Up the Blues

Last Thursday, to my great delight, Britain resoundingly rejected the adoption of the Alternative Vote in favour of keeping our First-Past-The-Post method in the voting system referendum. I always thought it was going to be a close race, with the Yes vote perhaps creeping past the No supporters and snatching electoral 'reform'.

How wrong I was, and how right this country was. With just over 13 million No votes and 6 million Yes's, the No2AV campaign could claim victory as Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats saw their dreams of electoral reform, as well as their council rapport,  crumble before their eyes.

A map of those which voted in favour of Jedward's imprisonment and those that actually listen to their music.

So, we'll be keeping one person, one vote, one Government party, one Official Opposition (most of the time). Perhaps one day there will be another referendum on electoral reform, but for the time being, the voters have made their choice - a choice that was very clear.

What I was also pleasantly surprised at were the local election results. The Conservatives were tipped to lose 400, maybe 500 council seats, while instead we managed a net gain of 86, two of which came from my own borough, and we still have the most councilors in the entire country. Ed Miliband, meanwhile, had a largely underwhelming result all round, and in Scotland his party suffered defeat to the now majority SNP in the Assembly elections, which will pave the way for another referendum, that of Scottish independence. People clearly realize, despite electing almost two and a half thousand red councilors, that Labour are not the way forward, both locally and nationally. Miliband is going to concurrently realize his defeat as he is further dismissed by voters due to the atrocious things his party did in government. How this current government effectively deals with his party's complete train wreck of a previous administration, and how our Tory Councils assist in this repair work, I hope will give us an even better result next year.

Now, the battle for electoral reform is over. The battle for Scottish independence is about to begin.

What Went Right

May 2nd turned out to be a remarkable day in Canadian political history. In the 2011 federal election, Canadians have seen two big winners and one very, very, big loser.

Stephen Harper finally has the majority status he had been seeking for so long, and his country, after five years of grueling opposition appeasement and concession, ultimately decided that enough was enough and a Conservative government was what they too had been seeking. I imagine he and his caucus will be jubilant for days, weeks to come, as for the time being Canada is to be governed in an electoral manner not seen since before Paul Martin, and one without the hassles of constant instability and Commons bartering.

The same cannot be said, however, for Canada's once natural party of governance. The Liberal Party have suffered a terrible defeat and a virtual wipe out of their standing from East to West. For them, it is John Major in 1997 (or, in more pleasing recollection for me, Michael Foot in 1983), Walter Mondale in 1984, Napoleon in Russia, England in Bloemfontein. There can be no other way at looking at it - the Liberals have been decimated, taken over, drowned in a gushing flood of orange, blue, even green.  Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, could not even hold onto his own once firmly red constituency, and his party has lost its Opposition status to Jack Layton and his now 102 strong New Democrat left leaning legion. Such a result has never been seen in Canadian politics, not even when Brian Mulroney swept to Prime Ministership a quarter of a century ago and the Liberals returned only 40 seats. After all the miles traveled, the fearless opposition, the calls of contempt, the promise of a return to a "compassionate, fiscally responsible" Canada, all they have to look forward to is four or five years in not even official opposition stature with 43 less MPs, 800,000 less votes, and an infinity less amount of morale.

But there is hope yet for this weak, damaged party that was hurled into the bin by the Canadian voters, as I will outline.

In Guelph, Frank Valeriote managed to increase his vote quite considerably. While he remains a red light in a huge shade of blue, it is a red light that has individually managed to grow that little bit brighter, and Marty Burke is going to have to wait for another try at getting to Ottawa, if he ever sets his sights there again.

 Better luck next time, boy.

With just 34 MPs, the Liberals have lost their foothold in Stornoway - but it is still not the defeat Kim Campbell was dealt in 1993, who ended up with a measly 2 members. It is a disastrous result for them, but by no means one they cannot return from if they focus hard.

The Bloc Quebecois were, too, handed a tremendous drubbing, and it shows that separatist sentiments and ideals were landed a giant blow, with unity shining through. The unity of Canada is something that the Liberals have strongly believed in and is perhaps a platform they can build upon better in the near future from the Bloc's collapse.

The Greens may have landed their first elected MP, but with almost half a million less votes, they should be exceedingly cautious about how they handle themselves. Elizabeth May is also a complete twonk. So there.

In some ways, it is better in the long term that the Liberals be handed a proper defeat. This is going to give them a good chance to totally rethink their strategy, their policies, what went wrong, and to elect a leader that will pull them back from the abyss. I believe a total, almost Blairite re-branding is in order for them. Just make sure you don't put Pierre Trudeau in charge, lads - that's huge mistake waiting to happen.

I refuse to believe the NDP will survive in Official Opposition. Mustache jokes aside, they're a complete train wreck, a failed socialist rabble of damaging economic mismanagement and social idiocy with a range of disastrous policies more attributed to a town hall laughing stock. Layton might have landed the keys to Stornoway on a bucket load of charisma, but I believe he's going to lose them come 2015/16 in a hail of disenchanted voters, and when he does, his party won't ever be handed them again. The NDP's unavoidable failures ahead will be the Liberals' opportunity to rebuild themselves.

 Jack Layton before the horrendous laboratory / rabid barber accident which adorned him with his superlative upper lip.

Finally, with an extra 24 MPs, Harper is probably fairly happy, but with a majority of 13, it isn't an absolutely irreversible result. There's no denying it's a very decent outcome, but one not pass the majority line by miles and miles. He must also ask whether Canadians really desired his party, or just very badly did not want the Liberals.

For all the criticisms (some of them justified) against Mr Ignatieff, I honestly think he did not deserve the result he was handed. He was far from a great leader and potential Prime Minister, but he is a tremendous intellectual who will never get a chance to put his hugely advantageous knowledge in the global sphere to use for his country in a government, and he would have been a great asset to North America in a foreign relations based role. The time he spent outside Canada clearly returned to grab him in the rear, and he just couldn't shake that "in it for himself, I am better than you" image. He should not have been so badly rejected, though, and I thought some of the ways the Conservatives vilified him and warped  his statements - attacking him for working in Britain and studying at Harvard - was in very bad taste and, as I have said before, quite pathetic. I believe some of the result was down to the endless "he's just visiting" attack ads I couldn't watch television in Canada without seeing twelve hundred of. Unfortunately for him, he gave it a go, and it didn't turn out.

 "What do you mean I don't get free access to the minibar anymore?"

As the aforementioned ex-British Prime Minister John Major said after his grand ousting fourteen years ago, "Politics is a rough old game. Sometimes the ball rolls in your direction, and sometimes it rolls the other way."

Sadly for the Liberal Party of Canada, it didn't just roll away, it was kicked into the air, flew over a neighbour's fence and will remain in his garden for a good deal of time to come.


On a side note, this result bolsters defense of the First-Past-The-Post system. The 41st Canadian federal election is another example of a decisive outcome thanks to FPTP.

Canuck Politics

“The Englishman has long been proud of his liberties. Freedom of speech and worship, freedom to choose his own rulers, freedom from arbitrary arrest and all the other despotic impulses of tyrants have been our birthright for centuries.” – Martin Lindsay, The House of Commons.
 

So is true for our snowy brethren across the ocean, as Canadians will soon be heading to the polls to cast their votes in decision of their next Government and Canada’s 41^st Parliament. To some, the quote above might be a bit (or a lot) out of tune with their beliefs on the country’s current Prime Minister and his tenure. To others, it is an apt description of Canadian parliamentary democracy today just as it always has been, inherited from its so-called Motherland all those years ago. Well, minus the Englishman part.

Yes, Canada has an election underway – its fourth in only seven years. For those of you who may not be as knowledgeable about Canadian politics (pretty much everyone I know in the UK), here’s some background information.

Canada has four main political parties which comprise its own House of Commons. These are in order of most seats first, although naturally this is liable to change:

      The Conservative Party of Canada. This is Canada’s centre-right party, currently led by Stephen Harper, which has been in power since 2006 with a minority government. It was formed via a merger of Canada’s Conservative parties – the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reforms) Parties in order to unite the previously split Conservative vote. Ideologically, it is similar to many other centre-right parties, advocating small government, low taxation / spending and social conservatism. Harper’s party has 144 ridings under its belt, close to the required majority of 154.

      The Liberal Party. This is Canada’s centre / centre-left party, which has comprised the majority of its governments and has achieved remarkable success electorally. It tends to be regarded as Canada’s ‘natural ruling party’, though it has been in opposition since 2006 and suffered heavy losses in the federal election of 2008. The last Liberal Prime Minister was Paul Martin, and it is currently led by Michael Ignatieff. Being centrist or left of centre, it is supportive of social liberalism, state welfare, a larger government and progressive policies, though it is by no means a far-left party, as it has some history of strong fiscal conservatism. As of writing, the Liberals have 77 MPs.

      The Bloc Québécois. Canada’s separatist movement led by Gilles Duceppe, which fights for the continual sovereignty of the French-speaking province of Quebec (much like the Scottish National Party for Scotland in the UK). At one point, it was actually Canada’s main opposition. It only runs candidates in Quebec, and its policies are mainly centre-left. They currently hold 47 seats.

      The New Democratic Party. Another socially / economically progressive party in Canada, the NDP has been led by Jack Layton, Lord of all Moustaches, since 2003. It has never received enough support to form a government, but once managed to land itself a Premier of Ontario with Bob Rae (now a Liberal). It has the least seats in the House of Commons with 36 MPs, even though it receives more votes than the Bloc, and under Layton it achieved some decent level of success in a number of by-elections. Its policies are rather more left than the Liberals, supporting high taxation, trade unionism, large state spending and strongly fighting climate change. Even though Layton has been Canada’s most popular party leader for a time, the NDP itself cannot match this popularity during elections, although in 2008 they managed to gain eight seats, their best showing since the 1980s. 

 From top left to bottom right: Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, some random French bloke.

Other parties include the Green Party (which has no seats, but in 2008 increased its vote share dramatically) led by Elizabeth May, the Marxist-Leninists, Communists and my personal favourite, the Marijuana Party. The Canadian House of Commons also has two independents. 

Stephen Harper has been Canada’s Prime Minister since 2006 after the resignation of the then incumbent Paul Martin, who led a Liberal minority government since 2004. In both the 2006 and 2008 elections, Harper has only managed to muster minority governments, whereby the Conservatives have not earned enough seats to form a full majority government.

The 2011 federal election arose after Stephen Harper’s party was defeated on a motion of contempt for parliament, the first time this has ever happened in not only Canada’s history but the history of the Commonwealth. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc joined forces to bring down Harper’s minority and trigger an election. This is interesting because, before this motion occurred, it was widely believed the opposition parties would simply defeat the Conservatives on their “out of touch” 2011 budget. 

 6. Stop Celine Dion from making any more albums and exile her to Nunavut.

Each of the four main parties have campaigned on highly differing priorities during this election. 

Stephen Harper has taken his suspected route, arguing for low taxes, corporate and otherwise, that will secure Canada’s economic recovery and spur job growth. He is on the side of small and large business, concurrently holding a tough on crime stance, and is arguing that if the Liberals or a parliamentary coalition between them, the NDP and the Bloc was to gain power, it would be a severe threat to Canada’s economic security. They also advocate cutting spending in certain areas to handle the deficit, while continuing it in others (e.g. job training).

Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, plans to scrap the Conservatives’ corporate tax cuts and constantly refers to Harper’s government as undemocratic and deceitful. The Liberals have a steady plan to reduce Canada’s deficit, which in many areas includes retaining certain taxes and inducing spending cuts, and plan to invest money in post-secondary education and pensions. Where they say they would get this money apart from scrapping the corporate tax cuts, however, is not very clear. They also see Harper’s stance on crime as arbitrary, want to scrap the $30 billion expenditure on fighter jets and put a stop to what they deem is constant economic mismanagement by his government. They claim Harper has no priorities for families and instead wastes millions of dollars in the defence of large corporations and business barons.

Jack Layton and his NDP posse aim to take concentration away from the Liberals and Tories and are fighting for the “family table”, not the tables of certain corporations. They also state that the government is, well, not fit to govern. They wish to increase tax on so-called “big polluters” and pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. Layton constantly says that he is ready to become Canada’s Prime Minister, but his more realistic position is arguably to hold the balance of power in a minority government – a bit like our pal Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats did.

Duceppe wants to create a space station out of Bordeaux cheese and invest in swords. Everyone must speak fluent French or they will be strung up on the gallows. They must pledge allegiance to the great Quebecian breadstick and sing France’s national anthem every hour or they will be fined 1,000 SQFs (Shiny Quebec Francs). Also he wants to make the province its own country and stuff.

 Stephen Harper engaging in a good old Canadian pastime: pelting Labrador seniors with snowballs.

So far, it’s been quite an interesting election. As I study in Canada, it’s been a remarkable experience to be in another country during election time, and I have my own opinions on the parties and what’s going to happen on May 2^nd, the day it all comes to a head.

If you look at my blog’s (not so) illustrious title, you might assume where my vote would go in Canada could I vote here. I’ll say it’s really not that easy, for me anyway, when it comes to the politics of the Canucks.

My overall opinion on Stephen Harper is quite mixed. While I believe he’s done a great deal of good for Canada’s economy during his time, and I agree with a lot of his sentiments on low taxes, to me there is really no excuse for spending so much money on an array of expensive aircraft. We’re not in the Cold War anymore, and I don’t believe Canada needs to worry so much about its Arctic North with regards to defence, especially when it has the United States below it. This is not to say that Canada should have no military or defence spending. I do believe, however, that Harper, despite this silly action of hiding documents, is a better and more effective politician than the opposition and much of the Canadian media paint him. His environmental record is not nearly as acceptable as I’d like, but I think on the question of the economy, he’s got the job done for Canadians, and his support of business growth is to my liking. I also believe he values Canadian families and the welfare of those on lower incomes a lot more genuinely than might be told. If the Conservatives here were not as socially conservative as they behave, they’d have a deal more support from me. They also need to stop attacking someone just for living outside his own country or going to Harvard which, in my opinion, is rather pathetic.

Michael Ignatieff is a fantastic speaker. I’ve seen him talk twice, and both times he’s given a performance that brought me in and made me think deeply about what he’s saying. The issue I have with him is that, both times, he never really spoke on the things Canadians truly care about. He rarely ever properly discusses what he’d do on jobs, or the economy, or the environment, or deficit reduction. His history and the collective rhetoric he uses is all very impressive, but I find he has considerable trouble actually talking policy, and this is where he’s suffering. He’s an extremely intelligent guy and a beautiful writer, but as a leader, I’m not sure he’s as capable. Iggy’s arguments about the “nefarious” actions of Harper and his contempt are understandable but, for the love of Trudeau, tell people what you’d do with their tax dollars for once. I found this is where Cameron (long may he reign) tripped up occasionally – he threw far too much flack at his opponents without offering a clear alternative. Ignatieff is walking the same path, and I think it’s going to severely hurt him on Election Day if he goes on. The Liberals, as I find people on the left typically do, promise investment and give lots of nice spending sums, but rarely say where they’d get the money from. Also, you can never trust someone with eyebrows that thick. He’s definitely hiding something in those fluffy strips. All that being said, I do find that I favour the Canadian Liberal Party in comparison to centre-left / progressive parties in other countries. They’re a damn sight more respectable than our rotten Labour Party, especially economically. As leaders go however, Ignatieff’s got a lot to work on, and an increasingly short amount of time to do so.

Jack Layton is probably the farthest politically from me. Virtually all of his policies are what I oppose – big government, high spending and taxes, etc. He too, based on videos, appears to be a good speaker, and as an individual he’s done well with winning support. His party, though, is not as attractive – at all. Their record in many areas, from my personal knowledge and research, is fairly bad. Their time governing Ontario was abysmal, racking up huge amounts of debt, losing jobs and crippling the province’s economy. My my, it reminds me of someone ... Anyway, Layton might have a bright stance on families, but his standing for the health of the economy is murky and dark. He also needs to remember that, in three successive elections, Canadians have rejected him and his platform.

I have no real opinion of Duceppe. His ideals remind me of Alex Salmond’s, which is not a good thing. I think his dreams of a separate Quebec are just that, a dream, and after the 1995 referendum always will be. He’s far too wax-like and, to top it off, he’s French and therefore my mortal enemy.

 Since the election began, Mr Layton has been losing considerable ground to the Liberals. Even so, the latter has still not managed to eclipse Harper's Conservatives in the polls. Could Canada have its very own coalition formed between these two vying men of stark facial features?

So, if I was Canadian, who would I vote for? That’s a hard question. I’m not Canadian, therefore my opinions here matter nothing electorally. It would most certainly be between the Conservatives or Liberals, as I’d want nothing to do with the NDP policy wise. I really cannot say more than that. I have a lot of admiration for Jean Chretien’s economic policies in the nineties, and I believe the man is a shining light for Britain’s current circumstances, but I have an equal view on Brian Mulroney’s time in Sussex Drive, and Harper has my support in certain areas. Then again, so does Ignatieff. I’m just going in circles really, so I’ll leave it at that.

I will say this to Canadians: go and vote. Voting is a practice we in the democratic world constantly take for granted, and we should all be involved in it when the time comes. Millions everywhere wish they had the chance we do, to decide our future and choose our leaders – to make our voices heard. Look to the events in Egypt, Syria, Libya, the Ivory Coast and elsewhere. These people are crying out for democracy, and here it is in our everyday lives and on our doorsteps. Many of us don’t realize quite how fortunate we are. If Canada did not limit voting strictly to its citizens, I’d probably have marked my ballot already. Those who haven’t yet should crack on with it.

So, whether you support the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, the Green Party ... whatever, just make sure you vote on May 2^nd. Don’t give your politicians an easy ride. Get them on their toes and remind Harper, Ignatieff and Layton that you’re in control, not them. The student vote mob that greeted Harper here in Guelph hopefully got the message to him that you lot plan on voting, so keep it up. 

Make me proud, you timbit scoffing children of Victoria.  

 "Imagine there's no opposition ... it's easy if you try ..."

The Nays Have It

In about a month's time, British voters will be taking a short (or long, if you live next door to Charles Kennedy) trek to their local church, school hall or other public infrastructure to once again take part in that sacred engagement we call democracy. In many borough councils, my own included, the 2011 UK Local Elections will be taking place. There are also Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly elections due to be held.

Finally, there will be one other ballot paper put before us to be marked. It will ask us a very controversial, decisive, arbitrary question:

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt an unfair, costly and confusing voting system instead of a tried, better and fairer system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Or, if you reside in Wales, something along these lines:

"Ydych chi am y Deyrnas Unedig i fabwysiadu system bleidleisio annheg, yn gostus ac yn ddryslyd yn hytrach na rhoi cynnig, gwell a llawer system decach ar gyfer ethol Aelodau Seneddol i Dŷ'r Cyffredin?” 

Unfortunately, I am linguistically challenged with every other language bar my native English and some aspects of French, therefore I cannot determine the clarity of the above machine translated sentence. But it doesn’t really matter, because the message is the same, whether it’s in English, Gaelic, Welsh, Fijian – the Alternative Vote (AV) is a pointless, unfair, unneeded and, based on numerous polls and public opinion, largely unwanted voting system this country would be mistaken to implement. 

I am going to set out and explain why everyone – you – should vote ‘No’ in the May 5^th AV Referendum via the most argumentatively balanced, properly evidenced and politically unbiased way I can – with lots of nice pictures, colourful descriptions and easy to understand language that your puny, inferior non-political minds can absorb and be swayed by.

To start with, where did this AV Referendum come from? 

As we are all aware, last year’s general election produced a hung parliament, whereby no party was able to achieve a majority in the House of Big Important and Rich People That Tell us What to Do. 

David realizes he forgot to tell Nick about what he did to his car's windscreen during the election. 

 

As part of the formal coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, a deal was struck whereby a nationwide referendum would be held on the adoption of AV to replace Britain’s current First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system. As quoted from the formal coalition agreement, “The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum ...” 


The Liberal Democrats have long used electoral reform as one of their primary policies, going as far back with their existence as The SDP-Liberal Alliance in the 1980s and purely The Liberal Party before then, when they argued for using a different voting system with Proportional Representation (PR). 

 A sketch from Monty Python's Flying Caucus.

It’s important to remember that AV is NOT the same thing as PR. If Deputy Clegg would have really had his way, we’d be having a PR referendum, not one over AV, hence why he called the agreement a “miserable little compromise.” I’m happy he likes his own demand so much.

What actually is AV? What is FPTP?

AV, like FPTP, is an electoral system used in voting – in nationwide elections, party leadership elections etc.

FPTP is the system the UK currently uses in general elections. It’s pretty easy to understand – the candidate who receives the most votes wins. We can take my constituency (Southend West) as an example:

David Amess (Conservative) – 20,086 – Elected

Peter Welch (Liberal Democrats) – 12,816

Thomas Flynn (Labour) – 5,850

Gary Cockrill (UKIP) – 1,714

Tony Gladwin (BNP) – 1,333 (I’m glad he didn’t win. That is so clever. Someone write it down and send it to Andrew Brons.)

Barry Bolton (Green) – 644

Dr Vel (Marimutu Velmurgan) (Independent) – 617

Terry Philips (English Democrats) – 546

AV, on the other hand, is a lot more complicated, although it doesn’t seem so at first. In AV, you rank candidates in order of preference – ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ and so on. Speaking of a trio, there are currently only three countries which use AV – Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Australia has been notorious in the case of AV since most of its voters want to get rid of it.

Here is a how a book describes the method of AV voting:

“As the process continues the preferences allocated to the remaining candidates may not be the second choices of those electors whose first-choice candidates have been eliminated. It may be that after three candidates have been eliminated, say, when a fourth candidate is removed from the contest one of the electors who gave her first preference to him gave her second, third and fourth preferences to the three other candidates who have already been eliminated, so her fifth preference is then allocated to one of the remaining candidates."

No matter how many times I read this, I still don’t fully understand it, and I have way more smarts than, like, Leo Strauss. 

One blogger provides a decently concise description:

“When a candidate is eliminated, each of their votes is allocated to that voter’s highest preference among the remaining candidates. Preferences for candidates that have already been eliminated are skipped over."

My head still hurts. No matter how you look at it, FPTP is a far easier and more straightforward system. But just because something is more confusing doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. AV, however, is the worst of both worlds. It is more confusing and it is far worse than our current system.

So, what is wrong with AV?

Finally, we get to the crux of things. Why is AV a system we should refuse to adopt?

Intrinsically, AV is an unfair, expensive and confusing voting system.  It lets those who are second or third in preference come first. It makes some votes count twice or three times while others are only counted once. It causes governments to be made by back-room deals and not by the people. Ironically, it also brings less proportionality, not more like its proponents claim. 

Because there are so many reasons to vote ‘No’ to AV, I’m just going to focus on what I think are some of the most important ones.

Under AV, a candidate who receives fewer votes can end up winning. This is because, in order to achieve a supposed 50% of votes (which AV doesn’t always enforce anyway), those candidates which are removed can have their votes transferred unevenly to other candidates. It’s a bit difficult to explain. Basically, most voters could have in fact placed the Labour candidate as their first choice, but because of the stacking up of other preferences, those transferred preferences could throw more weight to a BNP candidate and he / she could overtake Labour and win. Get it? Didn’t think so, but such is AV. Talk about sloppy seconds.

AV is expensive. The cost of just having this referendum is about £250 million – although, I will admit, differing figures are constantly thrown around. Nonetheless, can we really afford to spend so much money right now? AV will also cause councils to have to spend more money on ballot machines, literature regarding AV and generally informing voters about the system’s workings. If I had a quarter of a billion pounds, I’d spend it on something worthwhile, like Murray Mints, or I’d use it to fund my idea to Parker Brothers. It’s a board game where you play as either Aaron Eckhart or Ellen Page and have to fight your way through hordes of Chilean reptile hedge fund investors to reclaim your golden suitcase full of Eccles cakes before your opponent. It still makes more sense than AV, chums!

AV is less proportional. This is what an Independent Royal Commission chaired by Roy Jenkins, a Liberal Democrat, declared over a decade ago. AV does not increase proportionality over FPTP. In AV, with lower vote share can come a greater number of seats attained by a party. For instance, in 1997 Tony Blair may have ended up with a 245 seat majority with 43% of the vote if it were used. I shudder at the thought. 179 was way more than enough, thank you.

AV allows governments to be made by politicians, not the people. AV can naturally cause more hung parliaments and therefore minority governments or coalitions than FPTP. This is not to say that FPTP elections never cause hung parliaments, as we know well. But when this does happen, you don’t decide the government, those ‘bad’ men in suits huddled together in Westminster do. Do you want an endless sea of indecisive elections and coalition governments where your vote essentially means nothing? 

FPTP: And then he voted Conservative and everyone was happy and ate some Mr Kipling tarts.

AV: And then he put his first choice as Conservative and then he put his second choice as Liberal Democrat and then he put his third choice as Green and then he put his fourth choice as Labour and then his votes had less weight than all the others and the Poetry Party candidate won and everyone went home and cried and read some Walt Whitman.

      The part where I stop talking.

      

      After all that, I’m not going to sit here and claim that FPTP is the perfect system, because it isn’t. It has plenty of flaws, and I will admit here and now that in certain cases, yes, it can strangle smaller fringe or single issue parties. But I, like many, certainly don’t want the BNP, or even UKIP, landing a Commons seat – which, under AV, could very well happen. As I’ve stated, FPTP can lead to hung parliaments and minority governments. We need only look again at Canada, which has had minority governments since 2004 – and, if the country’s polls are anything to go by, it looks like another is on the way. But I think there’s a reason why so many countries, from the grand United States to the humble Switzerland, use FPTP and only three use AV. Because, far from being the perfect system, it is an easy, quick, efficient, cheap(er) and fairer, more democratic system.

      You should make up your own mind on May 5^th, and also make sure you cast your vote in the local elections. I will certainly be voting ‘No’ and doing the latter, and I hope the majority of people do too. If one day what I regard as a genuinely better system than FPTP is proposed, I will duly take it on its merits. This time round, however, we should keep things as they are.

      Perhaps we could have an FPAV coalition. You put a cross in the box of the candidate you don’t want and a 1 in the one you do, and then a 1 and a cross in the box you want as deputy MP and them a cross before the 1 in a candidate you want to replace your MP in case of resignation.

GET IT?

      

      Now let Ken Clarke in his political wisdom tell you why 'No' is the way to go. 

    

Honeymoon's Over

This day marks David Cameron's one month anniversary as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

How has our marriage been going so far? There haven't been any major bumps in the road yet, and he seems as much the decent fellow as he did when he proposed. We always knew he wasn't going to take us to dinner at Carluccio's every night and splash out on a new Rover in the first week - he truly is the penny saver he claimed to be. He sat us down at the table last week and said that we wouldn't be able to afford the kitchen extension because we had so many bills to pay off, and we're even going to have to cancel some of our club memberships. We were very upset but understood where he was coming from. The man has met all of our friends and they think he's nice enough, so at that angle everything's going well.

I just don't like this 'Nick' person he works with a lot. He's always going around wearing a silly yellow tie and mingling in David's affairs. It was enough that he was promoted and given a big shiny desk in David's office, but now I always see them both in their private car on the way to meetings, cracking jokes, comparing papers and, I bet, sharing secrets.

I hope he doesn't intervene too much in our still new linkage, or things could get uncomfortable.

 Here are David and Nick together at some special questions thingy. They're practically dating!

The Plights of Icarus

Political parties all aim with their utmost energy to brand themselves in a certain image that they hope we will  grasp and share. Their logos are pinnacle to this imagery in symbolizing what they stand for, whatever that may be. Why don't we study the logos of some of the main parties and see what we can extract from their purposeful designs? It'll be fun.

Well, I'm going to do it anyway.

First in this super cool study (but not first in vote share) is the Labour Party.

To my knowledge, the Labour Party has always utilized the traditional red rose in their logo. What do we know about roses? They're a type of flower, and a rather pretty type at that, frequently associated with notions of love and grace. Given the right amount of attention they can grow into beautiful specimens of the plant kingdom. However, they are easily susceptible to a variety of diseases and very fragile. By using a rose, Labour want to show appeal as the traditional, honest bunch, full of life and beauty (just like Harriet Harman), with their policies rooted in British heritage - but like all flowers, roses can be uprooted with little difficulty. They're also thorny buggers, and with a slip of an unprotected hand you could find their stalks piercing your skin and blood trickling down your wrist.

The Liberal Democrat logo might seem palpable in its connotations at first, but let's dig slightly deeper into this yellow ex-parrot. Birds are usually regarded as very free and majestic animals, going where they please via their evolutionary gifted wings. This clearly gives precedence to the notion of liberty, allowing people to take flight in pursuit of their own lives. Birds are also fairly peaceful creatures (especially when they have olive branches in their beaks). Sounds good. Let us not forget, though, that birds cannot stay airborne forever, and they're eventually forced back to solid ground. Birds are also known to do their natural business - a messy natural business - on those down below, be it inadvertently or with distaste. On top of this, what happened to Icarus when he flew too close to the big yellow sun on his escape from Crete? This is a blatant logo with not so blatant faults.

To do away with presumptions, I will try to be as least biased with this one as possible. The Conservative Party logo is a large green oak with a blue trunk. Once again we see a logo rooted in British heritage, the oak being an English tree that is native to many parts of the world. Perhaps this represents Britain's history in what it has done for the world, spreading democracy and civilisation through its empire, something that grew into a harmonious network of countries (the Commonwealth). We should not forget that Britain's historical reach across the continents was not all beneficial, though. Moving back to the oak itself, they are strong in stature and wonderful in presence. Like many of their species they take a long time to grow, but once finished are marvellous trees. The green is clearly meant to represent the environment and a new party that has changed and modernised, yet still holds true to its original values by what keeps it held up. Oaks are also large, burly trees, yet they produce small offspring that, after growing amongst their branches, scatter to find plantation and growth themselves. I do understand the inclusion of the rather amateurishly drawn top to show a party of youth and vibrancy, I just think it's a little too childish in its scribbles when I look at it. That being said, this is a symbol that represents a lot, the majority of it comprising good, decent values.

I find UKIP's logo both boring and stupid. A pound symbol with the party's name sliced through the middle. Wow, imaginative. This is the party with a previous leader that charged the taxpayer around £3 million, one that says if we were to discharge from Europe we'd save heaps of money that could be put towards schools, the NHS, defence, and so on. This money would be put back into 'our' pockets. Perhaps that's where the pound symbol arises from. I don't know, it just comes off wrongly. I'm not a fan of purple either.

The BNP's logo is probably the most obvious and certainly the most ridiculous. Fascism isn't British. Racism isn't British. A violent, ruthless party that uses people's fear and misunderstanding isn't British. So why they have the Union Jack adorning those three useless letters is beyond me. Here we have a disgraceful party disgracing their flag. A party that claims to put British people first but deserves to come last in all elections. I support the flag. I do not support this logo, nor who enforce its wretched ideals.

Finally we come to the Green Party. We've got planet Earth as.... is that another flower? My, politicians do like their plantlife. This is noticeably natural, with green representing the environment and nature itself, the two I presume being the most important factors of this logo. It says, "the Earth is pretty, let's keep it that way." I agree with this, considering myself to be a fairly environmentally friendly individual. I've not got too much else to say except that this is a party logo with a message that is unproblematic to absorb.

It's Alright

A lot of my peers frown on me when I say I have admiration for Margaret Thatcher. Not all of them, but enough for me to have had my beliefs pinned as wrong or, as someone in one of my university classes once put them, "f-----g crazy."

"She was a total bitch.... I think," said a girl when our tutor, who happened to be discussing British political history, asked what the class thought of Britain's iron premier.

"I hear they keep two guards outside Thatcher's home to stop her getting out," added another, giggling in the middle of her row.

"Old hag."

"Evil cow."

"Horrible [here was whispered a certain cuss I don't think I should repeat, even with the purposeful use of hyphens]."

And so on and so forth until I became acutely aware that I was surrounded by a room of what I believed to be predominant lefties, liberals and, ultimately, laughing gentry.

I don't want to generalize and I most certainly don't want to oust the political views of others as obsolete, but sometimes as a student I feel as if I am one of the only predominantly right-wing adherer in a field of those who place themselves on the other end of the figurative spectrum.

A big question here is raised then:  why conservative?

When some are asked where their political ideology stands on a scale, they respond with the old 'small' or 'capital' letter ranking. For instance, you might be a 'small L liberal', or a 'capital S socialist.' If I'm to use this particular scale, then I'd classify myself as a medium 'C' conservative.

Since I was around seventeen or eighteen, I always knew who I was going to vote for when the time came, and very, very little could have changed this. Much of my personal outlook, national (and international) views and political beliefs are what the Conservative Party, and conservatism itself, are.

I believe that the government shouldn't be the master of its people. It shouldn't tell them where to work, how to run their lives, how to maintain their family. In complete essence, the government should be a servant. It is the people who should decide how the government should act, not the other way around. Everyone should be free to live as they wish without some big grey force looming over their moves, intruding and intervening where it deems fit. Of course the government should be there if and when we need it as a helping hand, someone to pull as back up and then push us forward. Of course it should hold a degree of power for our protection and guidance. Of course we need some form of ruling. But we don't need it to be our mother, telling us what to do and how to do it.

I believe, for the most part, that socialism is merely diet communism. Like communism, it wants to pretend that everyone is the same, that everyone should be labelled and have their decisions made for them, that making everybody equal will solve all our problems. It likes to drain its citizens of money for 'improvement' and 'upkeep'. It has those who strive to work hard and provide for themselves be a crutch for those who can't be bothered and are happy for others to work hard on their behalf. It wants everything to be set out and plotted on a straight line with an authoritative fist, one that punches and strikes should you stray from this line. This goes against the fabric of freedom and why socialism, like its big brother, will never work properly.

People aren't the same. If you try and assume this, all you do is stifle individual liberty, cripple entrepreneurship and defy human will.

Now just because I adhere to this largely conservative state of mind does not mean I am some far right-wing maniac. I hold a number of what might be considered left-wing views and attitudes:

• I believe that everyone should be entitled to free, public and decent healthcare. I'm a full supporter of the NHS - it's always been there when I've needed it, and I have no issues with it. Everyone should pay their way for the system because everyone is a user. One day you might be fit as a fiddle, the next you could be battling with your own heart. Good public healthcare provides a good, healthy society. 

• I think that mankind is to blame for the majority of the environmental issues our planet suffers. You only need to chance the news recently and see the great oil spill making its way towards America to understand the damage we cause. I don't think that the Earth is just 'hotting up' and that it does so naturally over periods of time. I'm a full believer in global warming - I've watched the documentaries, listened to the sceptics and my view hasn't changed. We need to tackle climate change effectively and very soon.  

• While I'm a big supporter of the free market, I do believe there needs to be a strong levy on banks in the future. They've run amok for too long, splashing waves of money at worthless products, then selling their own products with no compensation or return. 

• Europe is a big'un, and unlike many on my side of the political fence, I think pulling out of it would be a big'un of a mistake. Personally, while Europe is far from ideal to many countries, not least the UK, the pros outweigh the cons of our membership, and I think we would benefit from a deeper and more negotiable relationship with Europe as opposed to this notion of supreme sovereignty we are entitled to and UKIP's claims that leaving it is the sole remedy for Britain's economic ills. That being said, we should forever keep the pound.

There are other, single issues to which my views may ascertain themselves with a degree of leftyness, but I don't want to construct a long bullet list as to why I'm not necessarily one hundred percent conservative (or large 'C'). All of my other views are essentially right, of which I may extend on in the future. Be they not just right-wing, but right in a manner of correctness, is down to one's own thoughts.