Skip to main content

Why I say "no"!

Someone suggested that I pen a few lines about why I am voting no to AV. I have been procrastinating about it because
a- its been Easter so I've had a few things on
b- most of my readers/ friends are lovely liberal types who will most likely be in favour
c- I had a fairly vibrant public disagreement with my diocesan bishop about it and am a little scarred!

But for what its worth:

I think at the core of my opposition is about what I believe about history. I believe that history twists and turns on the interplay of radical characters being themselves in a larger arena. God (or fate or whatever Richard Dawkins might call it) and specifics humans engage in a dance that takes world events down particular roads at particular times. This can be for immense bad, or immense good.

In antithesis my very particular take on history thinks that much harm has been done by mediocre characters in the interests of 'safety' and 'stability'. I read a tweet (I know not the source of all sound knowledge) which said this:
"More girls were killed for being girls in the last 50 yrs than men were killed in all the battles of the 20th century"
I suspect that if we do the maths more people were killed in defence of stability, safety, how things used to be and such stuff than by all the crazy mad people who kills out of ideological drive. (I could insert here a little bit about AV being the 'safe' choice that stops all the suburban types having hissy fits about the BNP getting an MP)..

My, this is a long preamble..

And isn't actually making my argument very well.. so I shall cut to the chase as it were.

AV, in my opinion, will lead to a celebration of mediocrity. Ultimately the least 'dangerous' candidate/ party will hold power. I work for the Church of England where such attitudes have held sway for years and perhaps explain why in the main we are dying on our butts. I think people will vote #2 for someone safe: and therefore in anything marginal the dull safe person or party will win.. Yaaawwwwn!

AV is not significantly more proportional due to the random nature of the constituency system.

AV doesn't help the reality that we try to marry two foundational and yet opposing political givens in the country. We seem to want local MPs. But we are also obsessed with party politics. AV doesn't 'solve' this or offer a decent alternative.

The idea that this will be our only chance ever says something quite disturbing about what we believe about democracy in our country. And isn't true. If we care enough for long enough it will come round again.. and frankly if we can make the debate rage for years about foxes but can't do it for voting then we deserve an unrepresentative dictatorship!

And finally: and this is mean spirited but I don't care. The Lib Dems have perpetuated fraud on the voters. They have lied and sold to to almost everything they ever said in pre election campaigning. Now we can blame the anti war leftists for being so profoundly naive (oh I just did, job done).. but we can also hope that those same leftists don't vote for AV as it will stop the Lib Dems receiving their due punishment.

One might argue that such electoral treachery means that Clegg and co deserve to be wiped from the electoral map. AV will most likely lead to them having more MPs (due to our strange part allegiance stuff). And that just doesn't seem fair: sell out your whole platform except the one thing that might help you stay vaguely in power.

So I will vote no to AV. But I will continue to ask and campaign for a better system. Because I want to beleive that democracy is real and if the people ask for something they will eventually get it!

(I will also post about what system I would like and why.. but not yet).


andymoore said…
My AV thoughts far, far too long for a comment, but if you're interested they are here:

Popular posts from this blog

NO MORE MAGIC BULLET- or why I have stopped watching the West Wing

I love the West Wing. It still rates as one of the most well informed and influential series of the genre. Its speeches have been stolen by people who have osmosed its hope for a better way of doing politics. When we watch it today it holds a very particular kind of resonance because it demonstrates a civility that has been drowned in a sea of hate. It has positive images of a wrestled out faith, is rich with camaraderie and pith and is just good telly.
But its bad for me. 
It pains me to admit this, but the West Wing makes me think I can change the world in a way that is simply not helpful. 
It holds out the present hope that the world can turn on a single conversation. With the brave statement or right turn of phrase one might change the debate, and in turn might change the world entire. The moment in the Oval where they realise that if they take no credit they can save social security. The moment where Donna remembers to pay welfare payments. The realisation that all the NATO people a…

Oxpresidentgate and a Crisis of Generosity

Its been an interesting start to the year for the third sector. As we all get to grips with GDPR (more later), we have been subject to increased media attention as first we reeled from President’s Club revelations to the far deeper impact of this week’s revelations about Oxfam (and others).
There is much that can be written. Undoubtedly there are some in media and politics who will seek to exploit the 1/3 of us who don’t think aid should be sent overseas to change policy off the back of bad behaviour by some people. We could face a drop in giving to international development, as supporting Oxfam is no longer seen as acceptable (like buying a plastic bag). I suspect this will recover at some point, possibly in different form.
However, there is a deeper moral crisis for third sector organisations and my fear is that Christian charities are not immune.
To explore this let me go back a month. The President’s Club- where charities were set to receive significant amounts of money from an…

A very dull post about what I do with my time...

Each year I take a calendar month and record what I do in it. I break each day into twenty minute chunks and note down what happens in each twenty minute block. I don’t do the same for designated Sabbath time (nor do I note each bit of time outside of the beginning and end of a working day, no-one needs to know how long I clean my teeth for).
I categorise each thing that I do (an imperfect science) with a view to getting a handle on what I do with my time. 
This year I did the audit in November (as clergy I always avoid doing this in Lent, Advent or August). 
So- what did I discover?
I work around 55 hours a week. (thats up one hour from last year) That work is spread over five and a half days. The only sabbath day that was interrupted by work was about processing a painful meeting.  Of 26 working days, I worked 12 evenings.
In terms of what I do:
In November 17% of my time was taken up with prayer, reading and learning. Thats a slightly false read as I had a 48 hour away time in there. Prayer…