Do you smell a rat?

Voters are lurching one way or the other over which system, AV or FPTP, is better for the country rather than simply considering which system is 'fairer'. Politicians I respect have come down on both sides, as do the arguments. To take the easy way out is not to abstain but simply let things be and vote 'No' but that is beginning to have a bit of a whiff about it.

There are increasing accusations of untruths and unfair funding. Despite being a free vote, it has been revealed that the 'No' campaign has been funded mainly by Tory party donors and that the 'No' campaign has received 100% support from the Conservative party, the party that is already set to gain from boundary changes. So a 'No' vote could result in the unfair possibility of one party dominance, possibly with a minority vote which would serve no-one's best interests. 

Some voters have already lost sight of what the referendum is all about using the campaign simply to attack the Deputy Prime Minister over what they regard as broken promises yet there are reports that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to Nick Clegg that he would not campaign vigorously for a 'No' vote as part of the coalition deal.

The Jenkins Report suggested a change from the first past the post system back in 1998 but the Conservative response was to pledge a fight against any moves to reform. While the Labour party is split on the issue the party most likely to benefit must be the Liberal Democrats who for years have suffered badly form disproportionate representation based on the number of votes received.

To vote 'No' on the basis of perceived experience of the coalition goes against expert opinion so in fairness the vote should be 'Yes'. 

Order, Order

Reuter photo of a demonstrator leaving Millbank through a shatterd window

As Lib Dem Deputy PM Clegg rose to justify his party's shabby treatment of their student supporters during Question Time in the House today, his Con Chief, the ex-Carlton Communications PM Cameron was busy explaining to his Chinese audience that British students would be picking up the tab for their tertiary education. While not defending lying to the electorate, the disciplined Lab MP Phil Woolas must be reflecting on the difference.

Voting Dilemma

I thought David Cameron’s claim to power amusing. He has constantly preached change with little attention to detail. His message was the same after the results were published suggesting that the Labour Government had no mandate to govern. An interesting observation looking at the votes in percentage terms with almost two thirds of the votes cast against the Conservatives.

His party has the greatest number of seats but calculated simply on the basis of share of the vote, the number of seats would be 234 rather than 306 while the Lib Dems shoot up from 57 to 149.

Gordon Brown was quick to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on electoral reform which must be tempting for the Lib Dems, far more so than the suggestion of yet another committee of MPs offered by David Cameron.

Back in March The Constitution Society published an article on the Tory proposals for electoral reform. It makes interesting reading:

http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/news/articles/16/ .

Postscript

Far more graphic view on the share of the vote:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/electoral-reform-stay-table#reader-comments

Have a look at the John Cleese video for a good titter.

‘X’ – How to use it wisely

Today is decision day. Some will already have cast their votes while others, unless they have an unbending party allegiance, still look for inspiration. There is no point in looking to the press, since most of the newspapers serve their paymasters not the readers.

I have generally regarded the BBC as impartial but today the Mail Online runs the story: “For days the BBC has been banging the drum for the Lib Dems. But then we should never underestimate their hatred of the Tories”. ‘Hatred’; that’s a bit strong but we know where the The Mail is coming from. The BBC puts out a lot of information but not many people these days have the patience to listen/watch over an extended period which is one of the reasons I thought the CH 4 programme I blogged on previously so good.

One piece of advice I find myself out of step with is given by Cranmer in his Blog (see left) – not politically of course – who, in true blue, offers “Seven reasons for Christians to vote Conservative”. I understand where he is coming from but taking the Established Church as an example it’s a bit rich blaming politicians for being anti-Christian while Anglicans are governed by two-faced bishops with their clerical and lay supporters who have ratted on the orthodox in their flock for political correctness substituting feminism for faith. The church is becoming an ‘also ran’ so better to cast one’s vote for the common good free from religious prejudice.

From the discussions I have had, most are agreed that there has been too much personality and two little substance. This was borne out by one television programme I watched. It brought together twelve voters to give their opinions. For my money only one was worth listening to. Most simply spouted the lines picked up from TV with all the conviction of ventriloquist dummies while one had never even heard of Nick Clegg. Obviously saw no point in keeping herself informed.

In practice my vote will count for little having an MP with a healthy majority and an excellent record in the constituency so how I cast my vote is unlikely to make a huge difference. More generally I think it important that people vote for the system they believe in. That gets my vote, I think!

What They Won’t Tell Us

Unlike the previous ‘Leaders’ debates I found this evening’s Election Uncovered: What They Won’t Tell Us programme on Channel 4 very illuminating and didn’t drop off once this time. I was initially concerned about an unexplained empty chair and the absence of Shirley Williams, one of my long time favourite politicians regardless of party (she was one of the SDP’s ‘Gang of Four’). Seeing her name as a participant was one of my reasons for watching. The other being that, as usual, there was nothing else worth viewing despite the myriad channels we appear to have on NTL plus Freesat, but that is another story. Fortunately the Baroness turned up half way through the programme having been caught up in a traffic accident.

Unlike the personality contest that the ‘Leaders’ debates had become, this programme looked at the hard choices that have to be made by the next Government. Four polls were conducted for the programme: Economic Recovery where 58% thought that we were on the road to recovery; Honesty in Politics where 60% thought politicians less honest than they used to be. On the question of believing the Party leaders telling the truth about the tough decisions about cuts, 38% trusted Gordon Brown, 36% trusted David Cameron and 53% trusted Nick Clegg.

On Pensions people were offered the choice between working for longer or having a higher standard of living. Of those polled 61 % opted to work longer and 23 % lower standard of living.

In what was perhaps the most surprising poll, 70% thought it perfectly possible to make cuts without harming Front line services. This was the most illuminating part of the programme clearly demonstrating that tough choices have to be made and how the parties have been reluctant to be honest with the electorate, hence the high vote.

Some people, including the Governor of the Bank of England, have suggested that whoever forms the next government will be so unpopular that they will not be re-electable. That would serve the best interests of no-one. A possible solution, ironically mentioned by Shirley Williams after her late arrival, was that there should be an inter-party unity team to agree a consensus for dealing with the financial crisis. The final show of hands vote was for a hung parliament which could be the best chance of achieving such a consensus.

What is clear is that the ‘Something for nothing’ mentality of many Britons, ancient and modern, is unsustainable. Services have to be paid for. Even with the planned efficiency savings tax rises are inevitable. For the sake of unity these must applied equitably to avoid a greater burden on the poor.

Leaders Debate, Round 3

The third debate was a disappointing anticlimax.

Perhaps my expectations had been too high giving way to an overwhelming feeling of boredom. Regardless of the questions asked the session became a re-run of the same over-worked lines, the main variations coming from the party leaders’ deliveries.

At last David Cameron delivered as people had expected him to in the previous debates having observed his performance since becoming leader of the Conservative Party. A polished act, far better than before but I thought it weaker on substance. “Change” is all very well and captures the public mood but change to what? Change for change sake could simply result in us being out of the frying pan and into the fire. If he had demonstrated clearly how his vision for change would be for the better, he may have retained his previous higher poll ratings.

Cameron’s lack of clarity has resulted in the momentum for ‘change’ being transferred to Nick Clegg enabling him to offer the electorate a complete change from the two-party system. The Liberal Democrats had been largely ignored until the Clegg bombshell shook the two main parties, and the media, out of their complacency. He had it all to play for last night but failed to deliver a decisive blow and appeared the least confident of the three. Nevertheless he presented a new, clean image which will appeal to many especially the younger voters.

That leaves Labour's Gordon Brown. Once an image of ‘the Joker’ came to mind, probably as a result of his attempts to appear less dour, I was stuck with it despite the fact that he is the Prime Minister and spoke with the authority of experience in office and an obvious passion for what he believes in. But if people have decided they want a change as the polls imply, he has an up-hill struggle even if John Major did manage to surprise the pollsters. So ‘change’ in one form or another appears almost inevitable.

I applaud the BBC for their staging of the final event but illuminating I think not. The TV debate innovation gave Nick Clegg the opportunity to burst the bubble which will no doubt prick the Cameron conscience for ever if he fails to win an outright majority. The irony of it all is that the mood for change that was latched onto by the opposition looks likely to be expressed in a manner none of the leaders could have anticipated.

Don’t forget to vote for the common good.

Leaders Debate, Round 2

This time I watched the debate on the TV – until my wife found me dozing and transferred me to the computer. I don’t think I missed much so I was surprised at the result of the first poll for the Sun showing that Cameron was the clear winner with 36% of the votes, a result not sustained in other polls I should add. This time I thought the combatants more evenly matched indicating that there had been much hard work in the background since last week.

Again I thought the debate illuminating, not for what was said, but watching the facial expressions and body language when the leaders were not speaking. I thought Cameron looked the least confident, though much better than last week, while Clegg looked the most assured and Brown rather awkward. Most of the audience looked bored stiff with one member desperately trying to conceal a huge yawn.

The ‘get Clegg’ campaign fell badly after the Telegraph’s shameful attempted smear with ‘Twitters’ picking up the thread and blaming Clegg for everything from the death of Kennedy to responsibility for Samantha’s pregnancy. The desperation of the press may be explained by David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun, who explained that previously the Liberal Democrats were deliberately ignored by the press.

Yelland said, “Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.” Hmmm!

Postscript

More than 100 viewers have complained to the broadcasting regulator (Ofcom) accusing the debate Moderator (Sky News political editor Adam Boulton) of breaking strict impartiality rules by raising newspaper reports about political donations paid directly into the Liberal Democrat leader's bank account. There is no suggestion Clegg broke any rules and bank statements were produced to prove it.

Boulton -> Sky -> Murdoch - Hmmm again!

There's another interesting take on the broadcast in this Blog: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.html

PPS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.html

- Hmmm yet again.

Losers

Yesterday evening I struggled through the first live debate between the main party leaders and avoided dropping off by keeping an eye on the ITV1 website watching viewers’ comments and their ever changing score card.

Those who said that David Cameron had most to lose were proved correct. Denied his well rehearsed brief he looked distinctly uncomfortable as he listened to what his opponents had to say. Gordon Brown suffered the ‘Nixon effect’ nervously grinning and laughing uncharacteristically in the wrong places while viewers consistently put Nick Clegg ahead with his assured performance.

More surprising though was the Party reactions afterwards. On the BBC News Vince Cable said it as it had appeared while Alan Johnson gave his considered smart response but the ex-boy-star William Hague actually claimed his man the victor. Back on ITV George Osborne was speaking from the same script, perhaps on the basis that if you say the same thing over and over people will begin to believe it. Not this time. The media have seen to that.

But at the end of the day these ‘X’ factor performances should not be about personalities and their delivery but about policies. One of the ironies following the outcome of the debate is that we should now hear more about them and be better able to make an informed judgement thus making the Great British voter the clear winner.