Vote for rope trick to boost democracy

Here’s how I see it: imagine a constituency election needs everyone in the community to gather in a field for a giant tug-of-war.

After the various teams have identified themselves, the two largest take each end of the rope. FPTP stops there, even if there are many more standing watching than at the rope. AV has an extra rule that watchers can choose to join one of the two rope-end teams, then we find out which is the biggest within the whole community.

Saying this is like having two votes is like saying someone can be at both ends of the rope. I hope this clarifies matters.

From: Mike Turner, Saltcotes Road, Lytham.

IN more than 50 years of political activism, I have seldom seen a more disgraceful document than the NO2AV campaign had posted through my letterbox the other day. So let’s dissect it a bit.

It says that under AV we would have “Nick Clegg deciding who would be Prime Minister by cutting a deal behind closed doors after the election”.

And there was silly me thinking it was David Cameron and his Tories who were so desperate to get into government, despite losing the election, that they approached Clegg about a deal. At 2.38pm on May 6, 2010, David Cameron said: “I want to make a big,open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats.”

The document says: “We would end up with the third best candidates becoming MPs.” What rubbish. In any case that would be an improvement on 10th rate candidates in safe seats just walking in, like they do now.

From: Mike Heddon, Harrogate Road, Bradford.

I AM a committed AV voter. I fear, however, that due to the prolification of No literature – I have received three of their pamphlets in the last week – that the status quo will remain.

Voting Yes, however, will make our prospective MPs work harder for their crust, especially in marginal constituencies or where there is a strong third candidate.

Such aspiring MPs will have to look to their laurels. Candidates in historically safe seats will still be able to rest on theirs.

And with salaries of upwards of £65,000 depending whether they become a Minister or not, plus undreamed of expenses, some crust!

From: Helen Flynn, Low Lane, Darley, Harrogate.

DAVID Cameron is really beyond belief and actually jeopardises his suitability as Prime Minister by his cynical and untrue statements on behalf of the No campaign.

First, he deliberately misleads people by saying that AV is more that one vote per person – which is absolutely wrong – and he knows it.

Secondly, he is reported as saying that the AV system leads to more coalitions – which it doesn’t. Australia has had the proposed AV system for more than 80 years and has had only one coalition government in that time.

Thirdly, he states that he went into his local pub at the weekend and none of the five people he talked to even knew about the referendum. He is presumably using this random anecdote as a way of saying that interest is dangerously low. Whose fault is that then, David?

From: DR Cooper, Belmont Park Avenue, Maidenhead, Berkshire.

THE claims made by opponents of electoral reform become ever more absurd, the latest being that it would cost three times as much to run a general election under AV compared to the present FPTP system.

The only significant extra costs for a election using AV would be those associated with the actual counting of the votes.

And the actual count for the 2010 General Election held under FPTP cost only £6m, less than five per cent of the total costs.

From: Nicki Fudge, St Lawrence Court, Heslington, York.

I’M tired of the claims made by the No campaign about the increased chances of the BNP getting more seats under the AV system. This is, to my mind, complete tosh.

The BNP and other extremist parties like it will in fact be in a worse position if this new electoral system is put into place.

Under AV, candidates would need over 50 per cent of the vote in an area, which the BNP is highly unlikely to ever achieve. This is exactly why the BNP is currently opposing the change, and exactly why I will be voting Yes.

Our day at Westminster

From: Noel Harbage, Weetwood Lane, Leeds.

I WOULD like to thank the Yorkshire Post for arranging the visit to the Houses of Parliament lot as part of the Christmas Appeal.

My father and I enjoyed a relaxing trip on East Coast trains. On arrival at the Commons, we were able to witness Prime Minister’s Questions, before having an outstanding three course lunch in the Strangers’ dining room.

Our host, Andrew Jones MP, proved to be a very generous guide, answering all our questions and then showing us around the different parts of the Parliament. To finish with tea on the terrace, looking out on the Thames, was an added bonus.

It was a very memorable day and we look forward to seeing which lot to bid for this year.

Grim prospect for homeless

From: Felix O’Sullivan, Burley Road, Leeds.

DAVID Cameron’s Big Society could force hundreds to sleep rough on the streets of Leeds. A large group of Conservative MP’s want to outlaw charities running soup kitchens for the homeless and make it a criminal offence to sleep rough on the streets.

The plans have come from the Westminster City Council in London which has them already in progress through banning feeding people on streets.

The policy has been tied in with housing benefit cuts, with an estimated 90,000 lone tenants and 82,000 families facing the risk of being evicted in the UK.

With the new policies being planned or in process already, how does Mr Cameron think this will work and not create a problem with an increase in people being evicted?

With the shelter homes and soup kitchens being eradicated, and the housing cuts ejecting people from their homes, surely this will just create a huge national problem?