap a bit more on me won’t do any harm!
But if you’re disappointed that you voted Yes to AV and didn’t win, then you can’t blame me, as I did the same! At least though after the result and a good lunch with a friend in Carluccio’s, I had enough strength to take back the bottomless box to IKEA and get it replaced and buy another four!
One of their guys told me that bottomless Branas boxes are a bit of a problem. So when you buy them check you have the five parts and they are all strapped together. After all, what use is a Branas without an as?
The Good Thing About AV
AV or Alternative Vote is something that politicians can’t agree on.
I was tending towards saying No, but mainly for conservative reasons. Note the small cee.
However a few days ago, I was at the Angel and both sides were handing out their leaflets. On the bus home, many people were reading the leaflets and that was a surprise and a good thing. Anthony Berry would have approved. I say he would have approved as I remember he was one of three candidates who came to my school at probably a General Election in 1964. Whereas the other two candidates, brought out their parties’ lines, Berry concentrated on how voting was a right and we should always exercise it.
So when there was a meeting on AV tonight, I went along. It was a genteel meeting, with both sides putting their views eloquently and answering some intelligent questions from the floor. Wouldn’t it be so much better, if Parliament behaved better and dare I say it more independently and scientifically correct.
I think that AV will not have much effect on the two major problems of our elections; the mediocre nature of many of the candidates and the low turn out. Although with better candidates would we get a better turn out.
I asked a question about which system would bring forward better candidates, but neither side seemed to think it would make much difference!
As the debate proceeded, I came to a logical conclusion, that perhaps AV might improve the candidates in certain circumstances.
I should say that I’ve been represented by some good MPs, I’ve met a couple too, who retained their seats because they looked after their constituents. And I’d also met a couple of real political hacks, who ticked all the right boxes, but who you’d never trust.
But thinking about my last constituency, Newmarket, AV might persuade someone from the racing industry to come forward. They would not stand a chance under first-past-the-post, but under AV many in the town would place them second. So AV might mean that important single issues in a constituency, could give a good single issue candidate a chance. We might see a few more good doctors, like the one in Kidderminster.
On the other hand, single issue parties like UKIP and the BNP might benefit. Which in my view would be a bad thing!
So I think I might have changed my mind and will say Yes to AV.
On the other hand, I might spoil my paper.
To AV Or Not To AV
I probably won’t be voting in the AV referendum. Or I might spoil my paper by writing 1 in one and 2 in the other!
As quite a few papers have shown, there would have been little difference if we’d have AV for the last couple of elections. And anyway according to some of my Australian friends, there is a tendency for people to give the first candidate your first preference, the second your second and so on. So you are more likely to elect Charles Aab than Samantha Zyzzx!
There has been some well-written stories in the papers too. I like this one, which quotes Anthony Eden extensively.
At the Angel this morning, both pro- and anti-AV supporters were handing out leaflets.
To my surprise and I suspect to many politicians, when I got on the bus to go home, about half the people on the Dalston Omnibus were avidly reading the leaflets they had been given.
So does this mean that people actually take more interest in elections, than the turnout suggests?
My Alternative to Alternative Vote
I don’t like the system of Alternative Vote, especially in countries, where voters have little political awareness. One of the reasons is that many just vote, by going 1, 2, 3 etc. from the top. Now that means that a lot of people with surnames beginning with A get elected. It is good for Balls, Brown, Blair, Clegg, Cameron and Cable, but worse for those like Milliband or Wanker.
I would prefer some form of elimination and runoff system, based on the principle that no-one can get elected unless they have got fifty percent of the votes. There would also be a none-of-the-above box. After the first round, if the one with most votes, got more than fifty percent, then they are elected. If the none-of-the-above box got over the magic fifty, then all candidates are banned and the election is rerun with new idiots. In all other cases, any who got less than say five percent would be eliminated and a simple rerun is performed.
The permutations are endless and it would clog parliament up for months deciding what should be done. At least this would stop pointless legislation being passed.
The Anonymous Widower 