Anyone in search of well-written and argued left blogging who doesn’t already read the excellent Though Cowards Flinch should apologise for their omission and immediately make it part of their essential reading.
If I could recommend three recent pieces. Paul Cotterill’s 10 Reasons the left should support Labour council cuts – parts 1-5 and 10 Reasons the left should support Labour council cuts – parts 6 -10. The first was reproduced in a shorter form over at Liberal Conspiracy and caused a real hullabaloo amongst those who consider anything less than purity to their own particular shining path to be the act of traitors of the first order. Anyway, they are a forensic examination of why we are where we are.
Sandwiched in between is a good piece explaining why Labour supporters should vote No in the referendum despite the crap emanating from the No campaign.
There, that should keep you busy for a while.
People are pissed off with politicians shock horror.
The level of your intellectual analysis is quite stunning, Robert. I hope you didn’t spend too long thinking up that banality.
Good grief, Councillor, if you haven’t better things to do than plough through that load of verbiage, let me tell you that the rest of us do. I did read the first post, a piece of trivia whose only virtue was its brevity. I left a suitable comment, you will be pleased to hear.
Hi Bob; Just back from a winter break, so I am catching up with your column( one of the few sane voices in an ever increasing crazy world imho.). Not had time to read T.C.F.for a while,regretably; however, with regards to the referendum on the Altrnative Vote, surely all progressive/socialist minded people must campaign/support for a Yes vote. Personally, I have always been a supporter of Proportional Representation since the late 60′s early 70′s, as was the Labour Party in its early days and with only a small Parliamentary representation; but forgot all about P.R. when they replaced the Liberal Party as the Opposition in Parliament and then won power in 1945, then became devotees of First Past The Post. Historically, F.P.T.P. has always benefited the Tories until a couple of recent elections, though there was such an anti- Tory swing in 1997& 2001 that even F.P.T.P. could’nt save them. Surely the 2005 election resulting in Bliar winning a majority of 65? on 35% of the electorate exposed the anti democratic nature of F.P.T.P.; if not then M.P.s being elected on 33% of a contituencies electorate should prove the case for electoral reform. It does’nt concern me that Clegg is an advocate of P.R. while accepting the Alternative Vote as the only possibly acceptable form of electoral reform at the moment(I campaigned for an anti E.U. vote in the 1975 referendum in complete knowledge that Enoch Powell; one of the most reactionary, dangerous politicians of the post War era, was also campaigning on an anti E.U. platform.The main point of the A.V. system means that an M.P. has to achieve 50% of the vote in his/her costituency, and the second preference vote means that a vote is’nt completely wasted. The reduction of a costituencies electorate to 60,000 voters and the number of Westminster M.P.s to 600 is nothing to do with A.V. but everything to with Tory/LibDem chicanery. Lastly(phew) the fact that the majority of the carpetbaggers in the Parliamentary Labour Party( who backed David Milliband) are opposed to A.V.even though it was in the L.P.s 2010 election manifesto, convinces me that A.V. is a change for the better.
Gerald, if the bottom candidate drops out after the first round of counting, and their second preferences are redistributed, how does that mean all votes cast are equal. With four candidates, for instance, the bottom candidates preferences are redistributed… but not the preferences of the candidate who finished second.
My objection isn’t based on whether it is good for me, Labour or the Tories. I think it turns every election into the mish-mash of pick-and-mix government we have got at the moment, where both parties in government feel free to cast aside their election promises and blame the ‘coalition agreement’ that no-one voted for. People can take the piss out of Cameron’s Big Society, but if they had won the election you can’t say it wasn’t something they had pledged to do.
You object to Blair being Prime Minister with 35% of the vote, but see nothing wrong with our current Deputy Prime Minister smiling cheerfully as he craps on the 22% of voters who supported his party.
As for your final point you suggest AV is bad (because the majority of the carpetbaggers in the Parliamentary Labour Party are opposed to A.V.)
So presumably you think it is good (because the majority of carpetbaggers amongst Liberal Democrat think it is good).
Bob; My point about A.V. is that it is a fairer voting system than First Past The Post; as I said I would prefer the P.R. system in The Republic of Ireland(Single Transferable Vote I believe). The fact that Clegg has crapped on his supporters does’nt alter the blatantly unfair system whereby a vote of 35% of the electorate gave Bliar approximately 375 M.P.s, and a vote of 22% gave Clegg 55? M.P.s(I know they were results at two different elections, but I think that you will get my drift). The opponents of A.V.( and/or P.R.) use the argument that A.V. leads to coalitions and dilutions/betrayals of mandates; but so has F.P.T.P. and we only have to go back to Wilson government of 1964-66 and the Wilson/Callaghan government of 1974-79 to think of messy compromises all under F.P.T.P. Because I’m a supporter of A.V.(and thats only because A.V.is the only form of Proportional Representation on offer) does’nt mean that Iam a supporter of Clegg or the LibDems, as my posts on your site must have shown over the few months since I discovered your site. Also the greatest election result I have ever seen in my lifetime(67 years) was Scotland in 1997 when not one Tory M.P. was left; what a beautiful day that was.
Also the greatest election result I have ever seen in my lifetime(67 years) was Scotland in 1997 when not one Tory M.P. was left; what a beautiful day that was.
Which wouldn’t have happened under AV.
Bingo!
Bob; While not wanting to turn this discussion into a marathon, your riposte to my point about the 1997 Scottish election result was a good one; however, nowhere in your replies to my posts do you mention anything about the blatant unfairness of First Past The Post, which allows an M.P. to be elected with only 33% of voters in a constituency, A.V. while it is’nt a perfect system(though the Australians have used it satisfactorily for the last 50 years) ensures that it will take 50% of voters in a constituency, which has got to be fairer than the present system.You also ignored the point I made about F.P.T.P. can also produce coalitions, under which we are suffering now, and due to suffer a hell of a lot more before they are done.. So in conclusion I’m saying that A.V. is not perfect but it will be a fairer system if we adopt it, giving minor parties a chance i.e. Greens non Trot socialists, environmentalists; and before you say it , it may also help such as U.K.I.P, B.N.P. etc, but they are’nt going to go away so therefore its our duty to fight and expose them for what they are and wherever they are.
I thought I had addressed it, Gerald. If the votes of those who drop out are redistributed... where’s the fairness in that! If I finish second, to your first, a third candidate finishes behind both of us and some dope finishes behind all three of us… the dope’s second preferences are redistributed, and if one of us gets more than 50% based on the idiot’s vote….they win. My second preference, and yours and the third candidates are ignored. What’s fair about that?
People will vote for the candidate they want. To satisfy some mystical 50% rule they end up with a candidate they didn’t actually want, but that they may have cast some vague preference for over a total muppet.
First past the post can of course lead to coalitions. Under the current circumstances I thought you were just stating the bleedin’ obvious, not asking a question. The fact is, under our party system, AV will make coalitions almost irrelevant, not some freak result. Our current system will mean that now the Liberals will be blasted to oblivion, not rewarded with a place in government or getting 8% of the vote.