TORY SMEARS OVER AV CAMPAIGN BATTED OFF THE PITCH

I've have just had the pleasure of being able to appear on BBC Berkshire to dismiss allegations by desperate Tories accusing the Lib Dems in Henley of distributing 'Conservative Yes to AV' leaflets. The claim has no foundation in truth and ignores the fact that there is indeed a Conservative 'Yes' campaign which is probably responsible - check Google for more about this. Unfortunately, the Conservatives can brook no internal dissent so they accuse their opponents instead. Weak.

The claim was based on the fact that a LD leaflet was delivered on the same day as a Conservative 'yes' leaflet. Well, as I mentioned below, I received a Tory leaflet at exactly the same time - and in the same distinctive manner - as a 'No to AV' leaflet. Does that mean the Tories are running the No campaign? David Cameron says no. Do Henley Tories think their leader is mistaken or even possibly lying? If they don't, they must withdraw this accusation against Henley LDs and apologise.

The 'No to AV' campaign shows itself more and more to be a desperate attempt by vested interests to cling on to an unfair system and this latest attempt to spread untruths is more of the same. If you think politics is fine in our country, vote no. If you think it needs radical overhaul, perhaps you should vote yes.

NB: the Tory MP for Henley was elected by 33% of voters in the constituency. I wonder why he supports First Past the Post.

IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THE SYSTEM VOTE NO TO AV. IF NOT, PERHAPS YOU NEED TO VOTE YES

The BBC once again has led in the coverage of the AV debate with a great page outlining 5 reasons for and against AV. The page can be found here.

The best comment is the most obvious: if you're happy with business as usual at Westminster, vote No. If you want to change politics for the better, vote Yes.

DAVID CAMERON WOULD NOT BE TORY LEADER UNDER AV

A lovely AV related anomaly was highlighted on the TV this evening: David Cameron won the leadership of the Tories under AV and David Davis won the first round. Therefore, under the Tories' preferred system, David Davis should be the Tory leader.

This delightful anomaly also applies to the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, who only won in the fourth round of that election, with his brother David leading in each of the preceding rounds.

Now wouldn't it be nice for the 'No' campaign to address these issues...

AV, ANOTHER 'NO' PILLAR SHAKES

The Lib Dems and Labour both confirmed today that AV does not require expensive machines, which knocks £130m off the supposed £250m cost of introducing AV. Slowly the 'no' campaign crumbles.

AV - MORE WEAKNESSES WITH THE 'NO' CAMPAIGN

Good debate on Newsnight about AV, with John Denham making the very useful point that there is absolutely no evidence that AV leads to coalitions. In fact, countries which use AV have had fewer coalitions than the many we had in the 20th century under First Past the Post.

If you add that to the lie that AV requires machines - Australia has used the system since 1918 with not a single machine - and you reflect on the desperation of the 'no' campaign requiring David Cameron to step in, the arguments against AV show themselves up as pretty weak.

I must also reiterate that AV is not complex. As I have said before, if you can count to five, you will understand AV.

I hope people will be given facts on which to base their decision on Thursday 5th.

REASONS TO BE SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THE 'NO TO AV' CAMPAIGN

According to silver-tongued Lib Dem Cabinet minister Chris Huhne, the Conservatives were in power for about two-thirds of the 20th century under first-past-the-post, even though they won more than 50 per cent of the votes on only two occasions. He noted that they did not want to see that dominance threatened in the 21st century.

He also pointed out that, despite the Prime Minister's denial of Conservative involvement, 'all the moving parts' of the 'No' campaign are linked to the Conservative Party. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

IF YOU CAN COUNT TO FIVE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND AV

My wife received a communication from the No to AV campaign today. I'm not sure why I didn't but she very kindly let me read hers and its a shocker. The essence of their argument is that AV is bad because Nick Clegg likes it and he's bad so that's that.

However, they were clearly concerned that this wasn't enough so they included a picture of an attractive female doctor and made up a figure for the potential cost of AV which relies on the lie that it requires machines and a lengthy education campaign for people if it is introduced. Utter nonsense.

To dismiss the second point in a phrase, if you can count to 5 you will understand AV. Simple.

Here's a digression: I have two children and we used cotton nappies for both of them with no problems at all. I remember a campaign by the makers of disposable nappies 'proving' that cotton nappies are just as expensive and harmful for the environment as disposable nappies, millions of which are disposed of in landfills every day. The research was based on the presumption that people who used cotton nappies washed them at 90 degrees, dried them and then ironed them. Well, I must be a bad parent because we washed them quite well at 60 degrees, dried them on a clothes line and forced our children to wear un-ironed nappies. I still feel the shame.

But this is a digression. Back to the AV campaign and back to some facts which the 'no' people cannot admit:

1. An AV election does not require any machines or computers at all. It could use them but then so could a First Past the Post election.
2. As I have said, if you can count to 5, you'll get AV.
3. It has been said that an AV election would require more people to organise it and would cost local authorities more. Well, my experience of working for local authorities and attending far too many election counts which have used a range of systems for European and London elections, to name two, has demonstrated to me that the same number of long-suffering staff were present at all of them and they were paid for a day's work, however long it took.
3. In an AV election the person who gets the most votes in the first round can win. If you look at their shocker of a leaflet, it seems this never happens. Well, that's kind of the point behind AV. It gives people the chance to vote tactically and it forces politicians to work for every single vote, considering the views of a far wider range of people. Essentially, the person who does most to get their message across should win. Is that bad? Do some politicians fear having to explain themselves once every four or five years?

Finally, a point about my long-suffering leader. Nick Clegg, who is being pilloried at the moment, quite unreasonably, for all sorts of ills. He's taking it on the chin and sticking to the LD agreement to work with the Tories for the good of the country. If the best the AV campaign can do is to snipe about Nick Clegg and the coalition, it reveals a lot about the strength of the 'No to AV' campaign.

I hope you will consider the pros and cons of AV carefully and I hope you will vote on May 5th according to your view. I hope that your view is in favour of a positive development for our political system. I trust that most people will not be taken in by the nonsense the 'no' campaign is peddling.

NB: for a clear explanation of the relative merits of AV and First Past the Post, don't trust me, trust the BBC and the Electoral Reform Society. There is good information out there.

UPDATE: the Independent clearly reads my blog too, for it has provided a more detailed rebuttal of some of the nonsense surrounding the AV campaign here.