The NO campaign have surged into a seven point lead and I think much of this is down to a significant killer argument they are now deploying - that AV will cost 250 million quid to introduce, with most undecided and everyone tightening their belts, this will certainly swing the undecideds the way of the No campaign.
£250 million isn't a lot of money in terms of what the Government spends, but tell people a figure in millions and it gets them thinking.
The problem is that it is complete rubbish, they base their figures on spending 130 million on counting machines, that won't be bought (because AV can be counted by hand) and an education programme based on the Scottish Parliamentary example. The education programme will be substantially less as a) AV is much simpler than STV, b) we've had a referendum on it, so people should be much more aware of how it works (the referendum acts an educational tool as well) c) We don't need educate people about the new powers of a parliament as we did in Scotland. d) we should use the BBC to educate people as that would be free.
But the YES campaign must respond and respond quickly, first it needs to work out how much it would cost - I'm guessing around £30 million. then display this as a real percentage of people's income and divide this figure over 4 years (the length of time until the next election.) In other words AV is going to cost you 12 and a half pence. Once they have a significantly cheap amount, they need to say that the NO campaign are lying (the machines are dream machines! etc) and that it just part of the corruption of the old system. But they need to do this fast, a media blitz is needed, without it they will lose.
Wednesday 23 February 2011
Monday 21 February 2011
Nick Clegg launches AV campaign
Last week I was involved in helping to organise the Nick Clegg visit to Leeds to launch the AV campaign. The event was a success bar a couple of nutters, sorry Socialist Workers Party activists trying and failing to hijack the event.
Nick Clegg was right to say (before the election) thaty AV is a measly little compromise - STV would be far superior but that is not the choice, so why should I back AV?
Well basically it's a bit better than first past the post, it's a bit more proportional, making it harder for idiots such as Stewart Bell MP (for Middlesborough), who does bugger all for his constituents, to get re-elected. Basically it will bring into play well over 50 more seats that use to be considered "safe" leaving under half the commons in safe seats, for the first time since the khaki election.
But the best reason to vote to vote for AV is that it gives voters more choice, many people would like to express their votes in different ways, for example , many UKIP voters want the Tories to run the county, but want to express their opinion about Europe by voting for UKIP, under AV they could vote UKIP as number 1 and the Conservatives as number 2. Likewise many Lib Dems who vote Tory or Labour because of fear of the one of the big 2, can now vote Lib Dem 1 st knowing that they will not be contributing to victory for either Labour or the Tories.
AV isn't perfect but is better than FTTP, and it less likely to deliver a freak result. A couple of opinions polls before the last election put us ahead of both the other two parties, if that had been the reult, we probably would have still finished third in terms of seats, that surely is wrong.
Nick Clegg was right to say (before the election) thaty AV is a measly little compromise - STV would be far superior but that is not the choice, so why should I back AV?
Well basically it's a bit better than first past the post, it's a bit more proportional, making it harder for idiots such as Stewart Bell MP (for Middlesborough), who does bugger all for his constituents, to get re-elected. Basically it will bring into play well over 50 more seats that use to be considered "safe" leaving under half the commons in safe seats, for the first time since the khaki election.
But the best reason to vote to vote for AV is that it gives voters more choice, many people would like to express their votes in different ways, for example , many UKIP voters want the Tories to run the county, but want to express their opinion about Europe by voting for UKIP, under AV they could vote UKIP as number 1 and the Conservatives as number 2. Likewise many Lib Dems who vote Tory or Labour because of fear of the one of the big 2, can now vote Lib Dem 1 st knowing that they will not be contributing to victory for either Labour or the Tories.
AV isn't perfect but is better than FTTP, and it less likely to deliver a freak result. A couple of opinions polls before the last election put us ahead of both the other two parties, if that had been the reult, we probably would have still finished third in terms of seats, that surely is wrong.
Thursday 17 February 2011
Moaning about the media
Reading Tony Blair's book i was struck by the number of times he said that the tabloid press would treat the Labour Government less fairly than a Conservative Government. I'm sure David Cameron would say that the BBC would treat him and the Conservatives less fairly.
The truth is that both are correct the Tories get shafted by the Beeb and Labour do get shafted by the right win Press.
We Lib Dems get shafted by everyone!
The truth is that both are correct the Tories get shafted by the Beeb and Labour do get shafted by the right win Press.
We Lib Dems get shafted by everyone!
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Causing offence is not an offence
A Crawley Town FC fan has been arrested. Not for Hooliganism or drunkenness, but under the Public Order Act on suspicion of causing harassment, alarm or distress. He was featured on the Crawley Town Football Club music video for their forthcoming FA cup tie against Manchester United, where he apparently imitated an aeroplane, which apparently has offended the survivors of the Munich Air Crash.
Having seen the re-edited video without the offensive scene, I am not entirely sure that the Crawley Town fan was deliberately causing offence (basically it's a band with a load of blokes swaying about badly in the background, doing a plane in not that unusual on a Saturday night out is it?). But assuming he is deliberately causing offence why should he be arrested?
It does actually really concern me that somebody can actually be arrested for this, while (assuming he was deliberately causing offence) it isn't very funny, and I can understand why survivors may feel upset. But this surely it is not arrestable, comedians every day make grossly offensive statements, that may cause the recipient of that joke great alarm or distress. Recently, I went to a comedy gig where Frankie Boyle made a very nasty joke about Katie Price's eldest child Harvey. But would we want Frankie Boyle locked up for that? the answer is no, we don't want our comedians imprisoned for making offensive jokes as we would consider this an unfair restriction on our right to freedom of speech.
I do accept that there has to be limits to freedom of speech on broadly feminist, anti-discriminatory lines. I do also accept there has to be some anti-harassment element to restricting freedom of speech (we don't want a granny to be continually abused by kids shouting at her - this intuitively is wrong.) But I do not accept the case that somebody being alarmed or distressed should be protected. Being alarmed or distressed by a particular comment or action does not mean you are not necessarily right. My Great Aunt used to be greatly alarmed and distressed when a black man entered her shop, this certainly didn't make her right.
I have not read the legislation and it may be that the law was badly applied and that the Crawley Town Fan should never have being arrested (he is still on bail though). Either way the law needs to be amended so that people who are suffering harassment, i.e. are being bullied are protected, but people aren't arrested for making a bad joke.
Having seen the re-edited video without the offensive scene, I am not entirely sure that the Crawley Town fan was deliberately causing offence (basically it's a band with a load of blokes swaying about badly in the background, doing a plane in not that unusual on a Saturday night out is it?). But assuming he is deliberately causing offence why should he be arrested?
It does actually really concern me that somebody can actually be arrested for this, while (assuming he was deliberately causing offence) it isn't very funny, and I can understand why survivors may feel upset. But this surely it is not arrestable, comedians every day make grossly offensive statements, that may cause the recipient of that joke great alarm or distress. Recently, I went to a comedy gig where Frankie Boyle made a very nasty joke about Katie Price's eldest child Harvey. But would we want Frankie Boyle locked up for that? the answer is no, we don't want our comedians imprisoned for making offensive jokes as we would consider this an unfair restriction on our right to freedom of speech.
I do accept that there has to be limits to freedom of speech on broadly feminist, anti-discriminatory lines. I do also accept there has to be some anti-harassment element to restricting freedom of speech (we don't want a granny to be continually abused by kids shouting at her - this intuitively is wrong.) But I do not accept the case that somebody being alarmed or distressed should be protected. Being alarmed or distressed by a particular comment or action does not mean you are not necessarily right. My Great Aunt used to be greatly alarmed and distressed when a black man entered her shop, this certainly didn't make her right.
I have not read the legislation and it may be that the law was badly applied and that the Crawley Town Fan should never have being arrested (he is still on bail though). Either way the law needs to be amended so that people who are suffering harassment, i.e. are being bullied are protected, but people aren't arrested for making a bad joke.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
Prisoner Votes
The world seems to be up in arms about prisoner having the right to vote - lurid headlines such as "Huntley set to vote thanks to Europe" abound.
And I must admit that it does annoys me.... that prisoners don't have the vote. For me it is quite simple - it's a matter of human rights. The right to vote is a human right and therefore should be afforded to all prisoners. I think most people in our society do not believe that prisoners should lose the right not to be tortured, when convicted of a crime. Likewise the right to religious expression is one that is protected for prisoners. They are rights we are all entitled to as we are humans. The point of human rights is that you cannot lose your them because of who you are. To start removing individuals rights because of who they are is dangerous. Not only do we have history (the final solution) to remind of this, but in practice it dilutes everyone's rights. Once one set of rights is taken away from one group of people, it's more easy to remove rights from other groups of people.
So is the right to vote a human right in the same way that the right not to be tortured is a human right? the answer, I think, is yes. When groups of people have been excluded from the franchise, they have tended to be unfairly treated, both in terms of life prospects and application of the law. Governments can ignore their needs as they cannot influence elections at either a local or national level.
So if we respect Human Rights, we should give prisoners the right to vote. But there is another reason to extend the franchise to prisoners. Jail should not be just about punishment, it should also be about rehabilitation. We want our prisoners to come out and be good citizens, one aspect of good citizenship is...voting.
And I must admit that it does annoys me.... that prisoners don't have the vote. For me it is quite simple - it's a matter of human rights. The right to vote is a human right and therefore should be afforded to all prisoners. I think most people in our society do not believe that prisoners should lose the right not to be tortured, when convicted of a crime. Likewise the right to religious expression is one that is protected for prisoners. They are rights we are all entitled to as we are humans. The point of human rights is that you cannot lose your them because of who you are. To start removing individuals rights because of who they are is dangerous. Not only do we have history (the final solution) to remind of this, but in practice it dilutes everyone's rights. Once one set of rights is taken away from one group of people, it's more easy to remove rights from other groups of people.
So is the right to vote a human right in the same way that the right not to be tortured is a human right? the answer, I think, is yes. When groups of people have been excluded from the franchise, they have tended to be unfairly treated, both in terms of life prospects and application of the law. Governments can ignore their needs as they cannot influence elections at either a local or national level.
So if we respect Human Rights, we should give prisoners the right to vote. But there is another reason to extend the franchise to prisoners. Jail should not be just about punishment, it should also be about rehabilitation. We want our prisoners to come out and be good citizens, one aspect of good citizenship is...voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)