So, David Cameron's latest line of assault on the Liberal Democrats has been that electoral reform would lead to a perpetually hung parliament, incapable of making decisions and lacking the strength that a government elected under a first past the post system would have.
This is arrogant, racist bullshit.
It's arrogant bullshit because a first past the post system ignores the majority of votes cast, meaning that if you don't happen to live with people who vote the same way as you, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing, so if you want to have a meaningful vote, you have to move out of your home.
Yes, our system means you have a "local" MP who should respond directly to local people and their concerns, but in practice all that seems to happen is that the MP just snaps at you if you question their voting decisions and instead tells you what their party's policy is, which kind of abnegates the supposed benefit of having a local representative if they instead tell you you should buy into their party's beliefs.
That's my experience, anyway. MPs work for their party, while the local taxpayers pay for their nice new wallpaper.
It's racist bullshit because most European democracies have a system where every vote counts and the parliament reflects the votes cast, not the weird patterns of "safe seats" we get in this country which means that we're not necessarily getting the best people into parliament and we're stuck with a system where no-one is willing to say anything about themselves during an election campaign, only slander one another and it's a brutal contest of dirty tricks and personality not policy.
If it works for most of Europe to have a parliament that rules by consensus, which is, after all, what a democracy is, so it's isolationist bullshit to be saying that it's a model that means a government cannot take decisive action. If the last few governments are anything to go by, perhaps the pressure valve of having various voices in parliament who are more directly answerable to the populace would be a damned good thing and we wouldn't have lost our right to protest, our privacy, our right to trial by jury, our right to a presumption of innocence or any of the other fundamental basics of our jurisprudence and democracy that have been stolen without consultation or consent from the electorate.
So, yes, David, to say that you think the first-past-the-post system of ignoring the majority of voters and calling that kind of bollocks a mandate to wrench away social justice to protect private corporate interests is a very honest statement of belief.
Talk all you like about the under-represented homophobic, racist, egocentric, callous and capitalist silent majority, but perhaps bear in mind that there's the muted majority you're directly responsible for slashing the throats of by continuing to tell lies like this. I can't imagine Europeans think a lot of you right now.
Thanks for coming clean about what you meant on this.