2013

 

Home

Go to 2013, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

unmade films

 

JenaDesigns for Building Plans on CAD for  Planning Permission

Mrs. Monk's Would-be Diary should have been written by Mrs. Monk, since she is the "Writer" in the family.
However, since she is a writer only in the conceptual sense, I have undertaken to fill these pages on her behalf
If not by her, these pages will certainly be about her, and other important matters of the day         Leslie Monk

SITE STATS

 

 

  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline

 

HelloAVBS

5 May 2011

Dear David

Thanks for your letter today.

I have already told you that I will turn out and vote Yes to AV.

I have read your “five big reasons” and they are all untruthful, or otherwise misrepresent the arguments.

I note that even Winston Churchill resorted to negative rhetoric when he had nothing to offer in defensive of the indefensible.

The current system is undemocratic, and AV is more democratic.

The current system is unfair, and AV is fairer.

You favour the current system because and only because you want the perceived electoral advantage of AV which is more likely give you disproportionate power, and the ability to use it against the will of the majority of the electorate. And by no small measure.

 

The BNP agree with you. That’s why they want it.

 

Leslie

From David Cameron

Dear Leslie,

Today is a big day for our country. It's AV referendum day and you need to make your voice heard. Unless enough people go out and vote, Britain could sleepwalk into a system that damages our democracy permanently.  So I urge you to get down the polling station and vote 'No' to AV.

Remember, there are five big reasons why:

One - AV is complex. First Past the Post is so simple you can sum it up in seven words: the person with the most votes wins. AV is so confusing that when I was recently interviewed on the BBC, it became clear that one of their most experienced broadcasters didn't understand how it worked.

Two - AV is unfair.  With First Past the Post, everyone gets one vote, and that vote is counted once. That's fair. But under AV, supporters of extremist or fringe parties can get their votes counted again and again and again. That's unfair. It's simply not right that the fifth vote of a Monster Raving Looney supporter counts as much as your first vote.

Three - AV takes power away from people and gives it to politicians.  The great thing about our current system is that it always lets you kick dead-duck governments out on their ear. Remember 1979? Remember last year? Under AV, that sort of people power would be much less likely. It would mean more grey areas in election results, and more opportunities for tired politicians to cling on to power long after their time. Just think - if we'd had AV last year, Gordon Brown could still be in Downing Street today.

Four - AV is costly.  Money is tight at the moment, so why get rid of a system that is cheap to administer for one that will inevitably cost more and bring loads more bureaucracy? I know, you know, that our money could be better spent on other things.

Five - AV is unpopular.  First Past the Post is used by half the planet, from the world's biggest democracy - India - to the world's most powerful democracy - America. AV is used in just three countries: Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. And in Australia, they want to get rid of it.

Let the final word go to our greatest ever Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. He described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system. He said it would mean elections are "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates". He's right. The campaigners for AV are wrong.  So I urge you all to get down to the polling station today and vote 'No'.

Yours sincerely,

David Maceroon

Go to 2013, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline