Last Saturday as I got home I was greeted by a tweet from my lovely MP, who being PPS to Osborne was going about his day as a good MP, totally ignoring the huge peaceful march and complaining about a bit of smashing. His self-congratulatory smugness gets me every time and I enquired again why he refused to answer my questions on why he opposed AV and proportional representation (he once said he feared AV would pave to more proportional representation and since then I’ve been wondering why he feels this is such a bad thing). While he did no respond, a Charlotte Vere did, who despite being the director of finance of the official no2AV campaign, thought a better use of her time instead of publishing the donors to the campaign to argue over twitter with someone who clearly wasn’t going to change their mind.
There are two camps opposing AV, those who think it will halt further reform preventing PR from being achieved for another generation, I disagree with this camp, but I like ’em, why? Because they like a fair and representative democracies, and while we differ on the best route, we both want the same, if anyone was to convince me to not vote yes, it would be these guys. The people who the majority of the campaign is compromised with, are against AV because they are against electoral reform, and essentially it boils down to the absolute fear that their stranglehold on Westminster will be reduced. I don’t particularly like the rhetoric from either side of this debate, and I think the current yes2AV posters with Nick Griffin are as bad as the sick baby and soldier ones out so far. But comments like these piss me off: that somehow all the people who voted Lib Dem were wrong and somehow don’t deserve to have their views represented accordingly. It scares me that either people in power or those running for it behave in such a way to deliberately impede progress of accurate representation of the views of their supposed constituents and their peers.
Another thing I take issue with, especially with my current MP is the comments by one D Birkin (who due to me not needing to leave the house much at the moment, has been cropping up on twitter, blogs and ERS sites a lot, he is smarmy and I dislike him), a self proclaimed Thatcherite. Greg Hands, as a PPS, is a waste of space, he cannot ever counter the party line, and when he speaks off topic its on something highly irrelevant or acting as a sock puppet for his front bench task masters, therefore he is the government and during the election he campaigned as one with it. As did the other candidates they all spoke their party lines at the hustings, why is this surprising, I (and I suspect most others) have stronger party ties than those to our individual MPs, as such I see any system where localism is championed to largely irrelevant, because there is a good chance that either it outside the remit of an MP to do anything (council elections – again largely party orientated) or not particularly interesting. Essentially, arguing for the link to local MPs to remain is of no interest to me, I wouldn’t care if my lawyer in a trial was from my general geographic area, but I would like them to represent me to the best of their ability.
The only real benefit of AV is that it requires general consensus, it wont change the make up of the Commons radically, the Greens nor any ‘extremist party’ are not going to win the next election, nor will they likely be king makers. However, there will be a better house, where each member has the support of half of his constituents to some extent, and this can only be hailed as a good thing until PR gives us the accurate make up of what parliament should look like.
The discussion quickly ended with a good day because it was on the internet between people who had clearly made their mind up and who were not going to be changed, and I’m hoping they had as much important things to be doing as I did so I said good day and Charlotte Vere went back to not releasing those who have donated to her campaign.