Michael Howard doesn't do logic either

At the Evening Standard's well-attended AV debate, Michael Howard managed to contradict himself completely at least twice during his ten-minute pitch:

Exhibit One

AV is bad, he said, because it leads to more coalitions. There wouldn't be 'strong government'.

Fair enough, I can see why Tories like large Tory majorities and why Labour like large Labour majorities, although I'm not sure what's in it for the rest of us (or why Tories like large Labour majorities and vice versa - what happens when they get in is they waste the first few years just reversing what the previous lot did). But hey, that's his opinion.

A minute or two later, he warned AV supporters that AV would not lead to more proportional outcomes; he made the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the Tory majority in 1987 would have been bigger; as would the Labour majority in 1997.

Could he make up his mind please - either he likes big majorities or he prefers small majorities/coalitions (I can see arguments for either, although I personally prefer the latter); and once he's made up his mind about that, could he then please make up his mind as to whether AV or FPTP is more likely to lead to that outcome?

Exhibit Two

He also did the time honoured thing by claiming that not only would candidates pander to those who give their first vote to an 'extremist' party (i.e. BNP or UKIP - I'm not sure why the Green Party don't count as 'extremist')." but they'd also be blander overall because they'd be trying to grab second votes from the other major parties.

Ho hum. If I were a candidate from a major party in a seat where the votes are split roughly three ways, I would rather try to grab second votes from the vast majority who are likely to vote for one of the other two major parties than try to grab second votes from the tiny minority who are likely to vote BNP*. But the same applies to an election held under FPTP so I'm not it's even relevant.

Either way, I'd find it helpful if he could make up his mind whether he prefers bland candidates or slightly wackier candidates; and then to decide whether he prefers AV or FPTP.

* Red Ken, who was also on the panel and who has won rather more elections that Michael Howard, pointed out that the BNP had advised its supporters to give Boris Johnson their second vote in the 2008 London mayoral election. Boris went out of his way to dissuade BNP voters from doing so, promptly won the election and then merrily proposed an amnesty for illegal immigrants living in London (a policy which Red Ken himself had proposed) and something which would be anathema to the BNP.

Red Ken also pointed out that any candidate who was daft enough to try and appeal to BNP voters was likely to lose more votes that he gained and that the BNP themselves oppose AV. All verifiable facts, y'see. I like a man who sticks to actual facts.

As an aside, I can't see any real difference between Red Ken and Boris, except that Boris banned drinking alcohol on the trains, so all in all I preferred Red Ken, to be honest.
--------------------------
As a postscript, the reception the audience gave Stephen Woolfe (a UKIP spokesman on 'the City') when he asked a perfectly innocuous question was absolutely shameful, but he kept going anyway. Well done him.