Dave says NO

The debate has been rumbling on for weeks but the big day has finally arrived: today Britain gets to vote on a fundamental change to they way it elects its parliament.

But sadly today's referendum doesn't give us the long-awaited opportunity to change the voting system for the better. Instead we are presented with the option of keeping the existing system or moving to an unsatisfactory fudge of a system cooked up in the heat of coalition negotiations between Cameron and Clegg a year ago.

A real change would mean proportional representation, where every vote would count and a vote for a minor party like the Greens or UKIP would mean increased representation for that party in parliament. This is the system that most progressives, including Clegg's LibDems, desperately want. I have one reservation about PR in that it would mean the end of constituency MPs, but I think I could live with that.

However, Clegg's desperation for a sniff of power at any cost led him to sacrifice many of his principles and the first to go was PR. There was no way Cameron would agree to PR: it would ensure that there would never be another Tory government. Instead, being the skilled political mover he is, Cameron offered Clegg the very least he knew he could get away with and Clegg jumped at the prospect.

So here we are, a year later voting on AV. And what does AV offer us? It offers us multiple votes, choosing as many candidates as we like in order from one to how ever many are on the ballot paper, encouraging us to have a little protest vote as our number one choice. So the votes for independents, Greens and UKIP will go up. But will there be any more seats for these parties? Not in a hundred years. The sole beneficiaries of this will be politicians of the centre. Or, more accurately, politicians that profess to be of the centre. Once voters have had their protest vote or two followed by their real choice they will then opt for their least worst choice: to borrow from Goodness Gracious Me, "the blandest thing on the menu". For Tories this will be "not Labour" and for the left it will be "not the Tory". In other words, more often than not, it will be the Liberal Democrat candidate.

Under AV, parliament would be made up of fewer Tories, fewer Labour but significantly more LibDems, with LibDems almost always holding the balance of power. Minority parties would continue to not get a look in. We've had one year of coalition government and I'd say that is more than enough. However a yes vote for AV is a vote for almost permanent coalition with a group of minority LibDem MPs sitting in Labour and Tory cabinets stopping both major parties from carrying out their electoral pledges.

Another downside to AV is that it's complicated. Not for you, dear blogger/Tweeter, but for the immigrant who can barely read English, the shy school leaver with no qualifications who is too scared to ask for help at the polling station, the ninety-five-year-old woman who's been voting for Labour with a single cross since 1945. It will disenfranchise the people who are least likely to vote in the first place.

I voted NO today. So should you. Not to spite Clegg, boost Cameron or any of the shameful arguments that have been put forward during this campaign, but because AV is not good for democracy, not good for Britain and not good for any future Labour government.

Blame Auntie

Since Saturday my timeline has been full of people who have no interest in horse racing going on about the cruelty of the Grand National.

I'm from a horse racing background and I've resisted the urge to engage directly with these people because that way unfollowing and blocking lies. And I like them, I wouldn't follow them if I didn't. However it keeps playing on my mind so I thought I'd write something about it, which they probably wouldn't read.

The Grand National has been run since 1836 and I'd put money on it still being run in 2136. It's a British tradition and gets viewing figures that TV companies can only dream about every other Saturday afternoon of the year. For this reason the BBC clings to it despite eschewing virtually all other horse racing coverage, which it leaves to minority and specialist channels. However the lack of horse racing on the BBC for 50 weeks of the year means that 95% of its viewers have no knowledge of the horses, jockeys and trainers who will be competing in the Grand National, or indeed the ups and downs they've all experienced in the 364 days since that last race. So in the days leading up to the race the BBC launches a massive PR campaign across all its output. There will be features on Radio One, Football Focus, Newsround, The One Show and anywhere else they can squeeze in a mention. And almost without fail these features romanticise past races and anthropomorphise the horses with phrases such as "Friendly Boy loves Aintree". (Friendly Boy doesn't love Aintree, he's a bloody horse. He has no idea where he is or even what his name is.)

And the great day dawns, the BBC has whipped its public into a frenzy and has 8 million people sat on sofas, gripping betting slips and hoping that Friendly Boy, Darling John and Baby Dumpling cover themselves in glory. Then at the fourth fence Friendly Boy falls and breaks his neck. The fall is captured in all its horror by the BBC's airborne camera and on the second circuit viewers are shocked to see the rest of the horses waved round the lifeless body of Friendly Boy, who so loved Aintree, badly hidden under a green tarpaulin. And of course people are upset by this: it's a terrible way for the horse to die.

Horses in the Grand National tend to be around ten years old. This means that people have cared for them, fed them, trained them and loved them for ten years. If ever you hear an owner being interviewed about his horse's chance before a race he will invariably say the words "as long as he comes back in one piece." These people don't want their horses to get hurt. But the harsh reality of horse racing is that it is a tough sport and there are going to be casualties. If the BBC showed racing on the same scale that it did in the 1970s and 1980s its viewers could put the Grand National in context with the rest of the season. But the broadcaster doesn't, and instead shows just the most sensational and emotive race and sensationalises it further.

And what does the BBC do in the wake of the death of two horses in the Grand National? Of course, a feature on The One Show where one of racing's most thoughtful and reasonable ambassadors, Brough Scott, is shouted down by the faded American teen star David Cassidy, of all people. Nonsense like this does nobody any good. Except, of course, those people at the BBC whose bonuses depend on high viewing figures.

If horse racing knows what's good for it, it will take away the rights to the Grand National from the BBC, accept that it is a minority interest sport, and concentrate on its core audience, who understand it and love it for what it really is.