Former Archbishop of Canterbury is straight out lying again.

Today the former Archbishop of Canterbury has stated one of the most common lies of the religious. The gross lie that they are persecuted because they are no longer allowed to persecute others. No Mr Carey you have power and privilege automatically bestowed upon you and you still demand more. Stopping you from persecuting others is not persecution, wanting you to not have special privilege is not persecution allowing you to play with your toys is .

Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation good and honest people will fight against your crimes.

Tories day of spin over lords reform and Nick Cleggs stupid mistake

Today Tory tweeters are all agog trying to spin Nick Cleggs blocking of boundary changes (gerrymandering) in retaliation for the Tories betrayal over Lords reform as some sort of betrayal.

 They are trying to claim that the boundary redrawing is linked to the AV referendum. However if you look at the coalition-agreement there are absolutely no  linked agreements i.e AV for Lords reform. it is an all encompassing agrement. The Tories broke the agreement so the whole thing is now binned.

However i can have no sympathy for  the Lib Dems they made a deal with the devil and the devil is a much better liar than they are. It was very naive off Nick Clegg to believe that the conservatives would ever keep to their end of the agrement. Their entire philosophy is I got mine screw you.

A sickening story

It appears from this blog that the no campaing have lying to the poorly educated and ill about the AV referendum. I thought there fear mongering lies where bad enough but this is low even for them.

No to AVs three dishonest claims, actually they are outright lies.

The No to AV campaign has 3 main reasons to vote no to AV. One a complete distortion the other two are outright lies. But the whole no to AV campaign has been one of dishonesty and fear mongering from the start.

AV is costly

“The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns. With ordinary families facing tough times can we really afford to spend a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money bringing in a new voting system? Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote – that's the choice in this referendum.”

If they think a onetime £250 million cost is going to stop education or health care they have not got a clue about how much those actually cost. Healthcare costs £110 Billion a year or about 440X the one of cost for AV. Education costs are approximately £84 billion a year about 336X the one of cost of AV Clearly the claim that it is schools and hospitals or AV is a complete and disgraceful lie.

Cancelling the unnecessary trident replacement at a minimum would save a £24 Billion one of cost and who knows how much per year in maintenance. By doing so you could spend £250million on AV and have over £23 Billon extra to spend on schools and hospitals. Or use that money to buy conventional military equipment that has a genuine use and is under our control unlike trident and its potential replacement.

AV is complex and unfair

“The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected. That’s why it is used by just three countries in the world – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter.”

Under AV the most popular candidates win First past the post allows for unpopular and weak leaders who are elected with less than majority support. The reason only three countries use it is because it is an anathema to weak careerist politicians who rely on the first past the post system It would have taken heavy campaigning from the non political class to get AV passed in those countries. The suggestion that the politician who comes second or third gets in is ludicrous. Under AV a politician must get a substantive majority (over 50% of the vote) and therefore be a true winner, a truly popular leader. First past the post means a politician can get in with an un-substantive majority (under 50% of the vote) now that is a real losers charter.

AV is fairer and the suggestion it is too complicated is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this country. Filling out the census form is a lot more complicated and it’s not hard. Australians have been using it successfully sin 1918 they don’t think it is complicated at all.

AV is a politician's fix

“AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises like the Lib Dem tuition fees U-turn. Instead of the voters choosing the government, politicians would hold power. Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. We can't afford to let the politicians decide who runs our country.”

Australia introduced to alternative vote in 1918 since then they have had 2 hung parliaments in 1940 and 2010. Since 1918 our first past the post has also produced three hung parliaments in 1929, 1974 and 2010. Looking at the facts it shows a hung parliament is slightly less likely under AV not more likely. Therefore political deals are actually more likely under first past the post but that is why career politicians and extremists oppose AV. As for the suggestion that the only vote that counts is Nick Clegg is just a bizarre and outright lie.

Av is to the careerist and extremist politician as garlic is to a vampire that is why so many of the UK’s political failures and extremists are against it.
So there you have it the no to campaigns three main arguments against AV one distortion of reality two outright lies

self entitled careerist labour MP, Unelected government minister and the BNP all oppose democracy.

As the Yes and No Campaigns about the referendum on AV hot up the no campaign have been more than a little dishonest. As an example Baroness Warsi has claimed that BNP would be boosted by AV. This is completely untrue as it may increase their votes slightly but popular parties would have an even greater increase and as you need a real majority to get elected it would mean significant losses in the European elections (a spring board for all extremist parties) for the BNP and other extremists. The BNP’s official position on AV is “The AV system is obviously a sleight of hand which is directed against the BNP and is not aimed at improving democracy in Britain. Rather, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg’s sudden conversion to AV are an indication that they have now fully comprehended the meaning of the BNP’s surge in vote totals in last week’s election — and are desperate to undermine democracy even “The AV system is obviously a sleight of hand which is directed against the BNP and is not aimed at improving democracy in Britain. Rather, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg’s sudden conversion to AV are an indication that they have now fully comprehended the meaning of the BNP’s surge in vote totals in last week’s election — and are desperate to undermine democracy even further.” IT is the last paragraph in the article.
When a self entitled careerist labour MP, authoritarian racists like the BNP and unelected Cabinet minister’s team up to say no to AV then you can be sure that AV is something that improves democracy making it harder for the extreme the corrupt and the undemocratic to gain power.
I am linking to a significant no to AV site. They have promised to provide a reason for no every week. As they do not allow comments, which is no surprise for an anti democracy site, I will be providing a response every week to them. There first that i am aware of was repeating Baroness Warsi’s fear mongering and outright lie that AV would benefit the BNP which has been answered in this post by pointing out the BNP oppose AV as it doesn’t benefit them.