Rallying call to save Royal British Legion clubs
- Today's leader
Shrewsbury MP’s no to AV campaign
Thursday 7th April 2011, 4:53PM BST.
Daniel Kawczynski
Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski was today due to launch the official “No to the Alternative Vote” campaign in the town.
The Tory MP was set to join campaigners at the Shirehall at lunch-time to outline why he believes people should say ‘No’ when they vote in a referendum next month on the proposed voting system.
Members of the public will be given the choice to opt for the new system or retain the “first past the post” method of voting. The referendum will take place on May 5, having been agreed as part of the ConLib Coalition Agreement drawn up after the 2010 general election.
It will be only the second time a referendum will be held throughout the whole of the UK – the first since 1975. It will be the first UK-wide referendum to be legally binding upon the Government.
Mr Kawczynski says controversial plans for a referendum to change Britain’s voting system could help extremists like the BNP get elected.
He has vowed to campaign “vigorously” against the proposals, and said the alternative vote system would “help extremist parties”.
“BNP second preferences could decide the outcome of a seat,” the Shropshire MP told the Commons in a debate last September.
Mr Kawczynski, Tory chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the promotion of first-past-the-post, told the debate: “I think it’s the equivalent of watching Nero fiddle while Rome burns.
“We have so many problems in our country yet we are being distracted by this ridiculous referendum which is going to cost taxpayers between £80 million and £100 million.”
“I believe in one man, one vote. Under AV, some people will have two votes while others will have only one. How can that be fair?”
Sponsored Links
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
“Say NO to AV because the BNP might get in if you don’t” is not a good enough reason to say NO to it. Give us some tangible reasons why the current method is good, not half-baked scaremongering scenarios to try and push the undecided voters away from saying YES.
Report abuse
Well they would be far better than the muppet tory we have now…
Report abuse
I thought that the BMP were against AV because it means that they will never get elected.
Report abuse
Instead of messing around tweaking the voting system these MP’s should be vehemently defending honest constituents from mega profit making oil and utility companies, banks, insurance companies…. the list goes on and on. The problem will only improve when we have less career politicians and self improving crooks running the country.
As for the BNP being extremist, Labour and The Libcons have and continue to run them pretty damn close.
Report abuse
Don’t trust Daniel Kawczynski. He just wants to keep conservative central’s stranglehold on the conservative party. AV would force the conservative party to listen to their supporters more.
Try out the Alternative Vote for yourself with my Facebook app:
http://apps.facebook.com/AlternativeVote/
It lets you create and vote on polls using the Alternative Vote.
Barnaby (app creator)
Report abuse
“Under AV, some people will have two votes while others will have only one.”
This is nonsense as Daniel Kawczynski well knows. AV is One Person One Vote, with that vote being transferable.
Had the Tories used FPTP for their leadership contest, David Davis would have won.
Report abuse
Davis had a clear platform Cameron just wanted to win and was prepared to make empty promises in order to do so, he wanted to become PM and was prepared to sacrifice any principal to form the coalition, so we end up with a government that none of us wanted which has no direction because the leaders have no solid political principals.
Perhaps that is the problem the Tories elected someone to lead whom they thought could win an election. Winning being the main aim and not what to do once they won. Where does that leave us the voters when parties just want to win and do not offer us choice. That destroys democracy because democracy presupposes choice of policy and not choice of people with similar polices who can effectively ignore the voters because they will have created the perfect system in AV to allow then to do just that.
Report abuse
When this Torycon government took over we have had nothing but destruction and decimation of vital services alongside the commissioning of endless expensive consultations to presumably decide where to go next.
Social Services are paying for private beds in Nursing homes which are lying empty at present. What a ridiculous waste of our money and immoral treatment of those waiting for care.
People needing hip and knee replacements being told there is no money when the consequence will be that they will not have as good a recovery due to being kept waiting (in agony usually) and will then have more costly care needs.
Cameron spouts that we will have a referendum about all sorts of issues unless it does not suit him.
Report abuse
2010 Election Results, Shrewsbury and Atcham:
Conservative 43.9
Liberal Democrat 29.0
Labour 20.6
UK Independence Party 3.1
British National Party 2.2
Green 1.1
Impact Party 0.2
Assuming an AV system in place for this election, and the somewhat fair assumption that Impact Party, BNP, and UKIP voters would lean towards Tory. As well as Labour voters leaning to Liberal Democrat before opting for Conservatives,, this is poll could easily have awarded the Liberal Democrat candidate the seat.
Granted, this is napkin maths, it certainly isn’t as accurate as it could be, and it makes assumptions of people’s political beliefs but it does demonstrate two things:
i) Daniel Kawczynski would be very foolish to support a system that could potentially oust him from office (as well as defy his party whips, damaging at this stage of his political career)
ii) That the AV system indubitably favours political parties that hold the middle ground i.e. The Liberal Democrats. People who vote for Labour are very unlikely to place Conservative candidates as their second choice and vice-versa. Their views (traditionally) are diametrically opposed. Therefore Lib dem candidates are, often bumped up from 3rd or 2nd place, to 1st.
Why do you think they want it so much?
I agree the FPTP is far from perfect, but AV seems like faux representation to me.
Discuss.
Report abuse
Someones worried they may lose their seat in the next election.
If the major parties are so worried that the BNP might win seats, why not look what policy’s are attracting voters and address them themselves instead of ignoring them.
Report abuse
So does Mr Kawczynski really think that the Australians, being stupid and having little commitment to true democracy, decided to abandon the principle of “one Australian one vote” under FPTP and instead move to “some Australians have more votes than others” when they changed from FPTP to AV in 1919?
No elector is put in a privileged position through the use of AV for an election.
Each elector is provided with just one ballot paper, and every ballot paper is counted in every round unless the elector has chosen to abstain from further rounds by expressing no further preference.
Incidentally we came close to changing from FPTP to AV on two occasions during the last century, in 1917 and in 1931; on both occasions the elected part of Parliament approved the change, but the unelected part – mainly Tory peers – obstructed it and managed to get it stopped.
Report abuse
Hi Dennis nice to see you here.
I would question the argument that no voter is put in a privileged position those that do vote for 2nd 3rd and 4th canditates are. Those who do not have 2nd 3rd or 4th coices are put at a disadvantage.
Report abuse
Hi Ken
Each elector has the same opportunity to rank just one candidate, or more, or all of them, exactly as he pleases.
It’s true that in one election somebody might not wish to avail himself of that freedom and would just put the number “1″ rather than the letter “X” against the name of a single candidate, and leave it at that, but then at the next election the same elector might be very glad that he was no longer restricted to doing that.
I can understand that some people may believe that they would only ever want to support the candidates put up by a particular party throughout the whole of their adult lives, but such people are declining in numbers as the old tribal loyalties weaken.
Report abuse
I was not talking of tribal loyalties the main parties are very similar anyway and AV will help them maintain the myth that they are speaking for the majority, when in fact the majority first choice will often be surpassed by the second choices. so we will end up with a government made up of people we really did not want but were second best. Also in the case of the EU who do we have to vote for other than UKIP or BNP unless you actually believe the Conservatives will ever do anything meaningful.
Report abuse
I may need to be persuaded that AV is good, but I am already convinced the current sytem is flawed. As things currently stand an MP can be elected not by having the majority of votes cast but merely by having a greater proportion of the vote than any other candidate. Now if only two candidates stand that is clearly fair as in David Cameron’s rather silly Usain Bolt scenario. If more than two candidates stand it becomes increasingly unfair. For example in a three candidate election an MP can be selected with a mere 35% of the votes cast when 65% have clearly voted for the other two candidates. In “safe” seats a sitting MP needs only to ensure that their core supporters vote thus potentially depriving the majority of electors a fair and proper say in who represents them. I wonder why Mr Kawczynski likes things the way they are?
Report abuse
The BNP aren’t extremists. What’s so extreme about wanting to halt immigration, bringing our troops home from Afghanistan,and withdrawing Britain from the EU?
For the record the BNP are also against AV. Do your research next time, Daniel!
Report abuse
Is that their entire manifesto?
I don’t think so.
The BNP will reintroduce capital punishment for drug dealers, child murderers, multiple murderers, murderers of policemen on duty and terrorists where guilt is proven beyond all doubt.
Forgot that one did you?
Report abuse
‘The BNP aren’t extremists.’
What an astonishing thing to write. It simply shows how slewed your view is of where the centre in politics lies. If the BNP aren’t far-right extremists, then who else might be?!
It’s one thing to have varying views on immigration control – each of the legitimate mainstream parties has a different view – but the BNP take this much further. They actually seek to treat people differently based upon the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation, or on which religion they happen to follow.
Let’s not forget that both of their Euro MPs have been convicted of race hate crimes, relating to anti-Semitism. Both have been offered ample opportunity to explain themselves in public (especially Griffin’s comment about the ‘holohoax’) and both have refused to do so – Griffin was even given
TV airtime to apologise – he failed to do so, preferring instead to hide behind some entirely invented fear of ‘the law’.
The BNP have been shown to have links with US white supremacists, with loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, and with far-right groups in Eastern Europe. If you cannot see that these links, together with their antecedents going back through the NF and to the British Union of Fascists, and the similarity of their ‘policies’ to the early days of National Socialism in 1930s Germany, then you are deluding yourself.
Moving back to the debate about AV – I don’t think there is any real possibility of the BNP being elected to parliament under any circumstances – they simply don’t have the support amongst decent people, so that’s a poor excuse put forward by Daniel.
I’m broadly in favour of PR – but I don’t believe the AV system being proposed is a very good one – there are better alternatives. The fact is that we are only being given this vote as a sop to the Lib Dems, so that they contnue to support swingeing, dogmatic cuts to our essential public services. I don’t think we should reward them for that betrayal, or encourage further betrayal so I’ll probably vote against.
Report abuse
The BNP is an ethno-nationist party. Ethno nationalism is nothing to with ‘white sepremacy’ or hatred of others. It is about love – Love of your country, your culture and people.
If you want to see hate and sepremacy then look no further than the so-called ‘legitimate mainstream parties’.
Who has taken Britain into illegal conflicts that have led to the deaths of hundreds of British troops and thousands of civillians?
Which political parties are full of covicted criminals – ranging from thieves to paedophiles?
Which parties have lied to the British electorate for decades whilst destroying our countrys’ freedom and demomcracy?
Back to the AV debate. I’m totally in favour of proper PR. It’s the most democratic system.
Report abuse
you may be right about the failings of our past government but there is nothing ethnonational about the bnp. their approach to dealing with immigration is simply vile.
ethnicity does not = skin colour, it is at least much to do with the way people integrate and adopt cultural and behavioral identity which the bnp fail to recognise (at least officially as a party). As for nationalism, there are people of all colours and races here that cherish britain, british life and british people, and do their utmost to contribute to the nation whatever their ancestral lineage. Aside for the most obvious problems of lack of capacity, wouldn’t those grounds be the most effective measures by which to deal with immigration, rather than deporting settled people because they have a funny sounding surname.
Report abuse
We already have a system which allows the election of MPs representing minority views. It is called first past the post. 56.1% of the electorate in Shrewsbury and Atcham did not vote Conservative in 2010. Maybe AV will help stop a man who can come up with such crass arguments as Danny K being elected and make our representatives work harder to earn our vote.
Report abuse
As the AV System would actually suit the polical parties, who would be able to sort out between themselves who gets into government and what polices to follow after the election. I am thinking that the No to AV side do not want to win and are only going through the motions.
Report abuse
That settles it – if Daniel doesn’t like it, I’m voting yes! I’m a bit worried some people might vote 1 & 2 though ;)
Seriously, it’s no argument to say a certain system might favour the BNP – it might also favour the Greens and other innocuous small parties. The cost excuse has already been blown out of the water, and anyway a one-off cost would be a good investment for a better system.
I don’t see any principled argument for keeping the present system – as has been pointed out, David Cameron became leader through an AV poll so he’s a hypocrite if he opposes it. Well, yes, I know he is anyway …
Report abuse
I assume the picture researcher at the Shropshire Star had to look long and hard to find a photo of Daniel Kawczynski where he wasn’t looking utterly slack-jawed and vacantly staring into space. Well, their efforts certainly weren’t wasted – Congratulations person unknown, you did a good job today!
Report abuse
Surely if there is sufficient support for the BNP, Green, MRLP etc why shouldn’t they be represented, or are we no longer in a democracy?
Report abuse
The AV system is essentially the same as the system used to elect party leaders . . . If no one gets a majority in round 1, the candidate with the least votes is dropped, his / her votes are redistributed, and so on until someone gets 50% + 1 vote. AV does it all with one ballot where party members may have to vote several times – the difference is procedural, not in principle. If it is good enough for the party, then why not for the country?
Report abuse
The internal workings of political parties are not the same as democracy in the country, for one the party members always have the power to vote against their elected leader and get them out. They also know exactly what they are voting for at any stage; contrast that to the vote in the country we will not know until after the election when the parties get together in private to decide who will run the country and on what polices.
No one knows anything until the party leaders decide to tell us, exactly as was the case at the last election when they published the Coalition Agreement setting out what the polcies would be. No one voted for this agreement no one voted for this coaltion, the coalition does not have a mandate either for itsef or for its polices. Bacically the country voted not to give any of the parties power, only they decided after we had voted, they also decided to change the constiution and make a parliament last for 5 years making it harder for us the voters to get rid of them.
AV makes that situation much more likely and AV will not fix the problems with our democracy but will only create an even bigger divide between the political parties and the voters as it will be left to the parties to decide polices based on their their private post election agreements.
Report abuse
HELEN, Could not have put it better. Straight to the main points of what the majority of true English think.
Report abuse
“Straight to the main points of what the majority of true English think”. And your evidence for such a bold statement is what? I count myself and most of my aquaintances as “true English” (based on birth and heredity) and should any voice such views they are certainly very much a tiny minority. I accept that my acquaintances may not be truly representative so I lean towards a truer reflection of public opinion which would be election results. I think the absence of any BNP MPs (or even getting close to election) is evidence enough that most “true English” do not agree with Helen and the BNPs simplistic view of life. Why do you think the BNP are against AV? Because they would fade even more rapidly from our political scene that’s why.
Report abuse
Really,and where is your evidence for this?
How do you know what the majority of true English think?
What is true English by the way?
Assumptions,assumptions.
I know this much if the BNP are against it I’ll do the opposite.
Report abuse
What is true English?
Strange this coming from someone who has a Welsh surname.
How do you know what the majority think?
Anything the Tories are against I’m all for.AV must be good if the Tories are worried.
Report abuse
Majority of true English? Bloody cheek. (Moderator: feel free to substitute asterisks, but not too many)
Report abuse
Daniel was on Radio 4 the other day spouting his nonsense about the referendum. He was asked for a quick summary at the end and his main point was that the new system would be too complicated for voters. Either he thinks we are all too stupid to mark more than one box on a voting form, else he is. Or perhaps more likely he knows he will lose his seat in a truly representative election.
Report abuse
We need more people to vote in elections. If AV makes people feel their vote counts more, is more interactive and will encourage them to vote, it should be introduced.
Report abuse