Over the last few years our armed forces have:

-Been poorly equipped whilst taking part in those conflicts

-Suffered a serious degradation in the quality of the accommodation they have to live in.

-Been totally neglected after being injured in conflict.

Thanks for your post and PDF. As interesting as it was I found it failed to answer the charge that PR centralises power in the hands of the Party machines who draw up the lists and rankings, creating new ’safe seats’ decided by list ranking rather than local support, nor that it removes the personal factor - you can’t vote for/against an individual candidate without backing/sackimg the others on his or her party list, and if he/she is ranked high (low) on the list there’s no point as they’ll win (lose) anyway.

On minor parties and the issue that those with the casting vote have disproportionate power it ‘fluffs’ the issue with politispeak, then says “it is perfectly clear where a small party stands, and if the electorate do not want it to be in government they can vote against it” (when of course under PR you can’t), and then goes off topic talking about safe seats under FPTP. At one point it says without evidence “The idea of a small party holding the balance between two big parties is an outmoded picture in many countries” - really?

As for “The government is a weak coalition that no-body voted for” AND “Formed by a few key individuals in secret behind closed doors backroom deals which are open to (dependent on) bribery and corruption” AND “In which the policies that won your vote for a party will be traded away to fulfil a politicians thirst for power” it is silent.

Instead it accuses FPTP of creating only a weak mandate, as if a better mandate can be made by giving our votes to a Party to barter with. Bizarely it says PR coalitions will be more stable than the rare FPTP coalitions. Why?

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/PRMyths.pdf