Thieves, Robbers and the new 'Old Labour'.

It is now an established fact that Labour have been removing Plaid stakes from the Caephilly constituency, by the hand of none other than than Wayne David, the Labour MP. It shows just how desperate Labour are to secure power in  the area because of the very real possibility of a Plaid win thanks to Ron Davies, who has, arguably done more for Welsh devolution than any other Labour politician. It shows that Labour may be willing to break the law to remain in power, and so postal votes should be suspect. When will Labour stop bringing the democratic process in Wales to the level of Pakistan?

After robbing MP's  we have the Robbing Bankers who have brought financial disaster on the UK with their relentless, greed driven persuit of profit. Despite the public outrage, even banks owned in large part by the UK government, are paying bonuses in excess of  ten times the wage of the lucky bankers who receive this 'gift.'

The NGO Positive Money (http://www.positivemoney.org/) has spent three years researching the best voting method to hold banks accountable. Ben Dyson, their chief  director writes:

"Tommorrow, the UK will have its first referendum in 36 years. We’ll be deciding whether to keep the existing ‘First Past the Post’ system to elect Members of Parliament (MPs), or switch to the ‘Alternative Vote’. The outcome could affect our chances of securing real banking reform any time soon. 
After weighing up the different concerns, we’ve come to the conclusion that the chances of fixing the banking system (and ending their power and privilege to create money out of nothing at the expense of the rest of society) are higher under Alternative Vote (where you rank candidates in order of preference) than under First Past the Post (where you get just one choice).

Sticking with the current system?

If we stick with the current system, we’re destined to have alternating Labour and Conservative rule for the next few decades. Given that these two parties were at the helm during that last 30 years, and did nothing to limit the power of the banks or to reform banking in the interests of ordinary people, I’m not convinced that this would be the best thing for the nation. It might work well for the banks, however.

In Summary

1. AV would allow us to vote honestly to support the issues that we really care about.
2. Growing support for these issues would be reflected in the first preference voting figures.
3. The large parties would react to this growing support by adopting these issues into their policies.
4. It’s questionable whether either of the two main parties will take the risk of challenging the banks when the current voting system guarantees them power by default at least every decade or so. Growing support for smaller parties is likely to be an important way of increasing pressure on the two main parties to take real action on the banks, and AV makes this more possible."

And Finally…
From a personal point of view, this comment on a newspaper website sums up my concern with keeping the existing system, and the main reason why I’ll personally be voting yes to AV on Thursday:

“I’m 62 now and I’ve spent the last 41 years of my life disenfranchised. If I vote ‘NO” to AV, I shall probably spend the rest of my life in the same condition. That is why I shall be voting YES TO AV. This referendum has nothing to do with Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat to me. It’s to do with my right to a meaningful vote.”

Real change and real justice can be achieved. Tommorrow can be the start. You decide.