The Politics of the Gutter - Or #No2AV This is Your Campaign

For many weeks now I've been getting angrier and angrier with George Osborne and David Cameron's actions and word in the AV referendum .

Before March 16th when we had the deal that would to the referendum we have spend the last 15 hours voting on David Cameron was insistent that he like Nick Clegg were not going to be heavily involved in the front line of the debate themselves, but would get on with leading the Government in this very trying time. All seemed to be sweetness and light if in different corners on the substance of the debate.

But the No campaign then went into personality attacks on the leader of the junior partner in the coalition government. David Cameron had made a promise to Nick Clegg that it would be a reasoned argument on his part, but Cameron and Osborne quickly joined in on the mudslinging at the man they have to work with in Government rather than arguing the merits or otherwise of the two systems that were on offer.

The worse thing was that they joined in with the lies that the No campaign were spurting out. There were questions in the House to try and get the truth to be acknowledged. As nobody can accuse another Member of the House of being a liar this had to be done through the formality of asking questions. Of course I and many others were shouting lying at the TV screen at any point that the lies were being re-iterated, any time that a loaded question from Conservative or Labour No MPs were asked in PMQs, especially the Labour ones as they wasted a chance to hold the government to account.

Cameron has actually taken liberties with the actuality in the House by stating some of the downright lies that have been part of the No Campaign's strategy. Two months ago they were trailing in the polls. So they started, as they had already been doing but with people like the PM in the starting line up now, to get these lies out. The problem is when the PM tells a lie it takes a long time to counter it.

The PM says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq many people believe him.

The PM says that there will have to be voting machines to count an AV count many people believe him.

The PM says his Deputy once said the words miserable little compromise, solely about AV, not the lateness of the offer, or whom it was aimed at, or the desperation of the outgoing previous PM to cling to power and of course it was a miserable compromise it came 12.95 years into a 13 year term of power.

But to stand by posters that attack a member of your cabinet. To stand by an referendum broadcast that talks about broken promises (aimed squarely at one party in coalition) instead of what actually as you said last year of coming together for the common good of the country, both putting things on the shelf. This is shoddy politics from the man who claims he has a good working relationship.

If I had been elected last year I do not know how I could have sat on the same benches as some of Conservatives who were repeating this bile. I may very well have crossed the chamber to sit as an non-Coalition Liberal Democrat, giving my friend Alistair Carmichael a headache in how to discipline me. Maybe it has been because for the last six months I have been living, breathing and making decisions for the Yes Campaign rather than politics as a whole that I feel this way that some colleagues in Westminster haven't got to the stage Chris Huhne allegedly did in cabinet on Tuesday.

Whatever happens tomorrow I know that we have faced the dirtiest opponent in my entire political career. That is probably because most of my other opponents know they will have to go to the polls again within 5 years. The No campaign don't have that constraint on them, they only had to win once, they only had to stop a change. They didn't offer anything positive, some of what they tried to offer was better reform.

If they have won what they have done is kill any hope of electoral reform before I reach the age of retirement maybe even before I reach 100 (and that is two generations away).

Note I told you I'd let rip, bet you didn't guess this early.

Voting under FPTP isn't as easy as it looks #Yes2AV

Gerry always seems to face a problem when it comes to casting his vote under FPTP. He's been a life long supporter of the Sorbet Party, but everywhere he has lived they have been a distant third or fourth in the  polls. This is the party that he really believes in but they never seem to be able to win a seat wherever he can afford to live near to where he works.

He's quite partial to the Ice Cream Party, but they have never stood in a seat where he has lived, partially because they suspect they will fare even worse than the Sorbet party.

The Cherry Tart Party are currently the party of government. They have been doing terrible things over the last 5 years coming up with half baked ideas, or policies without any substance or filling. Gerry may in the past have been inclined to vote for them ahead of some of the others but they seem to have gone away from the commonness of what they and Gerry believed in. The Blueberry Muffin Party are across the whole country most likely to beat the Cherry Tart Party, but where Gerry lives they came fourth last time behind his own cherished Sorbet Party. But Gerry isn't really a Blueberry Muffin sort of voter, he would only be doing for them if they could win and give the Cherry Tarts a right licking.

The party that is most likely to defeat the Cherry Tarts are the Roast Beef Party. But their key aim is to do way with desserts all together, and Gerry is very much pro-dessert. He therefore faces a dilemma.

Does he

• a) vote for the Sorbet Party because that is who he believes in?
• b) vote for Roast Beef even if that may mean elsewhere in his region that they do away with dessert altogether if they do well enough and stop the dominance of Cherry Tarts locally?
• c) vote for Cherry Tarts a party he depises, but not as much as Roast Beef, because if Roast Beef do well enough he may find he is done out of desserts because other people wanted to vote for them to give Cherry Tarts a lesson?

 Gerry knew exactly how he would have voted under AV

1. Sorbet
2. Ice Cream (if available)
3. Blueberry Muffin (but maybe only this time)
4. Cherry Tarts
5. Roast Beef

This is based on a real conversation that I had ahead of the 2010 general election with someone who was considering whether they should vote for me or not. The names of the parties have been changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent.

First Past What Post?

As many reader will now I now reside in North Down won in May by Sylvia, Lady Hermon with 63.3% of the vote. I also stood in Linlithgow and East Falkirk where Michael Connarty beat me and the rest of the field once again, gaining 49.8% of the vote.

Now these are both exceptional cases where in one case the MP has gained a majority of the vote and in the other were even on a preferential system you would expect that the First Past the Post (FPTP) candidate would have been elected. No doubt some of 3rd or 4th place candidates votes would either not have transferred or enough would have to make up that small short fall.

However, what is the post of which FPTP advocates are so keen to defend?

It is off course a movable entity. Take for example another constituency I know reasonably well, indeed I was looking to represent the Southern part of it next May, Edinburgh North and Leith. There the winning post in 2005 was painted red for Mark Lazarowicz with 14,597 votes. Kevin Lang in 2010 took a total of 16,016 on day when the Labour vote was going down on five years previously across the country. Did this reach the post first? No. Because Lazarowicz had moved to 17,740.

The alternative vote does mean that the post is set in stone, at 50% of the vote either as with Lady Hermon cast for you as the first preference or as in the majority of seats as a reflection of the public's additional preferences. AV is actually more of a first past the post system than FPTP, because it has a post that is unchanging, and a post that you need to aim for, rather than a moving line in the sand washed by the political tide.

PS As you may be able to tell I've spent some time on this issue over the past week. No prizes for guessing why. If you want to get involved in the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign visit their website.

UPDATE: I should really not be surprised that Micheal was also thinking along these lines today now should I?

Conservatives Seeking to Conserve: Change You Can Ignore In

There is a somewhat crude irony that the Tories, as highlighted by ConservativeHome and Iain Dale, are arguing for a threshold on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum to keep the First Past the Post (FPTP) status quo. The reason being that as recently as May 6th the majority of people in the United Kingdom supported a party that advocating a replacement of FPTP. Both Labour and the Lib Dems advocated change along with many of the minor parties.

There is another irony that on American Labor day the min supporter of AV at that election, the Labour Party are seemingly opposed to voting for it. Not they claim because of AV itself, but because it is paired with making the seats of equal size. Somehow they think that in making every vote have equal value that this is gerrymandering, many of us have yet to find this definition in any dictionary (of for that matter as a footnote or definition in the Blair memoir).

So the threshold argument is just one way to appease Tory MPs not happy with it being in the agreement, but the decision to have a referendum is in the agreement. The fact that the Tories want to have a threshold suggests to me that they know they will lose the argument against change. Be 'conservatives' change is never part of their remit.

AV means that some of those safe, almost hereditary, seats in the shires can't be handed out to some London based, Oxbridge graduated, loyalist for services rendered to the party. Who no more know their constituency that a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company. Who have no more intention of living or staying in their constituency that the Loch Ness monster has of taking a regular bow to the tourists.

I'm no great supporter of AV, like Iain Dale I believe it is the least step away from AV , but unlike Iain I believe the people want and deserve more. They want a system that allows them greater proportionality. Many, like me, have never cast a vote that makes a difference in who our MP was, AV a least will give them that.

However, the more the advocates of FPTP try and argue that it is the best voting system out there for a multiple party system such as ours the more determined I am to get the referendum to pass on 5 May next year. Of course the first step is today getting it started on its path through the House of Commons.