Ah, the UK is actually debating and having a vote on alternative voting systems. About time. I have really enjoyed NZ's MMP system. Although it can be frustrating when the main party gets hijacked by some silly one issue independent or small party, or won't work with who you want them to. But it all brings more colour and variety into parliament... well, it did. Not sure what's happened just now... it's all got a little dull again. We've lost our trans-gender MP, our Rasta MP and our fun crazy. Back to the sad gits just now. But hey, you get patches like that.
I wish you all the best, I hope the UK takes a risk for change. It involves working together more, but it also reflects the country more. Just don't have elections every few years like the US, sheesh, never get anything really done, they really are fat cats doing nowt.
The Yes campaign portrays MPs as lazy; the No campaign portrays the entire electorate as idiots. Yes it's a cheap shop, though I feel it's fair game - and helps convey the image of FPTP being the system that the politicians want to keep. IIRC, the MPs in the advert all wore "No" stickers on them? Okay, of course just because someone supports the No campaign doesn't mean they're a lazy MP, but it doesn't mean Labout Yes campaigners are handing leaflets that insult themselves (they might criticise other MPs - but then that's every political leaflet I've ever seen
( ... )
...another thought I had: I do like that we do have this self-criticism among Yes supporters. The particularly deceitful thing I think would be if Labour MPs were secretly funding a campaign that was mocking all MPs as lazy - I can see that being rather unfair, pushing an argument that they presumably don't believe in. But instead, they're saying the argument isn't fair, which itself is a good thing. I'd be a lot happier about the No campaign if a Tory No supporter stood up and said to Cameron's "It lets the loser win" talk etc, "Hang on a minute, that's not fair, that would make Cameron the loser in our leadership elections". Or similarly coming clean about referendum costs not being the costs of AV; or whether they plan to use voting machines. Maybe they have, and I just haven't seen it...
(I also wonder why Labour doesn't produce its own Yes material - or is it a funding issue, because it's only being supported by individual MPs, not as a party?)
I got severly pissed off by the "For God's sake say so." campaign, but in the end, I put "No religion" on its own merits, despite grumbling about it. I think this is much the same.
(Sort-of disclaimer: I used to work for the British Humanist Association and was there when the slogan was originally chosen, though the choice was not anything to do with me)
Mainly it had to do with other arguments around the same time to do with people turning atheism into a religion.Fundamentally, my reason was that no religion means exactly that, so it wasn't for God's sake at all and that the slogan was potentially undoing the dissociation between religion and atheism.
Fair enough! I liked the tongue-in-cheek use of a common phrase. I don't really think "For God's sake!" has anything to do with religiosity these days, or that people are thinking particularly reverent thoughts when they say it.
Comments 53
I wish you all the best, I hope the UK takes a risk for change. It involves working together more, but it also reflects the country more. Just don't have elections every few years like the US, sheesh, never get anything really done, they really are fat cats doing nowt.
Reply
Reply
(I also wonder why Labour doesn't produce its own Yes material - or is it a funding issue, because it's only being supported by individual MPs, not as a party?)
Reply
Reply
I disagree -- there's actual evidence that FPTP contributed to the expenses scandal.
Reply
Reply
(Sort-of disclaimer: I used to work for the British Humanist Association and was there when the slogan was originally chosen, though the choice was not anything to do with me)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment