Anti-Reform Logic Fail

[ffutures]

I saw this poster tonight:



Apart from the fairly crude attempt to make people feel unpatriotic for wanting a system that should hopefully make it harder for politicians to get away with starting wars, the central premise seems to be the idea that spending money on this process will somehow impede improvements in the Army's equipment.

Except that all of the evidence suggests that sheer incompetence at every level, especially in the bits of the government that currently handle military procurement, are the main things stopping such improvements - ridiculously complicated finance deals that end up costing billions more than they need to. £250 million is a drop in the ocean by these standards.

I'm currently not too keen on the reform guys either, since they are sending me WAY too many emails, but so far they haven't insulted my intelligence to this extent.

Looking forward to the referendum, or whatever they end up calling it.

Later: Looking at their web site doesn't make it very clear who is behind this, but the person named (William Norton) appears to be a solicitor associated with the Conservatives, if it's the same person. Not much of a surprise...

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I guess that one can go up with "It's for the children!" as evidence of dishonest intent in a ballot proposition.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Definitely.

[nelc.livejournal.com]

Who are these people and who's behind them?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

No idea - it's the first I've heard of this campaign.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

And their web site is VERY uninformative about this - the only name mentioned on their site is someone called William Norton, who appears to be a solicitor for the conservative party.

http://www.no2av.org/

[danel4d.livejournal.com]

There's also the element that £250 million is a wildly dubious figure - a large part of it is the cost of the referendum itself, whether we vote for AV or not.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

A large part of the referendum cost doesn't count either, since it's the cost of the local elections that would be happening on that day anyway in some of the country.

To generalise hugely, the No campaign are the right-wing Conservatives, funded by Ashcroft, doing it all with expensive and glossy centralized advertising. The Yes campaign are mostly LibDems and some Labour (those that weren't busily trying to sabotage it in the Lords, at least), doing it by email and phone canvassing because that's cheaper. Which would be why the No campaign spent some of their money on getting a court ruling that this is political campaigning, so subject to TPS rules.

[w00hoo.livejournal.com]

This has been infuriating me for the last week or so. The as space on the A102M southbound from the Blackwall tunnel has had it up since the previous Monday or so. If this is the best argument they can come up with...

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Looks like it's the conservatives behind it.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

If I had a vote in your referendum I already know which way I would vote - but if I hadn't this would certainly send me off to tick the AV box!

ETA - and what a firm-jawed, steely-eyed model they chose for their 'soldier'! Why would I want to provide him with a bullet-proof vest? In case the photographer throws a wobbly? Slightly sunburnt and crumpled would have been a good deal more convincing for a member of HM Armed Forces.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Definitely - VERY unimpressed.

[landsmand.livejournal.com]

While I'd agree that the poster isn't technically that good, it's a robust political argument at least as honest as those being put out by the Yes campaign. It's indicative of the trivialisation and infantilisation of the political debate generally in the UK, for which the entire political class and its communications folk are responsible.

While everyone's ticking about the campaign, no-one, it seems to me, is engaging with the actual issue, which, just to remind everyone, is "do we want to introduce the AV system to replace first past the post?".

This is a key question. A 'yes' result will turn British politics on its head and will tend to guarantee coalition governments in future, as well as reducing the number of safe seats. This may be good, it may be bad, I don't know.

I'd actually prefer if both campaigns treated the electorate as adults and explained the issues. However, given that, actually, 90% of the population doesn't give a toss and it's likely that turnout for the referendum will set a new low for percentage participation, I rather suspect that we'll end up with something no-one understands, no-one cares about and which will only work to the advantage of the political class and the occasional Liberal Democrat.

On the point being made so unsubtly on the poster, the fact is that the referendum is costing that sort of money and it's a shedload of cash to keep a few sandal wearers happy.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Ah, voting systems. Is that what this is about? I didn't get that from the advertisement, which I guess is the point. Voting systems are an interesting topic . . . though a pretty theoretical one for the United States; between constitutional requirements and the dominance of the two established parties, we're not very likely to see any change from simple majority voting.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Sorry I didn't make it clearer.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Given that this has been one of the key issues over several elections, I disagree that only a few people care about it. I'm not sure that what's proposed is necessarily the best answer, but it needs proper discussion and some sort of resolution - and as you say, it would be nice if both sides treated people like adults.

[landsmand.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't agree that it's been a key issue over several elections, except for one particular party, which has arguably been under-represented in terms of share of the popular vote reflecting in number of seats in Parliament.

Unfortunately for those voters, the British political tradition is for winner takes all politics and this sort of massive change (even if not full PR or d'Hondt or whichever proportionate system one might want to pursue) would have massive unexpected consequences. I incline to the view that what we have at the moment is probably the least worst solution, but I'm willing to be convinced either way - where do I go for a sensible conversation about it, though?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

No idea - I have been screwed extensively (re. my career, pension, etc.) by various first past the post governments, most notably Thatcher, so I'm rather keen on finding alternatives, but I'm not expert enough on this to engage in political debate.

[1st-law.livejournal.com]

It will reduce safe seats but it doesn't seem to suggest coalition governments more than the current system. At least not according to the projected results for previous elections on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

I saw that poster the other week on the way back from the cinema, in an area of Sheffield where they filmed quite a bit of Four Lions. Seemed rather counter-productive.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

To say the least.