AV just gives one vote to each person but that vote is transferable. It means all electors have the chance to have their say about who is ultimately elected by being able to express a preference about who is chosen from candidates in later rounds even if their initial first (or second) choice is eliminated.

The funny thing is that the Conservative Party understands this as well. Given their blanket statements about how preferential systems give “more than one vote” they actually use a preferential system to elect their own leaders.  Well fancy that.

The rules are that there are a number of rounds in which all Conservative MPs can vote and after each round the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. This continues until there are just two candidates left and these then go forward to a ballot of the party membership in the country.

It is not identical to AV but it shares the concept of transferring votes and is therefore far closer to AV than to the current Westminster First Past The Post system.  By definition the Conservative leadership election rules give the voters in the initial rounds “more than one vote” – exactly what they are attacking in AV.

In the 2005 Conservative leadership election there were two rounds of MP voting before the candidates were whittled down to two to go to the country. In the first round the results were:

David Davis: 31.3%
David Cameron: 28.3%
Liam Fox: 21.2%
Ken Clarke: 19.2%

So Ken Clarke was eliminated and the MPs got to vote all over again.

But hang on a minute! That means that all the MPs who voted for Ken Clarke who was eliminated got “more than one vote”. They were able to go on to vote for one of the candidates who still remained in the contest.  That is precisely what the Conservatives are claiming is anti-democratic now – a bit weird really.

Some people will say that the systems are different and also claim that it is invalid to compare electing a party leader to electing an MP.  But the Conservatives and the No2AV campaign have made it very clear that it is fundamental point of principle that in an election no voter should have “more than one vote”.  There is no difference between electing a leader and electing an MP when it comes to fundamental points of principle.  Indeed it would be very worying if a leading political party was deliberately unprincipled in how it elected its leader.

The fact that the Conservatives have made no moves at all to change their leadership election rules in the light of what they must surely understand is a serious anomaly I think tells you all you need to know about how much they really believe that preferential voting breaches some fundamental democratic principle.

Anne Main is also very good at coming up with hypothetical examples of how a third place candidate in first preferences can come through to win.  Well yes, that could be possible.  But rather than a hypothetical case which might or might not happen, we know as a matter of recorded fact that someone can be elected now under our current system with nearly three quarters of the electorate voting against them because it happened in Inverness in 1992 when voters woke up after the election to find they had an MP elected with 26 percent of the vote!

PS If you want a beautifully presented explanation of AV, let the children of Conisborough College be your guide -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/school_report/student_reports/9434842.stm

I summarise my opening speech below:

On Thursday May 5th, you will be asked “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘Alternative Vote’ system instead of the current ‘First Past The Post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”

It sounds boring but it’s about every single elected Member of Parliament having to earn at least fifty percent of the vote in his or her constituency.

The current government is having to make some very challenging decisions – taxes are having to go up, public services are having to be cut, public servants are losing their jobs as the government battles to bring UK public finances back into balance and address the disastrous structural deficit created by Labour.

It is significant that when taking these decisions, the coalition government has the knowledge that 59% of voters supported the two parties in May 2010 – more than half of the electorate, a clear majority.

No other government since the Second World War has broken the 50 percent figure (though the Conservatives came close in 1955).

This referendum simply transfers that idea of getting more than 50% support to local constituency level.  You vote 1,2,3 with the votes of the least popular candidate being transferred to that voter’s next preference until the leading candidate has 50% of the votes.

There is no other change.  Single constituencies remain.  In places like Hitchin & Harpenden, Hemel Hempstead and Welwyn Hatfield where Peter Lilley, Mike Penning and Grant Shapps got more than half the votes in May, they would be elected on first preferences just as they have been under the current system.  The change is for MPs who are currently elected in spite of a majority of local voters not supporting them.

So who uses AV now?  Oaklands College for a start with elections of student representatives and council members.

Australia, Canada, large parts of the USA use it.  Anne Main and her fellow MPs themselves use it to elect the Speaker of the House of Commons – well fancy that.

Anne Main and her fellow Conservative MPs use a preferential system to decide which two leading candidates for leader go forward for a final run-off among party members at large.  It’s funny how they want to deny to others the system which best works for them.

On a more topical note with all the excitement around “The King’s Speech”, voting for the Oscars is also done by AV.

AV simply means you vote for who you prefer without needing to fall back on tactical voting – no vote is “wasted”, if your first choice fails, your second preference can still count.

And what’s more, people like Anne Main who love First Past the Post can still put a single X on an AV ballot paper and their vote will count. So everyone should be happy.

Finally look at some of the unsavoury crew campaigning against the change.  The BNP for one.  They know they will never get more than half the votes in a constituency, the last thing they want is this change.  When the BNP is on one side, I for one am very happy to be on the other.

The British political system is not a museum to be preserved unchanged – if you want a museum, go up the Hatfield Road.

It’s because we adapt that we avoid explosions and revolutions.

So it’s as easy as 1,2,3 – Vote Yes on May 5th.

For more information on the arguments for the Alternative Vote, visit the Yes to Fair Votes website here.

I was kindly introduced as “The main challenger in this constituency Sandy Walkington” – and the BBC is of course always right.

Most people don’t have an expense account, never have, never will.  Those relatively few that do are used to proper checking and monitoring as a matter of course.

I ran large teams at director level in both the public and private sectors,  I used to stress to my teams that every taxi journey, every fancy meal, every overnight was made on the back of some poor person up a telegraph pole or down a hole, driving a truck or sitting for hours at a cash desk. Having an expense account is a real privilege – in the public sector or in the private sector.

I also used to say to my staff that if I ever wanted to get rid of them, the first thing I would do would be to examine their expense claims.  I meant it.

We can now examine MP expense claims thank goodness.  This motion rightly demands that if they are found to have committed wrong, they should face the full rigour of the law.  But how can a law breaker be a law maker?  In any normal job, they’d be out on their ear.  Yet the only way to get rid of an MP is to wait for an election – one law for MPs, one for anyone else.  We have to have ways that a majority of voters – 51 percent – can recall their MP and force an immediate by-election.

No-one challenges that MPs from distant constituencies need a second home.  But it is different for outer London and commuter belt communities like St Albans.

For most of my working life I have commuted to London. I do not see that the Palace of Westminster is any more difficult to reach from Hertfordshire than the City, Victoria or Knightsbridge (all places to which I commuted on a daily basis). With the new more “family friendly” hours at Westminster, MPs often have shorter working hours than people who work in the City or have demanding managerial jobs.

Working in the private sector I would frequently come home after midnight – when I would simply charge my employers for taxis from the station to home! I might very occasionally claim for overnight hotel accommodation. That’s how people in the real world behave.

And I was quite clear and on the record long before this expense scandal broke that if I was elected as St Albans MP I would never dream of having a second home at taxpayer expense.  That just seemed blindingly obvious – as it clearly did to all the LibDem outer London MPs and to David Howarth in Cambridge too – thay are all “saints” on the Telegraph list and we should be really proud of that.  Some politicians can be different.

Others are all too predictable.  My Conservative opponent followed her Labour predecessor in having a second home – but she had it in St Albans so she could stay in her main home in Beaconsfield.

Various matters to do with her arrangements are currently being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards – watch this space.

Her local party has tried to deselect her over the summer.  She refuses to see she has done anything wrong.  Beams and motes come to mind.  There will come a time of judgment at the ballot box.

But it’s not just the house at taxpayer’s expense, it’s the gravy train of the food allowance.  Mrs Main claimed £9,500 worth, three hundred pounds a month on average – at least until suddenly, miraculously the monthly claims stopped – that’s a crash diet if ever there was one.

You know, I know, normal people pay for their own meals at home and at least one at work unless they are travelling away from work on their business.

On the doorstep I have met so many people, often elderly and living in modest circumstances, who are simply enraged – it’s often more than they have to live on and yet it’s just supposed to be the extra cost of food from having a second home.

£9,500 worth of shopping trolleys – what an image.  Or try filling one with three hundred pounds worth of food, and then talk to shoppers at Sainsbury or Tesco about it.

It’s far more powerful than moat-cleaning or duck-houses.

It’s a picture of greed and filling of boots which will live with electors for a very long time.  The damage to politics is immense.  We are all caught up in the tsunami, innocent or guilty.

Greg Dyke yesterday described this as a Berlin Wall moment when a seemingly impregnable structure is shown to be rotten to the core and comes tumbling down

We cannot over-estimate the level of rage and disilluson among the public.
This motion is a necessary beginning but it is only the beginning and it will take years to put right.

And we are still waiting to hear the results of the inquiry by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner into her expense claims. There is much much more to come out about the expenses story.

And then there is the influence of Anne Main’s Beaconsfield Conservative Association and its apparent pecuniary influence on the St Albans party. One local Conservative was reported as saying she feels St Albans is being treated like in a “Rotten Borough” – an interesting choice of words.

And all the time St Albans continues to be confronted by major issues:-

• Fighting off the proposed freight terminal
• Challenging the Labour Government’s plans arbitrarily to extend Hemel Hempstead and Hatfield into our Green Belt
• Forcing the county council to address its lamentable failure to provide enough school places in central St Albans
• Ensuring we have local health services which deliver proper and immediate care where it is needed
• Stopping First Capital Connect from unfairly exploiting its monopoly over London commuter rail services

How can Mrs Main and the Conservatives stand up for and be trusted by local people on these crucial matters when they are more intent on lobbing mortar bombs at one another?. It may be their private grief….. but there are damaging public repercussions on us all.

I also think that the standard of food in Cornish establishments now easily matches that of France – and the beer is much better.

But there is no mobile signal here at all and to access the internet requires the good offices of a neighbour down the lane where I am quickly typing this. As a result I have felt pleasantly dissociated from all the current Conservative shenanigans in St Albans over Anne Main’s future apart from brief mentions in newspaper articles.

Perhaps all politicians should cut themselves off from electronic media from time to time. No kneejerk comments to be repented at leisure.

Ms Smith has been quick to apologise for the “oversight” and will refund the money. I imagine there will be a certain froideur in the Smith household for a period.

But even when claims are “within the rules”, our parliamentary representatives just don’t seem to get it that their claims offend against common sense and any normal view of right and proper expenditure. Claiming second home allowance in an outer London seat as Mr McNulty has done is clearly indefensible but the same should be true for any London commuter constituency.

I have always made it perfectly clear that if I am elected MP for St Albans, I will always pay for my own housing – period.

What right have I to be treated any differently from all the other London commuters in the city and district who have to travel back and forth with FCC and pay for their own homes?

A quick scan of the They Work For You website allows one to see what all MPs are claiming. Every Hertfordshire MP – nine Conservative and two Labour – claims Additional Costs Allowance for accommodation. None claims a larger sum (£22,110) than Anne Main. She has a “second home” in St Albans paid for by the taxpayer while she remains based in Beaconsfield.

By contrast the six Liberal Democrat MPs representing commuter constituencies within a 60-mile radius of Westminster do not claim a penny under this expense heading.

Not all politicians and not all political parties are the same.

People find it frankly incredible that MPs could put in claims of up to £250 per item and not have to produce a receipt.  From April 1, they have been shamed into reducing the figure to £25 per item.

But in all my jobs in the private and public sectors, I have always had to account for every claim down to the last penny.

It is dismaying that the Commons authorities are now taking legal
action to block publication of the detail of MPs’ expenses.  They are
doing this on the totally spurious grounds that there may be security
issues in publishing MPs addresses.

This may be the case for the
very small number of politicians with past involvement in Northern
Ireland and certain sensitive ministerial portfolios but it cannot
justify a blanket protection for all backbench MPs.

Frontbench
Conservative MP Grant Shapps from neighbouring Welwyn Hatfield, who has frequent
late night and early morning television and radio interviews, has his only
home in his constituency, commutes to London like everyone else and has claimed £3,244 on overnight hotel
expenses.  That seems quite reasonable.

The train journey from St Albans to London is shorter than from Welwyn Garden City.  Yet Anne Main claimed £22,100 in the same period for
her living expenses. Maybe that is perfectly justified but there
should be transparency so we can all see for ourselves.