Hum ?

So, I was listening to the radio while working (driving) the other day. They were focusing on the priministers' speech and comments about the forth coming public sector strike action, which is due next wednesday.

It happens that they were mainly spot lighting possible consequences of the participation of members of the Immigration and Borders agency staff at the various major airports.

Now Mr Cameron, the current (conservative) priminster was on about how few, percentage-wise, members of the various unions had actually voted for strike action, to try and prevent serious effects on the public service unions pensions etc, how the current government proposals would mean that they end up contributing a higher amount of their wages, end up working for longer, with a lower amount of pension at the end of their service.

Cameron was complaining. No surprise there. Except, a couple of months ago, we had a referendum, about whether it was time to change the current method of how elections are decided. The "Yes" campaign wanted to change to the "alternative vote" method, whereas the "No" campaign (of which, Cameron was part) wanted to leave it as it is i.e. "first past the post", like a horse race.

Now there's a problem with this. First, one of the No campaign points was that it's too complicated for us "mere mortals" to understand. But if that's the case, how is it that an ordinary bloke like me, understands that that is how the leaders of the various political parties are elected, yet I'm too thick to understand.

Second, if he doesn't like it (the "alternative vote for national elections"), then why is he complaining about the unions and industrial action being decided by "first past the post" results ?

Like anything Mr Cameron, you "can't have your cake, and eat it". It's one or the other. Either put up with the result by the current method, or let us change it to something that is fairer and more representative.

After all, I doubt whether we'll get "proportional representation" in my time, even though this is, by far, the fairest method to decide who represents us. But all the time that those in power, insist that we don't vote for a party, we vote for an individual name, then it's unlikely to happen.

Myself ? I consider myself "old Labour". Not because I necessarily agree with all the policies, but because they always seem to offer the fairest deal to the greatest number of people (usually the working classes). Yet I dislike the attachment of the "vocal, woolly headed, educated liberal do-gooder" types, that have got on the band wagon, probably for similar reasons. After all, it's at suggestions of theirs, that have removed so much power/authority from the Police, courts, the family, etc. Which has resulted in a large number of feckless teenagers, who have little or no respect for society. Yes, the parents have some blame in this as well.

Yet "they" won't criticise parents, as it would lose them voters - and given that the current government is a coalition (with the indecisive, power hungry, hedge sitting LibDems), that might change things to them being open to a "no confidence" vote that could remove the tories from power, so they won't do that will they.

Plus, if the kids know that the authorities have little power to "draw a line" that shouldn't be crossed then there's little reason for them to change and "toe the line". They can just continue to be a pain in the arse, as would currently appear to be the case.

But I digress.........

So Mr Cameron, you either have to put up with the self inflicted "first past the post" and work out how to deal with industrial action, or you have to allow us to have a more representative voting system, where you might not get quite as many seats in parliament at the moment, and yes, it would also give a small voice to the more "lunatic fringe" parties, but it would be fairer.

After all, we like to think that Britain is all about "fair play" don't we......

Unless it doesn't do what the politicians want, of course.......