Oh well done Sunny, well done!

The No2AV campaign illustrates how our democracy is up for sale

Yup, complete with they\’re bastards for not revealing where their money is coming from.

Meanwhile, over here:

I have been on the trail of the ‘Yes To Fairer Votes’ (YTFV) campaign, attempting to discover the real source of their funding. What I found reveals a catalogue of undeclared donations, hidden money trails and one massive conflict of interest of such comical proportions that even Berlusconi would blush. It shows, in effect, that the largest single donor to the \’Yes\’ campaign is Britain\’s no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services – a massively profitable outfit whose commercial interest in a new, complicated Westminster voting system is clear.

Sunny\’s timing is just impeccable, isn\’t it?

12 comments on “Oh well done Sunny, well done!

  1. The problem with the Coffeehouse argument is it’s getting itself mixed the wrong way around. ERS Ltd was spun off from the ERS itself so that it could go seek profits and provide services in order to raise more money so that the ERS could campaign more effectively for electoral reform.

    And, seriously, the idea that AV is ‘complicated’ or that it’ll need complex ballot papers, electronic machines and similar is frankly bollocks.

    Electoral Reform Society donates money to electoral reform campaign shock.

  2. No2AV: baby threatening scumbugs.

    Yes2AV : in the pay of a company that profits from running elections

    Meanwhile there is no discussion about whether AV is more or less democratic than FPTP, which is what people should be talking about, no?

  3. It doesn’t fucking *profit*. It’s a fucking *charity dedicated to electoral reform*, that sells ballot papers to raise money *for its work as a fucking charity dedicated to electoral reform*.

    That’s the difference, and anyone who doesn’t get it either has a room-temperature IQ (in Celsius) or is lying to make a spurious point.

  4. there is no discussion about whether AV is more or less democratic than FPTP

    Because the discussion would be spurious. It is more, and only someone who was either bribed or lying for partisan advantage would claim otherwise.

  5. job b – you’re hilarious! FPTP is clearly more democratic just that the MP-constituency level link dynamic proves that.

    As my adversion to political parties is well known, I know look forward to receiving the bribery cheque…

  6. Eh? AV has exactly the same constituency link as FPTP. You’re thinking of list-based PR, a system that I agree could plausibly be called less democratic than FPTP.

  7. Pingback: Tweets that mention Oh well done Sunny, well done! -- Topsy.com

  8. “It doesn’t fucking *profit*. It’s a fucking *charity dedicated to electoral reform*, that sells ballot papers to raise money *for its work as a fucking charity dedicated to electoral reform*.

    That’s the difference, and anyone who doesn’t get it either has a room-temperature IQ (in Celsius) or is lying to make a spurious point.”

    Many charities – like ERS – have to make a ‘profit’ selling their services, except the jargon in the not-for-profit-business sector is ‘surplus’. Surplus and profit are the same thing.

  9. @JohnB – I think foundavoice has just shown why a better campaign explaining the differences is needed rather than the “everyone in the other camp is evil” current style as expoused by Sunny Handal.

    All this shows is that Sunny probably doesn’t know how it works either so he has to do the only thing that he does know and that is smear, lie, twist the truth, pass the buck, etc. Is that descriptive enough?! 🙂

    @paul ilc – Charities have to make a surplus to pay the wages of their staff and the huge salaries of their CEOs. Oh, and a little bit left over to make themselves bigger and better. But mostly to pay the salaries of their CEOs.

  10. “As my adversion to political parties is well known, I know look forward to receiving the bribery cheque…”

    Which you can then spend on English lessons.

  11. For anyone else, this would constitute a shady and immoral lack of transparency and a conflict of interest but it seems because it’s a charidee seeking to change yet another British institution, the usual suspects are just fine with it and consider anyone drawing attention to it to be beyond the pale.

    Heh! The left are clearly put here to make us all smile, aren’t they? They are so cute when they get angry… 😉

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.