Wednesday, May 04, 2011
The regional top up list is the one that matters - it, alone makes our system proportional. In Glasgow the constituency votes will almost all go to Labour but the top up will keep it relatively balanced. For the local list voting to reduce the majority of the idiot who is going to win is useful if there is no personal candidate you trust. That means voting SNP, Conservative or Labour and of those only the Conservatives are even remotely interested in keeping the lights on.
On the regional list I hope everybody votes UKIP. I doubt this for various reasons, primarily that the BBC and STV have decided that news of Britain's 4th largest political party must "whatever happens" be wholly censored in case anybody would like what they say. The press have taken their lead form this; almost all hustings have also decided they may not hust; and Glasgow council, at least, have banned any posters, which obviously works to the advantage of the officially supported parties.
UKIP is the only party with seriously individual policies [economic freedom, bringing electricity prices down with inexpensive nuclear power, stop subsidising windmills, use Scotland's powers to reduce income tax, end the "catastrophic warming" state parasitism, introduce a right to popular referendums, EU referendum which the other parties all promised and who then all broke their promises, reduce the destructiveness of the smoking ban]. The officially approved parties are agreed on almost everything [destroying most of our electrical capacity and thereby destroying most of the economy, far higher electricity costs, freezing thousands of pensioners to death, eco-fascist parasitism, endless recession, promising referendums they have no intention of keeping, promising not to make cuts and indeed more spending when they know there will be less money, more bans, fraudulently giving billions to build public projects like the new Forth crossing that need not be built but could be built for 13% of the official cost}.
I think that is a fair and accurate assessment that could not be disputed by anybody who does not claim that windmills are not 10 times the cost of nuclear or that pigs do have wings.
AV is not proportional representation it is merely a compromise. David Cameron, having been responsible for preventing us having PR as an option on this referendum has gone to great lengths to say PR is a better choice than AV. That is both true and deeply corrupt. He is thereby saying that he has deliberately excluded what he knows to be the better option, purely for what he believes party benefit, because he knows the people would vote for it. If there is a Yes vote the logic of his position is that he would immediately, to promote the good government of the country he claims to serve, call for another referendum including PR which he acknowledges is better. I doubt he will do so but am certain that if there is a No vote he will claim it as public opposition to reform and carry on with politics as usual.
Where AV scores is not in being proportional , which it isn’t, but in lowering the barriers to entry to new parties. That lowering such barriers is a good thing is axiomatic in economics and the same reasons apply in politics. This applies particularly when party members of all 3 parties have no real influence on what the party stand for – eg Cameron’s decision that a referendum on the Constitreaty was no longer party policy, thereby reversing the policy, instantly, without any consultation with either members, conference or MPs, who would all, quite certainly have wanted to retain that “cast iron promise”. If parties can neither be replaced nor controlled there is no democracy. I personally think AV will quickly allow UKIP to replace the LudDims as 3rd party (at the very least) and establish a liberal Parliamentary majority (the Pseudoliberals having falsely gained votes for big statism by pretending to be traditional liberals which they certainly are not).