It's the way I ask 'em ...

One reason to be suspicious of referenda is that the result can depend largely on how the question is phrased.

I doubt whether there is any huge groundswell of support for proportional representation (quite which type is the least-bad is another topic*) in this country (and I can't say that the topic excites me greatly), but if you turn the logic on its head and ask "If we had Proportional Representation, would you vote for... a) Either Conservative or Labour, or b) One of the other parties" it seems that only fifteen per cent would still vote for one of the two parties who have taken turns in running the country for the best (worst?) part of a century (and whose policies largely overlap).

Surely, if there were little or no support for PR (but it were introduced anyway) then those who oppose it in principle would be morally obliged to cast their votes for either Labour or The Tories to preserve the status quo? Or have I missed something?
---------------------------
So the next question is, "If we had Proportional Representation, which system would you prefer?"

Vote here, or use the widget in the sidebar.
---------------------------
* I'm all in favour of merging all existing constituencies into dual-constituencies. Everybody then gets one vote and can vote for one candidate (who may belong to a party or be independent). One seat per constituency is allocated on a first-past-the-post basis. The other seats are allocated as 'top-up-seats' to parties (or lists or alliances etc), so that each party's share of the total seat allocation ends up being proportional to their share of the national vote, with the top-up seats being allocated to unsuccessful candidates on the basis of how many votes they achieved personally. Everybody then has two constituency MPs whom they can badger, which gives us a bit of competition between them as to who better serves his or her constituents.

An ideal topic for a Fun Online Poll!

It strikes me that the choice is not so much between First-Past-The-Post and some form of Proportional Representation, but between a rotating two-party dictatorship and ... something else (whatever that ends up being).

If we end up not liking that 'something else', we can just vote for whichever of the two largest parties comes closer to our own views (and there's surprisingly little difference between them, actually).

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll: If we had Proportional Representation, would you vote for one of the two big parties or would you vote for one of the smaller ones?

Vote here or use widget in the sidebar.

Twats of the day

I have lined up three twats from across the political spectrum, just to show I hate them all...

1) On the left, we have NEU-Lab minister Jim Murphy, who "dismissed the results of the [poll on whether people wanted a referendum on the EU-CONstitution], insisting that it had been largely ignored in his constituency. 'Most local people realised that this was an expensive gimmick and binned the ballot'."

Er ... there was a 36% turnout and 88% voted for a referendum, that makes 32% of eligible voters. Whereas at the 2005 General Election, NEU-Lab won a large majority with the backing of only about 22% of eligible votes!

2) On the right, we have Boris Johnson (in today's Metro, I can't track down the article online), claiming that public transport in London is expensive and over-crowded. Firstly, for Oystercard users it is not expensive - a twelve mile journey costs me about £3 a go. The state controls quantity and price, but it cannot control demand - if there is insufficient quantity and the price is too low, then of course there will be 'overcrowding'. AFAICS, what glib commentators call 'overcrowding', I call 'efficient use of limited resources'.

3) And finally, The Libertarian Party. They propose to cut out wasteful government spending, which is about a quarter of total spending or £130 billion. A very good start, BTW! But instead of wanting to get rid of the most damaging taxes (VAT and Employer's National Insurance - yield about £125 bn) they say they would scrap income tax, which all things considered, is nowhere near as damaging and is much 'fairer'*, in the grander scheme of things, than VAT and Employer's National Insurance. So it's just a headline-grabbing gimmick from people who don't understand economics.

See also my comments at DK's. Me, statist? I've heard it all now.

* Especially if the personal allowance were doubled to £10,000 or so.