 Voice over logo: Now a party
political broadcast on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party.
Cut to Paddy Ashdown:
�Thank you.�
Voice over logo: That�s quite
enough of party politicals.
Cut to John Cleese against white
background:
�Because you see the rest of this broadcast - four
minutes - isn�t really a party political because it�s about
something which is supported by lots of people in lots of different
parties, Proportional Representation. PR. Now if you think that PR
is boring you�re a very silly person because it�s about how we run
the country better.
�The basic idea of PR is that each party�s size in the
House of Commons should reflect its support in the country. In other
words, if 40% of you want Party A and 30% of you want Party B and
20% want Party C and 10% want Party D, then the MPs should be
roughly 40 for A, 30 for B and 20 for C and 10 for D.�
John Cleese indicates the visual.
�So people�s views are represented in Parliament in
proportion to their strength in the Country. That�s PR, or fair
votes.
�Whereas under our present system - first-past-the-post,
as in horse racing - you get the following results. In 1951, Labour
got more votes than the Conservatives and lost the election. In
1974, the Conservatives got the most votes and .... lost the
election. And in this Parliament, the Tories got 18% of the votes in
Scotland and have no MPs there at all, while the Lib Dems got 13%
and 10 MPs. Not fair.
�So .... One .... PR�s a fairer system. Not a perfect
system - this is politics. But a lot fairer.
�Next. Point Two.�
A girl in a spangly dress holds up
the No.2.
�Thank you Debbie.
�Has it occurred to you that the way most of you vote
doesn�t at present make any difference?�
�Well, the last election was decided in the marginal
seats, wasn�t it?
John Cleese indicates map of UK.
Parts of it light up.
�That means that if you live in the rest of the UK ....�
The lighted up parts switch off
and the rest of the map lights up.
� .... in the �safe� seats, it didn�t matter how you
voted, because the same party always wins those seats. So you knew
who your MP was going to be before you even got to the polling
station. Your vote made no difference.
�This means under our present system the parties, at
elections, concentrate on the people who live in these marginal
seats ....�
They light up again.
� .... tailoring what they say and what they promise to
the people there, and not worrying about the rest of you who live
....�
The lighting reverses again.
� .... here.
�But .... under PR, all the votes count ....�
The whole map lights up.
�So politicians will have to listen to all of us and
address the issues that affect all of us.
�Next. Point Three.�
A middle-aged man in a spangly
dress holds up the No.3.
�Thank you Gerald.
�PR makes parties work together more. So you�re far less
likely to get a new Government changing all the ideas of the one
before. This stability means businesses can plan better, and that�s
why countries with PR systems - like Germany, Holland, Ireland and
Greece - have consistently beaten Britain in terms of economic
success.�
Indicates graphic.
�So the reasons for PR: it�s fairer; everybody�s vote
counts; you get more continuity.
�Now .... the reasons against PR.�
A village idiot holds up the No.1.
�First: people say it creates weak coalition
governments. Well, they�ve had these weak coalition governments in
Germany, Holland, Ireland and Greece. So maybe we need a bit of that
kind of weakness ourselves.�
Idiot falls over. Second one steps
in holding No.2.
�Next: they say that PR doesn�t work in Italy. Well, as
any Italian will proudly tell you nothing political works in Italy,
except that they just happened to have overtaken our average income
per person by 25% in the last 18 years, in spite of the appalling
disadvantages of their PR system.�
Second idiot falls over. Third one
holds up No.3 wrong way round.
�Next argument against PR. It�s too complicated.
�Well the Bulgarians use PR and so do the Maltese, the
Albanians and the Irish. But if you feel that it would be much too
difficult for you, please do vote against PR.�
Third idiot shoots himself. Fourth
idiot holds up sign �Finally�.
�Finally, some people say that under PR major decisions
are taken behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms. Let�s examine
what they�re saying.
�They�re saying that encourages parties to talk together
to see where they can agree on common ground - to try to share
power. That�s a good thing isn�t it?
�After all, when Maggie Thatcher was running the UK in
the late 1980s, 58% of the voters had voted against her.
�Whereas under PR if you don�t give one party a proper
majority, they�re forced to share power with others.
�Thank
you.�
|