This blog is amused by the latest polls for the AV referendum, especially as aggregated by political betting. We have been regaled with tales of dogs and cats, along with wonderful explanations of why it is not a good idea to let representative government to fall to the former. Its all very entertaining but it is a fantastic example of exactly why the “yes” vote is destined to lose; because it panders to the idea of a progressive-majority and ignores the fact that their are multiple ‘dog’ candidates too.
This presumption of ‘virtue’ has prevented the “yes” campaign from communicating with, and persuading, those people for whom the principle of proportionality or ‘vote-power’ simply is not a significant priority.
Britain has a new government and it is a Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, the electorate has spoken, and this blog is firm in its conviction that David Cameron is delighted with the result, in fact the outcome could not have been better from his point of view. How can this be so, surely a coalition with a progressive-left party will be a disaster for Dave?
Simple, the Conservatives are fully cognizant of the mortal peril inherent in succeeding a Labour government, for while they may potter along quite happily for a decade or so if propped up by global low interest rates and low inflation, inevitably they end in a train-wreck which the Conservatives have to clean up via wildly unpopular cuts in public spending.
The 2010 United Kingdom general election debates consist of a series of three leaders’ debates conducted on live television between the leaders of the three main parties contesting the 2010 United Kingdom general election. The second debate was notionally on Foreign Policy and Defence though notably light on both given its nearly two hour slot.
So, what of significance was said, did it have any merit, and who came out ahead?