UK General Election 2015 - A View from the Asylum

Well, that was a jolly little election wasn’t it? The polls got it wrong. Or was it the Poles? (Blasted foreigners coming over here and taking away our sense of reality).

But then I thought the anti-immigration sentiment encouraged by UKIP had had some effect when I was told something about Exit Poles, only to discover I’d got the spelling wrong, and an Exit Poll was a system of finding out how people had actually voted (as opposed to how they said they would vote.

The Exit Polls told us that all the other polls had been wrong, and that far from being faced with a “Hung Parliament” (some say hanging is too good for them) there would probably be a Conservative government with a workable majority.

The trouble was that we had all learned to believe the earlier polls, and now we had the Exit Poll none of us believed it. Indeed one-time leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown said if the Exit Poll was right he’d eat his hat. So far as I know this has not yet actually happened. A dollop of custard might help it go down, and it would be appropriately in line with the Party colour.

Similarly, ex-Labour Press Secretary Alistair Campbell said he’d eat his kilt. Again, yet another broken promise.

What do I think of Clegg?

So, in the end we did finish up with a Conservative Government, and now David Cameron (left) has got to learn how to govern without the moderating influence of the Liberal Democrats.

I’m sure we are all going to enjoy the ride, and I recommend we all hang on tightly and try not to scream too loudly. It’s going to be a scary ride for Cameron himself as he now heads a government with hugely reduced majority compared to the one enjoyed by the previous Coalition.

 

Many of the swivel-eyed loons on the Conservative back benches that John Major used to refer to as “the Bastards” are still there ready to kick up a rumpus over membership of the EU.

Once again we have gone through an electoral process that is increasingly falling to bits, as more and more Parties build up a following. “First-past-the-Post” cannot in any way be deemed as democratic in a multi-party environment. I’ve never been a great fan of either UKIP or the SNP, but they’ve thrown into sharp focus the ludicrous nature of our system.

One and a half million people voted for the SNP and got 56 seats. Nearly four million people voted UKIP and got 1 seat (they had two before, so that’s a 50% reduction). Who is going to tell me that this makes any kind of sense?

Under a proportional system the Conservatives would still have won (with about 250 seats), Labour would have come second (with about 200 seats), UKIP would have come third (with about 70 seats) and the Liberal Democrats would have come fourth (with about 50 seats). SNP and Green Party would also have been represented but with fewer than 50 seats.

What do I think of Cameron?

As the results from our ridiculous system came rolling in, it soon became obvious that the Exit Poll was actually spot on, and as the day after the night before began to shine its Tory-blue light into our bleary eyes, our ears picked up a strange sound, rather like dead flies falling on to a parquet floor. In fact, that’s what it was .. the sound of Party Leaders falling like dead flies: first of all Nick Clegg (right)

- who managed to retain his seat - resigned his leadership of the Liberal Democrats. 

Labour Leader & some guy in a suit

Then Ed Miliband (left) resigned as Leader of the Labour Party (having failed to convince the British people that what they needed was more distinct Socialism, more class envy, and acceptance that if they were not fat-cat bankers then they were some kind of victim).

And then – keeping his promise that if he failed to win the South Thanet Seat he would resign – UKIP Leader Nigel Farage (below) did in fact resign. It was the end of the war and the Farage Balloon had been deflated. He was now free to spend more time with his beer and fags.

UKIP - United Koff-sticks & Independent-Breweries Party

And on the third day he rose again!

After pressure from Party members Nigel Farage decided to un-resign. (Is that a word? My spell-checker’s accepted it anyway). Susan Evans, his appointed deputy, had enjoyed the shortest period of office in the history of the world. A pity – I quite like her.

And what are we to say about Scotland? Having lost the referendum on Independence, the SNP managed to destroy the Labour Party in Scotland and won all but a couple of seats. Their

Let's hear it for me!

leader Nicola Sturgeon (left) - a bit of cold fish in my view - was hailed as some kind of heroine, and you could sometimes see the flicker of a smile hovering around those thin lips. Now, thanks to the vagaries of our electoral system, she has 56 seats in the Westminster Parliament on only 9% of the UK vote.

The SNP is a National Party with a set of policies closely resembling Socialism. “National Socialist” .. now why does that ring a bell? A National Socialist Party with a charismatic leader. Oops! Now watch them make merry with Prime Minister Cameron. It won’t be long before the Scots are so fed up with the UK Government that the “Smiling Assassin” will be able to whip up enough enthusiasm for a second attempt at Independence.

Don’t even think about boycotting Haggis .. it was invented in England! It was in an English recipe book by 1615. It’s not found in Scottish documents until 1747. Crikey, that’s just over an hour and a half between them!

I must draw this academic analysis of the General Election to a close, happy in the knowledge that we have some excitement to look forward to in the shape of leadership elections for Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I was looking forward to a UKIP leadership election too but Mr Farage has denied me that pleasure by only pretending to resign in the first place.

©Lionel Beck

The Last Liberal Democrat in Town.

May 2015

Referendum on Electoral Reform 5th May 2011

It's a great shame that what should have been a sensible and apolitical debate on the pros and cons of "First past the post" versus "Alternative Vote" has degenerated into a slanging match between Party politicians.

Both sides have been economical with the truth, and some have been telling downright lies, repeatedly, using the Goebbels principle that if you tell a lie frequently enough it eventually becomes the accepted truth.

This is far more important for the future democracy of our country than which politician supports which system, and whether or not we like that politician. If you are voting YES because you don't like David Cameron, or if you are voting NO because you don't like Nick Clegg, you are totally missing the point.

It's about whether the existing voting system is democratic and allows you to have a greater say in who becomes our representative in Parliament. Is it right that 70% of the MPs currently in the House of Commons are there with the support of a MINORITY of their voters? Is it right that nearly every Government (if not all) since the 2nd World War have imposed their ideologies upon the country with less than half the country supporting them? What kind of democracy is that?

"AV" is far from perfect, but at least it does two important things: it retains the constituency link with a single MP, and it ensures that no MP is elected without the support of at least half the voters. What is bad about that?

The current system was just about defensible in the middle of the 20th century, when people were pretty much voting either for the Great Blue Tribe or the Great Red Tribe. Today's politics are more fluid, and we are no longer slavishly devoted to one of two Great Tribes.

So, I am saying YES to change on 5th May and would urge all who have not yet made up their mind to take this (probably) once in a generation opportunity to take a small step forward. Ignore all this talk of excessive cost, electronic counting machines, and so on. It's already been stated in a Parliamentary Answer that the cost of running either of the two systems are not that different, and there are no plans to use electronic counting machines.

Another myth put about is that you are obliged to place all candidates in order of preference. You have no such obligation. If you wish to cast a vote for only one candidate, and you think all the others are appalling then you just place a '1' against your candidate. Easy as 1,2,3 (or just 1 in your case!)

Vote YES to change.

Electoral Reform - Another Gem from the "No" Campaign

The other day Prime Minister David Cameron (who, unlike his Liberal Democrat Coalition partner and Deputy Nick Clegg, is against scrapping the "first-past-the-post" system) came out with the astonishing claim that, had last year's General Election been held under the Alternative Vote system it would have produced another five years of a Gordon Brown Labour Government!

Does Cameron have psychic powers? In order to make such a claim he would need to know what every voter's second and third (and fourth?) preferences would have been if the election had been held under the Alternative Vote system.

This is just another example of the pathetic attempts by the NO campaigners we can expect to see over the coming weeks to persuade us to hold on to a system that returns two thirds of our MPs to Parliament on less than 50% support of their constituents.

Voting Reform - The NO Campaigners Show Themselves

I wondered where they were hiding, but the "NO" campaigners have come out from under their stone at last, indicating their likely tactics in persuading us to stick with the existing "First past the Post" system.

Here are their key ideas: the Alternative Vote is more complicated; the Alternative Vote is more expensive; the Alternative Vote is likely to deliver more Coalition Governments.

Notice that the words democracy and democratic don't feature in any of this. That's no surprise because there is no argument in this world that can convince any right-minded person that a system delivering Members of Parliament representing a minority of their constituents (sometimes for life) is democratic.

On the issue of other systems being more complicated, are we not sufficiently intelligent to be able to cope? How on earth do the rest of Europe manage to handle it? Leaving aside the possible fact that they have clearer heads because they don't binge-drink like the British, I still think we can summon up sufficient intellectual capacity to deal with a slightly less simple method of voting and counting.

As for the cost, well we could make the thing a whole lot cheaper by abolishing elections. (Last time I looked, that was called a Dictatorship). Come to think of it, perhaps that's why 40% of our population don't bother to vote anyway, because they do not see it delivering anything relevant to their own ideas.

The "NO" campaigners are going to have to rely entirely upon fear and negativity in order to persuade us that it is better to accept the devil we know rather than the one we don't.

They should return to the primeval swamp from whence they came, in which inertia is the best method of survival, leaving the rest of us with brains to pursue our legitimate demand for more democracy. OK, some will argue that the "Alternative Vote" is not fully democratic, but from little acorns grow mighty oak trees.

More power to the "YES" Campaign!

UK GENERAL ELECTION & the VOTING SYSTEM

We all got intoxicated with Nick Clegg and now we've woken up Clegless. Well, not exactly Clegless - he's still there but his Liberal Democrats finished up with less seats than before, even though their share of the popular vote went up by 1%.

In fact the Liberal Democrats nationally polled 23% of the vote and finished up with (at the time of writing) only 8% of the seats. In other words, the usual nonsense.

The Conservatives clearly increased both their share of the seats and their share of the vote, and therefore (according to Nick Clegg) have a right to try and form a government, but in this regard they would need to talk to the Liberal Democrats regarding how to get their support.

Gordon Brown's Labour Party could not form an overall majority in the House of Commons even if they took the Liberal Democrats on board.

In other words, another fine mess caused by an electoral system that fails to reflect the wishes of the British people.

UK GENERAL ELECTION & the VOTING SYSTEM

Click photo to enlarge

Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg (left), Conservative David Cameron (centre), Labour's Gordon Brown (right), debating on TV, an event that transformed this election from plain boring into mildly exciting.

The most significant aspect of this first-ever national TV debate between Party Leaders is that it has propelled the Liberal Democrats to the forefront of the national consciousness. Because the vagaries of the British "first-past-the-post" electoral system have tended to give the Liberal Democrats only 60 or so Parliamentary seats on the back of 25-30% of the popular vote, they have hitherto been given less prominence in media coverage.

The new national TV debates have changed all that with Nick Clegg being given equal prominence to the other two Party Leaders, a prominence that has done him no harm at all!

Conservative and Labour votes tend to be concentrated in certain constituencies, whereas Liberal Democrat support is more widely distributed, resulting in their failing to succeed in the same way. Even though they are now riding high in the opinion polls, pretty much on equal footing with Conservatives and Labour, projecting the polls into actual seat gains on May 6th indicate perhaps a hundred or so seats (in a 630-seat Parliament).

Ironically, Nick Clegg's rise and rise has led to the other two Parties making the following statements ..

Voting Liberal Democrat will let Labour in.

Voting Liberal Democrat will let the Conservatives in.

If this doesn't expose the ludicrous nature of our electoral system I don't know what does!

Here's a radical thought: what about having a system whereby voting Liberal Democrat lets in the Liberal Democrats?

I know, too silly for words.

UK GENERAL ELECTION - The Usual Farce

Current opinion polls suggest that about 62% of the British Public do not want a Conservative Government, and yet such is the stupidly undemocratic nature of our voting system, that if people vote as they say they intend to, then the likelihood is that we shall finish up getting a Conservative government anyway, and it will be representing about 38% of the population.

I've been driven to distraction by this tyrannical system for the whole of my life, and I'm fed up to the back teeth with it. As a point of principle, whoever I vote for in this election, I shall be making a point of ensuring it is not for any Party that refuses to accept the need for electoral reform.

I guess that rules out the Conservatives. Labour are promising a referendum on the need for electoral reform, so that puts them in a slightly better light. The Liberal Democrats, Greens, and UKIP are all in favour of a fair voting system.

I'm sure most of the rest of Europe think we are completely barmy to put up with this kind of thing.

Electoral Reform & the Conservative Party

Having almost reached a point where I might have considered voting Conservative at the next General Election I read in today's papers that they are opposed to reform of the voting system.

So long as they are content with MPs being elected on a minority vote I shall not support the Conservative Party, since it cannot claim to be democratic. "First-past-the-post" has served both them and the Labour Party well over the years, and I see the Conservatives' opposition to change as being entirely self-serving. I am not asking for full-blown PR with Party Lists. A simple one MP per constituency is fine, so long he or she represents more than 50% of the vote. We all know there are ways of achieving this.

Conservatives .. please wake up to the basic idea of democracy.

This makes me angry when politicians are supposedly wondering why people are disenchanted with politics.