So after No2AV's calamity of an advertising campaign where they focused on trying to insult our intelligence, that a change to AV would kill babies and kill troops, a campaign that has been found to be less than honest by Channel 4's factcheck, and not based on reality according to the Treasury...now they move back on to more comfortable ground for them.
More comfortable, but no more honest of course. It's back to "bash Nick Clegg and hope we can make capital off of it!" time!
"Say no to President Clegg" they say, again insulting our intelligence. Their text on their main poster on their own website says the following...and boy is it packed full of deceit:
"Under the Alternative Voting system Nick Clegg would have the power to choose the government."
1) Under the FPTP system, Nick Clegg would have the power to choose government too, if all you're talking about here is coalitions...since coalitions are no more likely under AV than FPTP, and an independent report states that we may well have coalition's under FPTP for some years to come...
2) Even if the problem here is coalitions it is not Nick Clegg who has the power, it is the Liberal Democrat party...as elected into their position by the voters wishes around the country, who have to ratify the decision to join with a certain party or not to form coalition. One man, like Clegg, does not have the final say.
3) If a party like Labour or the Tories don't want to go in to coalition with the Lib Dems, they don't have to. The Tories had every opportunity to be a minority government with an agreement from the Lib Dems to pass their budgets.
Except YOU have elected a hung parliament, collectively...you have decided that you can't work out exactly who you want to govern. You have chosen your parties, and under AV we would have a good idea about what kind of policies you like through your first AND second preferences. This would much better inform the smaller parties like the Lib Dems so that they only ever supported parties to make government that reflected the larger wishes of the country.
And, of course, this is something that is just as likely to happen under FPTP, if not more than it would with AV.
"Say NO to spending £250million on AV."
And yet unperturbed by being proven wrong on this issue, including the fact that by their own figures at least £80million of that figure will be spent whether you say no or not, they continue to peddle this lie over cost. But then is this a surprise from a group of people and their supporters who put the length of time it takes to count an election, and the relatively tiny cost of administering an election, above voters getting who they really want as their MP?